Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

763 So. 2d 1002, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 217, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 628, 2000 WL 300497
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 23, 2000
DocketNo. SC95365
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 1002 (Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar) 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 Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 763 So. 2d 1002, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 217, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 628, 2000 WL 300497 (Fla. 2000).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar, pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1, has filed its annual proposed changes to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has approved all of the substantive changes presented in this petition; and all [1003]*1003the proposals, except several purely technical revisions, were published for comment in accordance with rule l-12.1(g).1 Only two comments were filed.

After reviewing the petition, and considering the comments as well as the oral arguments, we adopt all the Bar’s proposed changes. Below we discuss each of the substantive changes as well as the two comments filed.

BYLAW 2-4.5 NOMINATIONS FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT

The amendment to bylaw 2^4.5 clarifies and revises certain allowable campaign activities and time periods applicable to individuals nominated as candidates for the office of president-elect and those seeking support for their nomination as candidates. Existing subdivisions are rearranged so that the rale initially authorizes the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar to adopt standing policies that govern the conduct of candidates for the office of president-elect and to create an oversight committee. Subdivisions are revised to make clear that campaigns for president-elect include distinct “nomination” and “election” phases. Problematic verbiage and terms that the Bar felt can be better defined and updated through its standing policies are deleted.

RULE 3-4.5 REMOVAL FROM JUDICIAL OFFICE BY THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA

Rule 3^4.5 currently provides that whenever a judge is removed from office on the basis of a Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) proceeding, the removal order also may suspend the judge from the Florida Bar pending further proceedings. The rule as amended will allow the Bar to seek leave to intervene in any proceeding in which the JQC recommends that a judge be removed from office and to seek disciplinary action if intervention is granted and the judge is removed by the Court. We agree that allowing the Bar to intervene in these proceedings will further the apparent purpose of the constitutional provision-to streamline the system and ensure that judges who are guilty of misconduct are subject to attorney discipline, if appropriate, in a timely manner.2

RULE 3-7.6 PROCEDURES BEFORE A REFEREE

The amendment to rule 3 — 7.6(j), Complaining Witness, allows a referee to permit a complaining witness to remain in the hearing room and observe the disciplinary hearing when the respondent is also present, unless it is found to be impractical due to unreasonable delay or other good cause. The amendment also confirms that the complaining witness is not a party to the disciplinary proceeding and has no right to appeal. This Court routinely receives inquiries from individuals who are unhappy with the Bar’s handling of their complaint against an attorney. Consistent with the Court’s standard response to such inqui[1004]*1004ries, this amendment makes clear that a complainant has no right to appeal in a Bar disciplinary proceeding.

RULE 3-7.13 INCAPACITY NOT RELATED TO MISCONDUCT

The amendment to rule 3-7.13 changes the procedure for reinstatement after placement on the inactive list for incapacity not related to misconduct, from petition to the Board of Governors with no further action by the Court, to a petition to the Court which would be processed in the same manner as reinstatements after acts of misconduct. The Bar maintains that if an order of this Court is required for placement on the inactive list for reasons of incapacity, see R. Reg. Fla. Bar 3-7.13(a), an order of similar stature should be necessary to reinstate the attorney. According to the Bar, members seeking reinstatement under this rule often request such action by this Court.

One of the comments received addresses this amendment. Attorney John B. Bowman questions the propriety of requiring an incapacitated attorney to follow the same procedure for reinstatement as an attorney found guilty of misconduct. Mr. Bowman is concerned that this might create the perception that mental or physical incapacity is akin to misconduct. Mr. Bowman also points out that, under the rules that apply to reinstatements after acts of misconduct, the attorney can be subjected to, among other things, making financial disclosures unrelated to his or her condition, appearing before a referee for a full hearing, and paying costs for the proceedings. Therefore, he fears that the proposed change will discourage attorneys who need help from seeking it because doing so could result in a lengthy reinstatement proceeding.

At oral argument, counsel for the Bar explained that the incapacity not related to misconduct rule is a part of the rules of discipline and that most attorneys who go on the inactive list under the rule do so in connection with a disciplinary investigation and agree to go on the inactive list in order to settle the matter. Under the current rule, the Board can simply approve or reject the request for reinstatement; there are no standards or procedures for considering the petition. The only procedure provided for by the current rule is review by this Court should the Board reject the petition for reinstatement. Although the current rule does not provide for an order of reinstatement from this Court, an informal procedure has developed where once the Board approves reinstatement, the Bar files a notice of reinstatement with this Court requesting an order approving the Board’s action nunc pro tunc. This amendment offers standards and procedures for considering these petitions for reinstatement which are lacking under the current rule. As Bar counsel pointed out at oral argument, there also are summary procedures that can be followed if the Bar does not oppose reinstatement. See R. Reg. Fla. Bar 3-7.10(h)(4) (providing that Bar can stipulate to reinstatement if, after the completion of discovery, bar counsel is unable to discover evidence on which denial of reinstatement may be based). Moreover, a request or agreement to go on the inactive list under rule 3-7.13 is processed in the same manner as proceedings involving acts of misconduct. See R. Reg. Fla. Bar 3-7.13(a). Therefore, it is only logical that petitions for reinstatement be processed in a similar fashion. While it is true that the amendment to rule 3-7.13 will result in a more complex procedure for processing petitions for reinstatement under the rule, we agree with the Bar that, under the circumstances, clear standards and procedures for reviewing these petitions are preferable to the current state of affairs. However, we caution the Bar that the best of the prior, informal system should be retained, and the creation of a more formal system should not result in the needless expenditure of resources by an affected attorney, the Bar or this Court.

[1005]*1005RULE 3-7.16 LIMITATION ON TIME TO BRING COMPLAINT

New subdivision (d) of rule 3-7.16 requires that inquiries or complaints about the conduct of a constitutional officer who is required to be a member in good standing of The Florida Bar be commenced within six years after the individual leaves office.

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

Related

The Florida Bar v. We the People Forms
883 So. 2d 1280 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2004)
Tyson v. the Florida Bar
826 So. 2d 265 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
763 So. 2d 1002, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 217, 2000 Fla. LEXIS 628, 2000 WL 300497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amendments-to-the-rules-regulating-the-florida-bar-fla-2000.