Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

851 So. 2d 698, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 586, 2003 Fla. LEXIS 1164
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 10, 2003
DocketNo. SC08-105
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 851 So. 2d 698 (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, 851 So. 2d 698, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 586, 2003 Fla. LEXIS 1164 (Fla. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the biennial report of proposed rule changes filed by the Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (Rules Committee), in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(4). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

The Rules Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.060, Attorneys; 2.070, Court Reporting; 2.071, Use of Communication Equipment; 2.085, Time Standards for Trial and Appellate Courts; 2.160, Disqualification of Trial Judges; and 2.170, Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing Electronic Media and Still Photography Coverage of Judicial Proceedings. In accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(2), the Rules Committee submitted its proposals to the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar and published the proposals for comment.1 The Board of Governors unanimously approved the proposed changes. The proposals submitted to the Court were published for comment and several comments were received addressing the proposed amendments to rules 2.060(b) and 2.085.

AMENDMENTS

After reviewing the Rules Committee’s proposed changes, considering the comments filed, and hearing oral argument, we adopt the amendments to rules 2.070, 2.085, and 2.170 as proposed by the committee. We also adopt the proposed amendments to subdivisions (h), (i) and (j) of rule 2.060 and, with minor modification, the proposed amendments to subdivision (b) of that rule. However, for the reasons explained below, we decline at this time to adopt the proposed amendments to rule 2.071. Although not proposed by the [699]*699Rules Committee, we also adopt, on an emergency basis, amendments to rules 2.050(c), Selection of Chief Judge; 2.058, Trial Court Budget Commission, and 2.130(c), Schedule for Rule Proposals. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.130(a). We discuss the substantive amendments in more detail below.

At the request of the Judicial Administration Section of the Conference of Circuit Judges, we amend rule 2.050(c) in order to provide better guidance to the circuits on how to conduct elections for chief judge. As amended, the rule requires that:

(1) All ballots shall be secret.
(2) Any circuit or county judge may nominate a candidate for chief judge.
(3) Proxy voting shall not be permitted.
(4) Any judge who will be absent from the election may vote by secret absentee ballot obtained from and returned to the Trial Court Administrator.

At the suggestion of the Trial Court Budget Commission, we also amend, on an emergency basis, rule 2.053(e) to add the respective chairs of the Conference of Circuit Court Judges and the Conference of County Court Judges as ex officio nonvoting members of the Commission. The Commission believes that having the chairs of the two conferences as members of the Commission should assist in the flow of information between the Commission and the membership of the conferences.

With minor modifications,2 we adopt the amendments to rule 2.060 as proposed by the Rules Committee. Subdivision (b), which addresses the practice of law by judicial staff, is updated to refer to “staff attorneys, law clerks, and judicial assistants.” Subdivision (b) is further amended to allow any attorney designated by the court to represent the court, or any judge in the judge’s official capacity, in any proceeding in which the court or judge is an interested party. The restriction on former judicial staff “participatfing] in any manner in any proceeding that was docketed in the court during the term of service or prior thereto” is changed to prohibit an attorney formerly employed by a court from representing anyone “in connection with a matter in which the attorney participated personally and substantially as a judicial staff attorney, law clerk, or judicial assistant.” This amendment reconciles the apparent inconsistency between rule 2.060(b) and Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.12(a). Consistent with rule 4-1.12(a), as amended rule 2.060(b) only precludes representation in connection with those matters in which the attorney participated personally and substantially as a judicial staff attorney or law clerk. The amendment also addresses the Court’s concern with regard to former Supreme Court staff attorneys’ representation of parties in capital cases. The Court was especially concerned about the current rule’s limitations on a former staff attorney’s representation of parties in capital cases. The Court recognized that a Supreme Court staff attorney is not involved in every capital case that is docketed during or prior to the attorney’s term with the Court. Since there is a shortage of attorneys qualified to handle capital cases, the Court did not want to discourage such a [700]*700valuable reserve of attorneys familiar with this complex area of the law from engaging in such representation. As amended, rule 2.060(b) will allow a former staff attorney to represent a capital defendant even if the defendant’s direct appeal or postconviction proceeding was docketed during or prior to the attorney’s term with the Court, as long as the attorney did not participate personally and substantially in the defendant’s case while at the Court. Finally, in order to avoid confusion and ensure that a former staff attorney or law clerk’s law firm is not unwittingly disqualified from a case, we have added a Court Commentary to subdivision (b) which references Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.12(c), Imputed Disqualification of Law Firm.3

New subdivisions (h) and (i) of rule 2.060, which replace current subdivisions (h) through (j), clarify how an attorney may appear and terminate an appearance in a proceeding. Rule 2.070(e), Transcripts, is amended, as proposed by the Rules Committee, to update the language of the rule to conform with computer-age practices.

The proposed amendment to subdivision (d) of rule 2.071, Use of Communication Equipment, which we do not adopt at this time, would have given the court discretion to use communication equipment to take testimony, over objection by the parties. The Rules • Committee proposed this amendment at the suggestion of the chair of the Family Law Rules Committee in order to relax the rule to allow for more widespread use of communication equipment for testimony in family law hearings in order to reduce the cost of these proceedings as well as to avoid abuses by the parties. Although the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court, which filed a comment on this proposal, believes this amendment would be very useful in many cases within the family court division, it points out that, in the context of delinquency proceedings, the amendments to this rule may be inconsistent with this Court’s prior rejection of the use of audiovisual equipment in detention hearings. See Amendment to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.100(a), 796 So.2d 470 (Fla.2001). After hearing oral argument, we believe it would be preferable to adopt an amendment that more narrowly focuses on the concerns the proposed amendment was intended to address. We also believe that it may be best to tailor a rule that addresses the use of communication equipment in the various types of substantive cases. Therefore, we decline at this time to adopt the amendments to rule 2.071 and refer the proposed amendments to the various Florida Bar rules committees for consideration.

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

Related

Aquasol Condo Assoc. v. HSBC Bank USA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018
Kendrick Herring v. State of Florida
168 So. 3d 240 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
73 So. 3d 210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
In Re Amendments to Rules of Jud. Admin.
915 So. 2d 157 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
Perez v. Migliore
902 So. 2d 311 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
851 So. 2d 698, 28 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 586, 2003 Fla. LEXIS 1164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-judicial-administration-fla-2003.