Florida Bar re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

644 So. 2d 282, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 551, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1556, 1994 WL 573205
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 20, 1994·No. No. 83222·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar, as part of its annual review and with the authorization of the Board of Governors, petitions this Court to amend the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and to adopt new rules. Several private citizens have also filed petitions requesting the amendment and adoption of rules. The Bar opposes the citizen petitions, and various members of the Bar and the public oppose the Bar’s petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, sections 2(a) and 15 of the Florida Constitution.

The specific Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that the Bar has petitioned to create or amend include: rule 1-3.3 (Official Bar Name and Address); bylaw 2-3.5 (Board of Governors; Nomination of Members; Staggered Terms); bylaw 2-9.7 (Policies and Rules; Insurance for Members of Board of Governors, Offieers, Grievance Committee Members, UPL Committee Members, Clients’ Security Fund Committee Members, and Employees); rule 3-2.1 (Rules of Discipline; Definitions); rule 3-5.1 (Types of Discipline); rule 3-5.3 (Diversion of Disciplinary Cases to Practice and Professionalism Enhancement Programs); rule 3-7.1 (Confidentiality; Notice to Judges; Alcohol and Drug Treatment); rule 3-7.3 (Review of Inquiries, Complaint Processing, and Initial Investigatory Procedures); rule 3-7.4 (Grievance Committee Procedures); rule 3-7.6 (Procedures Before a Referee; Costs); rule 4-1.5 (Fees for Legal Services); rule 4-1.6 (Confidentiality of Information); rule 4-3.4 (Fairness of Opposing Party and Counsel); rule 4-3.6 (Trial Publicity); rule 4-5.4 (Professional Independence of a Lawyer; Sharing Fees With Nonlawyers); rule 4-7.6 (Communication of Fields of Practice); subehapter 6-14 (Standards for Certification of Board Certified Health Law Attorney); subchapter 6-15 (Standards for Certification of Board Certified Immigration and Nationality Lawyer);1 and chapter 14 (Fee Arbitration Rule; Jurisdiction; Institution of Proceedings; Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings).

With minor modifications as set forth in this opinion, we approve the Bar’s proposals. We also consider, on our own motion, amendment to rule 3-7.10 (Reinstatement and Readmission Procedures). A number of private citizens also filed petitions and appeared at oral argument in this cause. We commend those citizens who participated in these proceedings and took the time to share their concerns and frustrations with the Court. However, we find the citizen proposals to be without merit, and thus do not approve the amendments or new rules set forth in the citizen petitions.

Some of the amendments proposed by the Bar involve only technical changes, and others are self-explanatory. However, we find the following rules deserve discussion.

Rule 3-5.3 — Professional Enhancement Programs

Rule 3-5.3 is a new rule that creates a program of diverting disciplinary cases to [283] practice and professionalism enhancement programs as an alternative to existing sanctions. The practice and professionalism enhancement programs are intended to provide educational opportunities to members of the Bar for enhancing skills and avoiding misconduct allegations. The rule specifies that only those disciplinary cases that would otherwise be disposed of by a finding of minor misconduct or by a finding of no probable cause with a letter of advice are eligible for diversion to practice and professionalism enhancement programs. Furthermore, a respondent who has been the subject of a prior diversion within seven years is not eligible for diversion. The rule also outlines the mechanics of the diversion process, the responsibilities of a respondent whose case is diverted, and the effects, costs, and possible sanctions in the event that a diversion program is not completed.

In spite of several comments in opposition to this new rule, we find that diversion to such practice and professionalism enhancement programs is a remedial action which serves the interests of both the Bar and the public. The thrust of this program is to identify lawyers who are beginning to have problems with the management of their practices as evidenced by minor disciplinary complaints. The lawyers are then provided skills training or professional enhancement, thereby diverting serious matters of misconduct. We note that a similar pretrial intervention program operating in the criminal justice system has been effective in dealing with persons charged with nonviolent offenses. See § 948.08, Fla.Stat. (1993).

Rule 8-7.6 — Procedures Before a Referee

Proposed subdivision (o) clarifies what are taxable costs in disciplinary proceedings and provides for the assessment of a respondent’s costs against the Bar in the event that the Bar raises no justiciable issue of law or fact. The rule also codifies this Court’s reaffirmation that the award of costs in disciplinary actions is subject to the referee’s discretion. See The Fla. Bar v. Bosse, 609 So.2d 1320, 1322 (Fla.1992); The Fla. Bar v. Chilton, 616 So.2d 449, 451 (Fla.1993).

While we agree with the Bar that most of the changes to this rule are in accord with recent decisions of this Court, we agree with bar member Henry Trawick that the proposed “clear and convincing evidence” standard is unfair to a respondent seeking an assessment of costs against the Bar or attempting to avoid an assessment of costs in the Bar’s favor that the respondent claims to be unnecessary, excessive, or improperly authenticated. Accordingly, we do not include such a standard in the amended rule.

Rule 1-3.6 — Trial Publicity

The proposed amendment of this rule follows the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 111 S.Ct. 2720, 115 L.Ed.2d 888 (1991). In Gentile, the Supreme Court held that a Nevada rule that is almost identical to our current rule 4-3.6 was unconstitutional because of vagueness. The proposed amendment of rule 4-3.6 deletes the type of “safe harbor” language that the Supreme Court found misleading in Gentile, 501 U.S. at 1047-51, 111 S.Ct. at 2731-32, and incorporates the “substantial likelihood of material prejudice” standard that the Supreme Court found to be a “constitutionally permissible balance between the First Amendment rights of attorneys in pending cases and the state’s interest in fair trials.” Id., 501 U.S. at 1075, 111 S.Ct. at 2745.

Rule 3-7.10 — Reinstatement and Readmission Procedures

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

Florida Bar re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 644 So. 2d 282, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 551, 1994 Fla. LEXIS 1556, 1994 WL 573205 (Fla. 1994).

644 So. 2d 282 (Florida Bar re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dippolito v. State
225 So. 3d 233 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
The Florida Bar v. Wohl
842 So. 2d 811 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2003)
Rodriguez Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Feinstein
734 So. 2d 1162 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
The Florida Bar v. Williams
734 So. 2d 417 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)