In Re Amend. to Rules Regulating Fla. Bar

907 So. 2d 1138, 2005 WL 1118034
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMay 12, 2005
DocketSC04-135
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 907 So. 2d 1138 (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, 907 So. 2d 1138, 2005 WL 1118034 (Fla. 2005).

Opinion

907 So.2d 1138 (2005)

In re AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR AND THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.

No. SC04-135.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 12, 2005.

Honorable Claudia R. Isom, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Plant City, FL, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Miles A. McGrane, III, President, Kelly Overstreet Johnson, President-elect, *1139 Alan Bookman, President-elect Designate, Paul F. Hill, General Counsel, Mary Ellen Bateman, Director, Legal Division, Ethics, UPL, Professionalism, and Lori Holcomb, Director, Unlicensed Practice of Law, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, and John A. Yanchunis, Chair, Special Commission on the Multijurisdictional Practice of Law 2002, Tampa, FL, for Petitioners.

Jose I. Astigarraga, Edward M. Mullins, Edward H. Davis, Jr., and Elena M. Marlow, The International Law Section of The Florida Bar, Miami, Florida, Stephen T. Maher of Shutts and Bowen, LLP, The Florida Bar Business Law Section, Miami, Florida; Joseph R. Giannini, Director, The National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdictional Practice, Los Angeles, CA; Kathy M. Klock, R. Michael Underwood and Jonathan Brennan Butler of Steel Hector and Davis, The Securities Industry Association Arbitration Committee, West Palm Beach, FL; Stanford R. Solomon of Solomon Tropp Law Group, P.A., Chair, The Judicial Administration Committee, Tampa, FL; Frederick J. Krebs, President and Susan Hackett, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Association of Corporate Counsel, Washington, DC; Charles W. Austin, Jr., President, Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association; and Stephen Krosschell of Goodman and Nekvasil, P.A., Clearwater, FL, for Proponents.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Bar has filed a petition to amend the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration to address the multijurisdictional practice of law.[1] We have jurisdiction. See art. V, §§ 2(a), 15, Fla. Const. We adopt the amendments.

BACKGROUND

The proposed amendments are the result of an extensive, well-deliberated process. In July 2000, the American Bar Association (ABA) appointed a commission to study the multijurisdictional practice of law, which is described as a lawyer providing legal services in a jurisdiction where that lawyer is not licensed to practice law. Currently, the practice is prohibited in Florida pursuant to case law and the rules. See Fla. Bar v. Rapoport, 845 So.2d 874 (Fla.2003) (respondent, who was licensed to practice law outside Florida and was not a member of The Florida Bar, engaged in the unlicensed practice of law because he represented parties in Florida). See generally R. Regulating Fla. Bar 4-5.5.

The ABA commission sought input from state bars and interested parties. In response, in 2001, The Florida Bar established a Special Commission on the Multijurisdictional Practice of Law (Commission I) to study the ABA report. In March 2002, Commission I made several recommendations to The Florida Bar Board of Governors. The Board adopted all of the recommendations.

In August 2002, the ABA adopted a final report and recommendations regarding the multijurisdictional practice of law. Therefore, a second Florida Bar Multijurisdictional Practice of Law Commission (Commission II) was appointed to study the ABA's final report and make any appropriate recommendations for changes in the *1140 Florida rules. Commission II prepared a report and made recommendations, which were circulated to The Florida Board of Bar Examiners, the Young Lawyers Division of The Florida Bar, the Special Committee to Review the ABA Model Rules 2002, the Professional Ethics Committee, and the chair and vice-chairs of the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee.

The recommendations of Commission II were published in the April 15, 2003, issue of The Florida Bar News. Subsequently, representatives of the International Law Section and the Business Law Section of the Bar contributed to the development of the amendments. As a result of concerns that were raised during this process, the Bar reconvened Commission II to further consider the multijurisdictional practice of law. Thereafter, Commission II issued a final report and recommended changes in the Florida rules. The Board adopted the final report of Commission II on December 5, 2003.

Pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1, the Bar published the proposed amendments for comment in the January 1, 2004, issue of The Florida Bar News. On February 9, 2004, the Bar filed the instant petition. After receiving eight comments, the Court held oral argument.

ANALYSIS

Numerous interested individuals and entities, at both state and national levels, have collaborated for several years in the study and development of the proposed amendments. Further, The Florida Bar and its members engaged in an extensive, concerted effort to modify the ABA's original proposals to address issues specific to Florida and to provide appropriate disciplinary procedures. Thus, the amendments are based on a thorough study of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.

As needs and the practice of law have changed, this Court has responded by improving the methods for providing legal services. See, e.g., Amendments to Rules Regulating Fla. Bar & Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure (Unbundled Legal Services), 860 So.2d 394 (Fla.2003). Similarly, due to changes in needs and in the practice of law, we adopt the proposed amendments. The Court's goal in adopting the amendments is to implement changes that improve legal services for the public by permitting the limited, temporary multijurisdictional practice of law but at the same time protecting the public, the legal profession, and the judiciary. Although the concept of the multijurisdictional practice of law is not new, the Court has concerns that difficulties may arise once these amendments are enacted. Thus, the Court and The Florida Bar must remain vigilant to make sure that the amendments operate as envisioned so that legal services are enhanced and not frustrated.

According to the Bar, the multijurisdictional practice of law includes legal services in any area of the law, which could occur at any stage of representation. The client can be either from the state where the lawyer is licensed ("home state") or where the lawyer wishes to practice or provide the services ("host state"). The activity usually takes place on a temporary or occasional basis. Currently, the multijurisdictional practice of law is prohibited in Florida. See Rapoport. To implement this practice in Florida, several amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and one amendment to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration are necessary. Because the other amendments flow from the amendment to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-5.5, "Unlicensed Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of Law," the amendments are categorized below *1141 into three areas: (1) Multijurisdictional Practice of Law, Rule 4-5.5; (2) Reciprocal Discipline; and (3) Pro Hac Vice Admission.[2]

Multijurisdictional Practice of Law, Rule 4-5.5

Currently, the rules and case law provide that a lawyer licensed to practice law in another state or country, but not in Florida, cannot, except in very limited circumstances, provide legal advice or services in Florida or involving Florida law. Such a structure does not recognize the reality of modern legal practices.

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

Related

The Florida Bar v. Tipler
8 So. 3d 1109 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
In Re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Mjp)
991 So. 2d 842 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
Brooks v. AMP SERVICES LTD.
979 So. 2d 435 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Gould v. Harkness
470 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (S.D. Florida, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
907 So. 2d 1138, 2005 WL 1118034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amend-to-rules-regulating-fla-bar-fla-2005.