In Re Amend. to Rules Regulating Fla. Bar

718 So. 2d 1179, 1998 WL 655570
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 24, 1998
Docket92841
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 718 So. 2d 1179 (In Re Amend. to Rules Regulating Fla. 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
In Re Amend. to Rules Regulating Fla. Bar, 718 So. 2d 1179, 1998 WL 655570 (Fla. 1998).

Opinion

718 So.2d 1179 (1998)

In re AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR.

No. 92841.

Supreme Court of Florida.

September 24, 1998.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Edward R. Blumberg, President, Howard C. Coker, President-elect, Cynthia A. Everett, Chair, Rules Committee, Paul F. Hill, General Counsel, and John A. Boggs, Director, Legal Division, Tallahassee, for Petitioner The Florida Bar.

David P. Frankel, pro se, Washington, D.C., Responding.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on the petition of The Florida Bar for amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The petition is brought on the authority of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and invokes this Court's exclusive jurisdiction of the discipline of persons admitted to the practice of law under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution.

Except for certain technical corrections, the proposed amendments were published in The Florida Bar News on March 15, 1998. Comments have been filed by one respondent. The issue raised by the comments will be discussed briefly below, as will the principal proposed amendments of a substantive nature.

RULES 1-4.1 AND 2-3.3

The Florida Bar proposes that rule 1-4.1 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar be amended to eliminate the requirement of four representatives on the Board of Governors for nonresident members. Instead, the proposed rule would provide that there be at least one representative for each circuit and one for the nonresident members, with the representation of the respective circuits and nonresident members apportioned according to population. Coordinating with the proposed amendments to rule 1-4.1, the Bar proposes to amend rule 2-3.3, providing in proposed new subdivision 2-3.3(a) that the definition of "circuit" shall include "a hypothetical out-of-state judicial circuit with a circuit population equal to 50% of the number of members of The Florida Bar in good standing residing outside the state of Florida." The hypothetical out-of-state circuit with an attorney population equal to fifty percent of the nonresident Florida Bar membership is then to be an element of the apportionment formula for circuit representation on the Board of Governors described in revised rule 2-3.3(b).

We have considered the response filed by David P. Frankel, a nonresident member of The Florida Bar. Mr. Frankel argues that the proposed provisions on representation of nonresident members on the Board of Governors are inadequate and do not provide fair representation. Currently, rule 1-4.1 provides that there will be four governors representing the bar members residing outside the State of Florida. The amendment to rule 1-4.1 eliminates this provision, substituting a provision for at least one representative for each circuit and one from the nonresident members. The amendment to rule 2-3.3 treats the nonresident membership as a separate "circuit" for board representation purposes, with a population equal to fifty percent of the total number of nonresident members of the bar. In Florida Bar re Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 697 So.2d 115, 116-17 (Fla.1997), we approved an increase of the nonresident board representation to four members. The Florida Bar advises us that with the proposed amendments, the apportionment formula will maintain the current level of representation and allow for future reapportionment as member population ratios change. We therefore find that the proposed apportionment plan adequately provides for representation of nonresident members.

RULE 1-3.7(b)

The proposed amendments to rule 1-3.7(b) would change the provisions on payment of administrative and investigative costs in connection *1180 with nondisciplinary reinstatements to membership. Rule 1-3.7 addresses reinstatement to membership in a nondisciplinary context, that is, reinstatement by the Board of Governors following voluntary resignation from the bar, suspension for delinquency in the payment of dues, or suspension for noncompliance with continuing legal education requirements. These "nondisciplinary" suspensions from membership are to be distinguished from suspensions imposed in disciplinary proceedings. The reinstatement procedures following disciplinary suspensions are more elaborate and are set forth in rule 3-7.10. The proposed amendments to rule 1-3.7(b) would eliminate the $500 deposit for investigative costs currently imposed in certain cases, but increase the administrative fee from $50 to $150. The proposal also would allow the Executive Director of The Florida Bar, with the concurrence of the Executive Committee of the Board of Governors, to adjust the administrative fee in specific cases for good cause shown. We find that the proposed amendments would eliminate an unnecessary burden currently being imposed on some applicants, provide a justified increase in the administrative fee for reinstatement applications generally, and provide the Bar needed flexibility with regard to the costs of processing applications in specific cases. We therefore approve the proposed amendments.

RULES 3-7.6 AND 3-7.7

The Bar proposes that rule 3-7.6(l)(1) be amended to eliminate the requirement that referee hearings in disciplinary proceedings at which testimony is taken be reported and the reports be transcribed. Instead, the proposed rule would require that a court reporter attend and "record" the testimony, transcribing it only if directed to do so by the referee or by one of the parties. The party requesting the transcript is to bear the cost of transcription, subject to the possibility of assessment in connection with the judgment ultimately rendered in the case.

The Bar proposes that rule 3-7.7(c)(2) be amended to provide that the party seeking review of a referee's report must order transcripts of any hearings at which testimony was taken, file the transcripts with the court, and serve copies on the other party. Under the proposed amendment, failure to file and serve such transcripts will be cause for dismissal of the petition for review.

We find the proposed amendments to rules 3-7.6 and 3-7.7 to be appropriate and approve them.

RULE 4-1.5

In chapter 4 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, the Rules of Professional Conduct, the Bar proposes certain changes to rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B), which deals with attorneys' fees in cases of personal injury, property damage, death, or loss of services where the attorney's compensation is contingent on recovery of a judgment or settlement. The rule currently establishes certain limits on the percentage of a recovery that can be agreed upon as an attorney's fee in a contingent fee contract between a lawyer and a client. Percentage fees above these limits are considered presumptively excessive.

The proposed amendment to rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(i)a., regarding cases settled for between $1 million and $2 million before an answer or demand for arbitration is filed or the time for filing same has expired, would reduce the percentage, of that portion of the recovery exceeding $1 million, above which a fee is presumed excessive from thirty percent to twenty percent. In cases settled before such time for more than $2 million, the proposed amendment would reduce the percentage of the portion over $2 million from twenty percent to fifteen percent.

The Bar further proposes amendments to rule 4-1.5(f)(4)(B)(i)c., governing cases where defendants admit liability at the time of filing their answers but demand trial on damages, where the recovery is between $1 million and $2 million.

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

Related

Gaylord Container/Temple Inland Corp. v. Dunaway
38 So. 3d 1083 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2010)
Florida Bar
932 So. 2d 1005 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2006)
The Florida Bar v. Gross
896 So. 2d 742 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
In Re the Discipline of Sonnenreich
2004 UT 3 (Utah Supreme Court, 2004)
Florida Bar v. Rotstein
835 So. 2d 241 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
The Florida Bar v. Bailey
803 So. 2d 683 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
718 So. 2d 1179, 1998 WL 655570, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amend-to-rules-regulating-fla-bar-fla-1998.