Florida Bar re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

519 So. 2d 971, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2673, 1987 WL 40544
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided October 22, 1987·No. No. 70366·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to rule 1-12.1 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, the bar’s board of governors has petitioned the Court seeking adoption of numerous amendments to the bar rules. After hearing oral argument on the petition and after considering that argument as well as the numerous comments and suggestions received concerning these proposed amendments, we adopt, reject, and modify the proposals as discussed in this opinion.*

The first proposal would amend rule 3-7.1 to require an attorney against whom a disciplinary complaint has been made to disclose the fact of the complaint and the nature of the charges to that attorney’s law firm. The board notes that the rules currently require such notice only when a trust account violation is charged and submits that this amendment is needed so that law firms can protect the rights and interests of their clients and of the firms themselves from possible repetitious misconduct. We find this amendment acceptable and therefore amend paragraphs (c) through (g) of rule 3-7.1 as set out in the board’s proposal.

The next proposed amendments are to rule 4-1.5 and deal with fees for legal services and the splitting of fees between lawyers not in the same firm. The proposals divide fees between primary and secondary lawyers on a seventy-five-percent to twenty-five-percent basis, apply this fee limitation only to contingent fee cases, and give further definition to the determination of reasonable fees. The basic proposals for amending rule 4-1.5 came from a special commission for the study of contingent fees and referral practices, created by the board of governors, which met and held hearings numerous times in 1986. The board argues that these proposed amendments are necessary to clarify standards by which reasonable legal fees are to be determined and to set limits on referral fees.

We have received comments from several bar members and a trial lawyers’ group regarding these amendments. The concerns expressed include claims that referral fees are not being abused, that the proposals discriminate by placing restrictions on [972] the right to employ attorneys, and that the proposed amendments will increase brokering rather than restrict it. We acknowledge these concerns, but we believe that there should be some regulation of the brokering of cases and that these proposed amendments are a start toward reaching that end. We therefore adopt the board’s proposed amendments to rule 4-1.5, but, in rule 4-1.5(C), change “shall” to “need” so that hourly rate fees will not be deemed unreasonable per se. We agree with the board that the restrictions on rule 4-1.5 will not apply to nonresident bar members unless those nonresidents practice in matters of Florida law. This opinion does not necessarily apply to court-ordered fees.

Another proposed amendment would add a paragraph to rule 4-3.8, requiring a prosecutor to seek judicial approval prior to issuing a subpoena seeking production of a client’s documents, records, or files from an attorney. The board argues that this amendment is needed to prevent abuses of prosecutorial authority. State and federal prosecutors, as well as the United States Department of Justice, oppose this amendment. They argue that the proposed amendment is unnecessary and that its adoption and implementation would have a chilling effect on the grand jury system. After studying this matter, we refuse to adopt the proposed amendment to rule 4-3.-8.

The next proposed amendment would add a new rule, rule 4-7.3, requiring lawyers who advertise seeking personal injury cases on a contingent-fee basis to have available for prospective clients written information on those lawyers’ qualifications, education, and experience. As originally adopted by the special commission on contingent fees and referral practices, this new rule would have applied to all attorneys who advertise and would have required that attorney advertisements set forth the availability of the information. In adopting this proposed rule, however, the board of governors amended it to apply only to attorneys advertising for personal injury cases on a contingent-fee basis. The board of governors submits that this rule is needed so that prospective clients can make fully informed decisions concerning hiring an attorney.

We have received many comments regarding this proposed rule. A member of the special commission argues that the commission’s proposed rale, rather than the board’s, should be adopted because the board's rule does not further its aim of giving all prospective clients the information needed to make informed decisions about selecting an attorney. A trial lawyers’ group echoes this sentiment and argues that this proposed rule should apply to all attorneys regardless of the type of case involved. Several dozen members of the bar have expressed their dismay at having a certain segment of the bar, i.e., personal injury attorneys, singled out for special and discriminatory treatment.

We agree with the board of governors that prospective clients should have available to them the information required by this proposed rule. We do not find, however, that limiting the rale to personal injury attorneys who work on a contingent-fee basis will fulfill the board’s aim. All consumers should share in the benefits of this rule. Therefore, we reject the board’s proposal and adopt in its place the special commission’s version of rule 4-7.3.

The last proposed amendment would add a new chapter to the bar rules. Under this chapter non-Florida Bar members who are members of the bar in other jurisdictions and who meet certain standards would be allowed to practice law with authorized legal aid organizations for one year while seeking admission to the Florida Bar. The board argues that this new chapter is necessary to help make legal services available to persons who cannot afford them but that this program is not a substitute for bar members’ pro bono work. The bar’s legal services committee agrees with the board, stating that this new program will help alleviate the understaffing and lack of resources which currently plague legal aid organizations in this state. The Florida Board of Bar Examiners, on the other hand, contends that no reasonable need for this program has been demonstrated. Moreover, the bar examiners argue that [973] allowing unlicensed attorneys to practice may not be in the public interest because this proposed program would allow inexperienced attorneys and, possibly, attorneys with histories of serious personal antisocial conduct to practice law without demonstrating their fitness to do so.

There is a serious need of legal aid practitioners in this state. How far this proposal will go toward filling that need is unknown, but we agree with the board that this program may help fill the gap. We therefore adopt the proposed amendment adding chapter 13 to the bar rules.

The amendments adopted in this opinion will be effective at 12:01 a.m., January 1, 1988 and will apply to all contracts entered into on or after the effective date.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

Paragraphs (c) through (g) of rule 3-7.1 are amended to read as follows:

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

Florida Bar re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 519 So. 2d 971, 1987 Fla. LEXIS 2673, 1987 WL 40544 (Fla. 1987).

519 So. 2d 971 (Florida Bar re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson ex rel. J.W. v. Doss
856 F. Supp. 2d 1231 (M.D. Alabama, 2012)
Freedman v. Fraser Eng'g & Testing, Inc.
927 So. 2d 949 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
BARWICK, DILLIAN & LAMBERT v. Ewing
646 So. 2d 776 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)