Florida Bar re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

697 So. 2d 115, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 453, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1063, 1997 WL 417248
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedJuly 17, 1997
DocketNo. 89641
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 697 So. 2d 115 (Florida Bar re Amendments to 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
Florida Bar re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 697 So. 2d 115, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 453, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1063, 1997 WL 417248 (Fla. 1997).

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 [116]*116and to adopt new rules.1 Several members of the Bar and one private organization either support or oppose parts of the Bar’s petition. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The specific Rules Regulating the Florida Bar that the Bar has petitioned to create or amend include: rule 1-3.2 (Membership Classifications); rule 1-3.8 (Right to Inventory); rule 1-4.1 (Composition of Board of Governors); rule 1-7.3 (Dues); bylaw 2-3.3 (Formula for Apportionment of Members of the Board of Governors); bylaw 2-3.5 (Nomination of Members); bylaw 2-7.3 (Creation of Sections and Divisions); rule 3-5.1 (Rules of Discipline; Generally);2 rule 3-7.6 (Procedures Before a Referee); rule 3-7.10 (Reinstatement and Readmissions Procedures); rule 3-7.11 (General Rule of Procedure); rule 3-7.12 (Disciplinary Resignation from the Florida Bar); rule 3-7.13(Placement on Inactive List for Incapacity Not Related to Misconduct); rule 4-5.1 (Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer);3 rule 4-5.6 (Restrictions on Right to Practice); rule 4-7.6 (Communications of Fields of Practice); rule 5-1.2 (Trust Accounting Records and Procedures); rule 6-10.3 (Minimum Continuing Legal Education Standards);4 Subchap-ter 6-20 (Standards for Certification of a Board Certified Elder Law Attorney);5 rule 10-3.1 (Unlicensed Practice of Law (UPL); Generally); rule 10-3.3 (Appointment of Staff Counsel and Bar Counsel); rule 10-4.1 (UPL Circuit Committees; Generally); rule 10-5.1 (UPL Complaint Processing); rule 10-6.1 (UPL Hearings); rule 10-6.2 (UPL Subpoenas); rule 10-7.2 (Proceedings for Indirect Criminal Contempt); rule 10-8.1 (UPL Files); rule 18-1.4 (Military Legal Assistance Counsel Rule; Supervision and Limitations); rule 18-1.5 (Certification); rule 18-1.6 (Withdrawal or Termination of Certification); and rule 18.1.7 (Discipline).

Except as noted, we approve the Bar’s proposals. Some of the amendments proposed by the Bar involve only technical modifications, and others are self-explanatory. However, we find that the following rule amendments merit discussion.

Rule 1-lf.l — Composition of Board of Governors

We approve the proposed amendment of this rule which adds one additional non-resident seat to the Board of Governors.6 However, for several reasons, this amendment merits discussion. At the outset, we agree with the Bar that it complied with notice requirements under a literal interpretation of rule 1-12.1(g).7 Further, since the represen[117]*117tative of the Florida Chapter of the National Bar Association (FCNBA) attended the January and March 1996 Board meetings, where the issue was addressed, FCNBA was aware that the issue had not been decided and almost certainly would be continued until the next Board meeting in May.8 We also note that, as the Bar’s chronology details, this issue has been debated, studied, and publicized since September 1995. Therefore, we conclude that although FCNBA’s arguments have some merit, interested Bar members and FCNBA had reasonable notice of the Board’s consideration of the proposed amendments.

On the merits, the principle of proportional representation militates in favor of the addition of a fourth non-resident seat on the Board of Governors considering the present structure of the Board.9 Since there are over 10,000 outof-state practitioners represented by only three Board members, the Bar advances a reasonable argument that a fourth non-resident seat is warranted. At present, there is approximately one Board seat for every 1000 in-state Bar members, as compared to one Board seat for approximately every 3500 out-of-state members. Florida Bar’s Response to Commentary of Respondent at 9. When a third non-resident seat was approved by this Court in 1987, we noted that:

The Florida Bar currently has approximately 40,000 members; their interests and concerns are diverse. The board of governors looks after those interests and addresses those concerns on a collective basis, working for the good of the profession as a whole. The board should be apportioned fairly and should represent all of the bar’s members.

The Florida Bar Re Amendments To the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar Reapportionment, 518 So.2d 251, 252 (Fla.1987) (emphasis added). Obviously, both the Bar’s membership as a whole and that of the out-of-state practitioners in particular have grown considerably in the interim. Recognizing that the group now comprises almost 20% of the Bar’s membership but only holds approximately 6% (or 3 of 51) of the Board seats, a fourth Board seat would mean the non-residents occupy approximately 7.5% of the Board seats. We conclude that this is a reasonable request which still leaves the out-of-state practitioners proportionally underrepresented but certainly improves their numbers. For that reason, we approve this amendment.

Rule 3-5.1 — Rules of Discipline; Generally

Proposed subdivision (k) consolidates the amounts and types of costs that may be assessed in disciplinary proceedings, now separately set forth in rules 3-7.6(k)(l)(E); 3-7.6(o); and 3-7.10(o), as well as providing that costs may be imposed as part of a disciplinary action. We disapprove this requested addition. We find the present system adequate whereby the referee has the discretion of assessing costs against either the Bar or the respondent and can see no persuasive reason to revise the process.

Rule 3-7.6 — Procedures Before a Referee

The proposed amendment of this rule deletes language regarding assessable costs in subdivision (o) that would be moved to new subdivision (k) of rule 3-5.1. Per our disap[118]*118proval of proposed rule 3-5.1(k), this amendment is likewise disapproved.

Rule 3-7.10 — Reinstatement and Readmissions Procedures

The proposed amendment of this rule revises the filing requirements for a reinstatement petition in subdivision (e)(1) from an original and three copies to an original and one copy; presents a summary or expedited procedure in subdivision (h) for handling uncontested reinstatement proceedings; and deletes language regarding assessable costs in subdivision (o) that would be moved to proposed subdivision (k) of rule 3-5.1. With one exception, we approve the proposed revisions to this rule. Consistent with our rejection of the proposed amendments to rules 3-5.1 and 3-7.6, we disapprove the deletion of language in subdivision (o) regarding assessable costs.

Rule 3-7.11 — General Rules of Procedure

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

Related

In Re Amend. to Rules Regulating Fla. Bar
718 So. 2d 1179 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
697 So. 2d 115, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 453, 1997 Fla. LEXIS 1063, 1997 WL 417248, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-bar-re-amendments-to-rules-regulating-the-florida-bar-fla-1997.