Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

609 So. 2d 465, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 637, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1743, 1992 WL 275890
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 8, 1992
DocketNo. 79614
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 609 So. 2d 465 (Florida Bar Re: Amendment to 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
Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 609 So. 2d 465, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 637, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1743, 1992 WL 275890 (Fla. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar petitions this Court to amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration and to change the format of those rules generally to comply with style and gender requirements as mandated by this court and in response to Report of The Florida Supreme Court Gender Bias Study Commission, 42 Fla.L.Rev. 808 (1990). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. We approve the recommendations subject to the modifications discussed below.

Rule 2.055, Fla.R.Jud.Admin.

The most controversial recommendation of the committee is proposed rule 2.055. It requires all papers filed in the courts of this state to be filed on recycled paper. This proposal is made to implement state policy established by the legislature and is already implemented in the executive and legislative branches. The Florida legislature has clearly stated that it is the policy of this state to support and encourage recycling. § 403.702, Fla.Stat. (1991). The legislature has directed counties and municipalities to reduce solid waste by a minimum of 30% by the end of 1994. § 403.706(4), Fla.Stat. (1991). See also § 187.-201(13)(b)l., Fla.Stat. (1991) (by 1994, all volume of solid waste requiring disposal must be reduced by 30%). In support of its policy, the legislature requires the use of recycled paper by all state agencies and political subdivisions using state funds. § 403.7065(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). Additionally, the legislature has mandated each state agency and the judicial branch of state government to establish recycling programs and has mandated all state agencies to aid and promote the development of recycling through their procurement policies. §§ 403.702(2)(m), 403.714(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). Because of this policy mandate, this rule proposal has been strongly supported by, among others, the governor, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, and a number of Florida counties.

After an investigation that included testimony from experts, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Committee determined that this rule could be implemented in accordance with state established policy without adversely affecting the legal profession or litigants in our courts. The committee’s investigation revealed that there is no discernible difference in quality between recycled and non-recycled paper of similar grade and weight. The committee also determined that the prices of recycled and non-recycled paper are about the same and that seldom does the price between recycled and non-recycled paper of comparable quality vary more than 10%. The board of governors of The Florida Bar opposes the proposal primarily because it is another mandatory regulation. The board also questions the enforceability of the proposed rule. Because the legislature has expressly established a policy for governmental entities of this state to use recycled paper and to promote the development of markets for recycled paper, we conclude that we should follow that policy unless we [466]*466can show its implementation would have an adverse effect.

Proposed rule 2.055 properly implements legislatively established public policy and places the judicial branch in a position consistent with the other branches of state government on this issue. This record presents no justifiable reason for this court not to adopt the committee’s proposal. Accordingly, we approve the proposed amendments to rule 2.055, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.

Rule 2.070, Fla.R.Jud.Admin.

The proposed amendments to rule 2.070 regarding court reporters were previously submitted to this court in In re Amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 595 So.2d 928 (Fla.1992). The committee included those proposals with this petition because a petition for rehearing was pending in that case at the time this petition was filed. The petition was denied. For the reasons set forth in that case, we decline to adopt the- proposed changes.

Rule 2.071, Fla.R.Jud.Admin.

The committee proposes to change rule 2.071 to mandate, absent a showing of good cause to the contrary, granting requests to appear at motion hearings by telephone so long as the hearing is set to last no more than fifteen minutes. This change would not apply to criminal, delinquency, and appellate proceedings. As written, the proposal would eliminate a court’s ability to hold telephone hearings for pretrial and status conferences. We approve the proposal but modify it to retain the option for pretrial and status telephone conferences. Additionally, we incorporate the suggestion of the board of governors to allow only the “requesting” party, rather than “any” party, to appear by telephone when the hearing is set to last for not more than fifteen minutes. We reject the board’s request to eliminate the court’s right to require a telephone appearance on its own motion.

Rule 2.160, Fla.R.Jud.Admin.

Regarding rule 2.160, the committee’s proposal clarifies the means to disqualify trial judges consistent with this court’s opinion in Brown v. St. George Island, Ltd., 561 So.2d 253 (Fla.1990). Currently, two statutory provisions, sections 38.02 and 38.10, Florida Statutes (1991), authorize a party to seek disqualification of a judge. In Brown we determined that the circumstances under which a party is entitled to seek a second disqualification are substantive rather than procedural in nature and that the statutory provisions regarding disqualification control. In light of that opinion, the committee’s proposal creates rule 2.160 to incorporate the disqualification dictates of the statutes. While we agree most of these changes are appropriate and consistent with this court’s opinion, we do not adopt that portion of the committee’s recommendation allowing a judge to defer ruling on a disqualification motion until after completion of the evidence or receipt of the verdict. We find the motion should be ruled on immediately following its presentation to the court. We also decline to adopt a review authority in this rule. Authority for review must be in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. We therefore request The Florida Bar Appellate Procedure Rules Committee to consider the appropriate authority for reviewing orders of disqualification and to consider whether an amendment to the Rules of Appellate Procedure is necessary. The committee may submit its proposal to this Court out of the four-year sequence.

We approve each of the proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration as modified and set forth in the appendix to this opinion. Because new rule 2.160 establishes the process for disqualification in all trial court proceedings, by this opinion we repeal the following rules governing disqualification of judges: Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.432, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.230, and Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.175 and 8.280. These amendments shall be effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 1993.

It is so ordered.

[467]*467BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.

RULE 2.010. EFFECTIVE DATE AND SCOPE

These rules, cited as “Florida Rules of Judicial Administration/’ and abbreviated as “Fla._R._Jud._Admin.,” shall take effect at 12:01 a, m-a.m. on July 1, 1979. They shall apply to administrative matters in all courts to which the rules are applicable by their terms.

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

Related

Tableau Fine Art Group, Inc. v. Jacoboni
853 So. 2d 299 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Shah v. Harding
839 So. 2d 765 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Fuster-Escalona v. Wisotsky
781 So. 2d 1063 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
In re Amendments to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.170
650 So. 2d 30 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Nunez v. Backman
645 So. 2d 1063 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Foley v. Fleet
644 So. 2d 551 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Mitchell v. State
642 So. 2d 1108 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Milmir Const. v. Jones
626 So. 2d 985 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
Rogers v. State
630 So. 2d 513 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
609 So. 2d 465, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 637, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 1743, 1992 WL 275890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-re-amendment-to-florida-rules-of-judicial-administration-fla-1992.