Florida Bar re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

558 So. 2d 1008, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 153, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 428, 1990 WL 33341
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided March 16, 1990·No. No. 74570·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

ORDER

In our opinion of February 15, 1990 extensive amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar were adopted. Recognizing that the rules, as adopted, were the integration of the recommendations of the Bar, the recommendations of the Disciplinary Review Commission, and the independent amendments made by this Court, we directed the Bar and encouraged interested parties to review the rules for conformity and to submit any responses within the rehearing period. In response, The Florida Bar has filed a motion for clarification which we grant to the extent reflected in the attached opinion which is substituted for the opinion originally issued in this cause.

We have considered and deny the motion for clarification of Ronald Bibace and the motions for rehearing of Jimmy Hatcher and Edith Broida.

PER CURIAM.

The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, pursuant to rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, petitions this Court to approve extensive revisions to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The proposed amendments are the final product of an endeavor begun in June 1987 by the Disciplinary Review Commission which was created by the then President-Elect Ray Ferrero. The Commission was appointed to 1) evaluate the current grievance system; 2) consider the feasibility and structuring of a statewide fee arbitration system; 1 3) determine whether criteria should be established in regard to staff attorney case loads; and 4) evaluate the workload generated under the current system. In a report published January 1989, the Commission made recommendations concerning procedural aspects of the grievance system, administrative policy, and confidentiality. With the exception of several of the Commission’s recommendations concerning confidentiality and its recommendation in connection with immunity of the complainant, the Bar incorporated the Commission’s recommendations into its proposed amendments. Official notice of the Bar’s intent to file this petition was published in the July 15, 1989, edition of The Florida Bar News as required by rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Oral argument was held on October 2, 1989.

We have considered comments from interested parties, including the Florida Medical Association, and the response of William E. Loueks, past Chairperson of the [1009] Disciplinary Review Commission and Rutledge R. Liles, the immediate past President of The Florida Bar. In their response to the petition, Mr. Liles and Mr. Louck urge the Court to adopt the confidentiality scheme recommended by the Commission. The Commission’s recommendations in this area differ from those of the Bar in three major respects: 1) the so called “gag rule”; 2) public access to information concerning grievance proceedings; and 3) immunity of the complainant.

The Commission recommends that the gag rule be abolished and complainants in a disciplinary proceeding be allowed to state the fact that a complaint has been filed with The Florida Bar. After final disposition of the case at the grievance committee level, the Bar would be allowed to reveal that disposition, the reason therefor, and to share, upon request, any public record documents. Authorized representatives of The Florida Bar would also be allowed to respond to specific inquiries concerning matters which are in the public domain, but otherwise confidential under the rule, by acknowledging the status of the proceedings. The Bar proposes a “partial abolition” of the gag rule. Under the Bar’s proposal, complainants and other participants would be allowed to state that a grievance complaint has been filed and probable cause or no probable cause has been found, once such findings have become final. However, the gag rule would continue for admonishments (previously known as private reprimands). Authorized representatives of the Bar would be allowed to respond to inquiries regarding otherwise confidential matters which are in the public domain by acknowledging the status of the proceedings. With the above exceptions, disciplinary proceedings and all matters related thereto would remain confidential until a formal complaint for other than minor misconduct is filed with this Court. Under the Bar’s proposal, perpetual confidentiality would be maintained where the final disposition is a finding of “minor misconduct.” As to immunity of the complainant, the Commission recommends that the complainant not be given immunity or privilege from civil liability but be subject to applicable Florida law. However, the Bar proposes absolute immunity if disclosure of the proceedings is not made by the complainant and qualified immunity if disclosure is made.

After careful consideration, we approve all amendments proposed by the Board of Governors except those which are in conflict with the above recommendations of the Commission. While we recognize the diligent efforts of the Bar to submit a proposal which will overcome the public perception that the disciplinary system is self-protective and rife with secrecy, we agree with the Commission that public respect and confidence in the primarily self-operated lawyer disciplinary system can best be gained by allowing the public to determine for itself that the grievance system works efficiently, fairly, and accurately. We also share the Commission’s constitutional concerns about a confidentiality rule which retains a “gag” rule and which requires permanent confidentiality in disciplinary proceedings involving minor misconduct. See Doe v. Gonzalez, 723 F.Supp. 690 (S.D.Fla.1988), affirmed, 886 F.2d 1323 (11th Cir.1989). Therefore, we adopt the confidentiality scheme which opens the grievance process to public review, as recommended by the Commission.

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, 558 So. 2d 1008, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 153, 1990 Fla. LEXIS 428, 1990 WL 33341 (Fla. 1990).

558 So. 2d 1008 (Florida Bar re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chastain v. Cunningham Law Group, P.A.
16 So. 3d 203 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Tobkin v. Jarboe
710 So. 2d 975 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Tobkin v. Jarboe
695 So. 2d 1257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
The Florida Bar v. Rue
643 So. 2d 1080 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
The Florida Bar v. Dubbeld
594 So. 2d 735 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Reiter v. Mason
563 So. 2d 749 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)