Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

780 So. 2d 819, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1037, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2555, 2000 WL 1471864
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 5, 2000
DocketNo. SC00-706
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 780 So. 2d 819 (Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 780 So. 2d 819, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1037, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2555, 2000 WL 1471864 (Fla. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the quadrennial report of proposed rule changes filed by the Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (the Committee). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.130(c).

The Rules Committee proposes changes to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.020, 2.035, 2.060, 2.061, 2.070, 2.071, 2.130, and 2.140. The proposals were submitted to The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, which recommends approval of all the proposals. The Committee’s proposals were published for comment and one comment was filed.

After considering the comment and hearing oral argument, we adopt the majority of the Rules Committee’s proposals. The amendments as adopted are summarized below.1 The changes made to the Committee’s proposals are discussed where appropriate.

In rule 2.020(b), which defines “Local Court Rule,” new subdivision (b)(2) expands the definition to include “a rule that addresses other matters that are required by the Florida Constitution, general law, rules of court, or a supreme court opinion to be adopted by or in a local rule.”

In rule 2.035, “Determination of Need for Additional Judges,” subdivision (b)(l)(A)(i), which provides the criteria for determining the need for new trial judges, is amended to delete the reference to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, which was repealed effective July 1,1997.

In rule 2.060, “Attorneys,” subdivision (a) is amended to refer to new rule 2.061, which addresses practice by out-of-state attorneys. Subdivision (b), entitled “Foreign Attorneys,” has been removed from rule 2.060 and included, as revised in new rule 2.061.

New rule 2.061 provides the procedures whereby an attorney from another state may appear before a Florida court. The new rule replaces deleted rule 2.060(b) and is similar to proposed Rule Regulating The Florida Bar 1-3.10 which is pending before the Court. See Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, No. SC00-273, — So.2d -, 2001 WL 101623 (Fla. petition filed Feb. 9, 2000). In response to the comment filed by attorney Henry Trawick, Jr., we have changed the title of this rule from “Attorneys Pro Hac Vice,” as proposed by the Committee, to “Foreign Attorneys,” as used in deleted rule 2.060(b). Also in response to Mr. Trawick’s comment, we have modified subdivision (a) to clarify that in determining whether to allow a foreign attorney to appear under the rule, the court may consider, among other things, information provided in the verified motion indicating that the attorney has been disciplined in another jurisdiction in the preceding five years or has disciplinary proceedings pending in another jurisdiction. See new rule 2.061(b)(3) (requiring an attorney to [820]*820include in verified motion a statement identifying all jurisdictions in which the attorney has been disciplined in the preceding five years or in which the attorney has pending disciplinary proceedings). Finally, we have changed the proposed language “No attorney may appear” in subdivision (a) to read “No attorney is authorized to appear.” This change is made in order to make clear that the disqualifying conditions listed in subdivision (a) are mandatory in nature.

In rule 2.070, “Court Reporting,” most of the amendments were originally adopted with new rules for certification and regulation of court reporters which were to become effective July 1, 2002. See Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.070—Court Reporters, 725 So.2d 1094 (Fla.1998). However, the 2002 effective date for those rule changes was subject to legislative funding for the initial cost of implementing the certification program. When the program was not funded, the Court issued an order holding both the court reporter certification rules and the amendments at issue here in abeyance and sought comments from interested persons. See Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.070—Court Reporters, No. 92,300 (Fla. order filed June 18, 1999). After considering the comments, the Court issued an order (1) continuing to hold the new rules and amendments in abeyance and (2) inviting the Rules Committee to resubmit the amendments that were not tied to the certification program with its regular-cycle proposed rule changes. See Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.070—Court Reporters, No. 92,800 (Fla. order filed Dec. 7, 1999).

The amendments, as submitted by the Committee, primarily renumber and rearrange rule 2.070. The more significant changes include new subdivision (a), “Court Reporting Services,” which defines the term “court reporting” for the first time. Subdivision (e), “Videotaped and Non-Stenographic Depositions,” is deleted because Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(4) provides procedures for the videotaping of depositions. New subdivision (g)(3), “Electronic Recording and Transcription of Proceedings Without Court Reporter,” authorizes the chief judge to enter a circuit-wide administrative order authorizing the electronic recording and transcription by persons other than court reporters of any proceedings that are otherwise required to be reported by a court reporter.

In rule 2.071, “Use of Communication Equipment,” subdivision (d) is amended to clarify procedures for taking testimony through the use of communication equipment. Subdivision (d)(1) is amended to allow, with the parties’ consent, anyone’s testimony to be taken through communication equipment. New subdivision (d)(2) puts the burden on the party seeking to present testimony through communication equipment to obtain the consent of all parties and to show good cause as to why such testimony should be allowed. New subdivision (d)(3) requires that the person administering the oath be physically present with the witness when the oath is being administered. New subdivision (d)(5) allows the court to modify the procedures to accommodate video conferencing or comparable two-way visual technology.

In rule 2.130, “Procedure for Amending Rules,” the notice provisions of subdivisions (a), (c)(5), (e), and (f) are expanded to implement recommendations made by the Judicial Management Council (JMC). Notice of hearing on a proposed rule change and a copy of the proposal or recommendation must be furnished to the affected committee chair, vice chair, the executive director of The Florida Bar, all members of the JMC, the clerk and chief judge of each judicial circuit, and any person who has filed a written request for a copy of the notice. The proposal and notice of hearing must be published on the Court’s and the Bar’s Internet websites, and in the Florida Bar Journal or Florida Bar News.

[821]*821Subdivision (c), entitled “Schedule for Rule Proposals,” is amended to provide for staggered two-year cycles for reporting proposed rule changes and to allow the Court more time to consider the proposals. Although the JMC recommended a one-year cycle for all rules, the Court asked the Rules Committee to consider a staggered two-year cycle, which the Committee supports. As recommended by the Committee, the first cycle will begin in 2002. The Appellate Court Rules Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Code and Rules of Evidence Committee, the Juvenile Court Rules Committee, the Traffic Court Rules Committee, and the Workers’ Compensation Rules Committee will report in even-numbered years.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

John Doe v. State of Florida
217 So. 3d 1020 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
Moorman v. Hatfield
958 So. 2d 396 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
In Re Amendments to Rules of Jud. Admin.
915 So. 2d 157 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
Aldrete v. Department of Health
879 So. 2d 1244 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
795 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
780 So. 2d 819, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1037, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 2555, 2000 WL 1471864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-judicial-administration-fla-2000.