In Re Amendments to Rules of Jud. Admin.

915 So. 2d 157, 2005 WL 2898649
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 3, 2005
DocketSC05-173
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 915 So. 2d 157 (In Re Amendments to Rules of Jud. Admin.) 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 Amendments to Rules of Jud. Admin., 915 So. 2d 157, 2005 WL 2898649 (Fla. 2005).

Opinion

915 So.2d 157 (2005)

In re AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION (TWO-YEAR CYCLE).

No. SC05-173.

Supreme Court of Florida.

November 3, 2005.

Honorable Winifred J. Sharp, Chair, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Daytona Beach, FL, Honorable Claudia Rickert Isom, Past Chair, Plant City, FL, John F. Harkness, Executive Director, J. Craig Shaw, Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner.

*158 Honorable Scott M. Bernstein, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, FL, for Proponent.

Gregg D. Thomas and Carol Jean Locicero of Holland and Knight, LLP, Tampa, FL, on behalf of Media General Operations, Inc.; Jonathan D. Kaney, Jr., General Counsel, First Amendment Foundation, Tallahassee, FL, John R. Hargrove and Dana J. McElroy of Gordon, Hargrove and James, P.A., on behalf of Sunbeam Television Corporation, and Karen Williams Kammer of Mitrani, Rynor and Adamsky, P.A., on behalf of Post-Newsweek Stations Florida, Inc., for Opponent.

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the biennial report of proposed rule amendments filed by The Florida Bar's Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (Rules Committee), in accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(4). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

The Rules Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.050, Trial Court Administration; 2.051, Public Access to Judicial Branch Records; 2.060, Attorneys; 2.085, Time Standards for Trial and Appellate Courts; 2.130, Procedure for Amending Rules; and 2.170, Standards of Conduct and Technology Governing Electronic Media and Still Photography Coverage of Judicial Proceedings. In accordance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.130(c)(2), the Rules Committee submitted its proposals to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and published the proposals for comment. The Board of Governors unanimously approved the proposed changes. The Rules Committee received comments concerning the proposed amendments to rules 2.051, 2.060, and 2.170, but did not make any changes to its proposals in response to the comments received. The Court also published the proposed amendments for comment. The Court received comments addressing the proposed amendments to rules 2.051 and 2.170, which are basically the same as the comments received by the Rules Committee.

At the request of the Court, the Appellate Court Rules Committee, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, the Family Law Rules Committee, the Juvenile Court Rules Committee, the Probate Rules Committee, the Small Claims Rules Committee, and the Traffic Court Rules Committee filed reports addressing amendments to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.071, Use of Communication Equipment, that were proposed by the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee in its 2003 regular-cycle rules submission. On its own motion, the Court considered the proposed amendments to rule 2.071 together with the 2005 regular-cycle proposals.

AMENDMENTS

After reviewing the Rules Committee's 2005 proposed amendments, considering the comments filed concerning those proposals, and hearing oral argument, we adopt all the 2005 proposals, except the proposed amendments to rule 2.170. We also adopt the 2003 proposed amendment to rule 2.071(c), Use of Communication Equipment; Use Only by Requesting Party. However, after considering the comments filed by the various rules committees, we again decline to adopt the proposed amendment to subdivision (d), Use of Communication Equipment; Testimony. Each of the substantive amendments is discussed in more detail below.

*159 We amend subdivision (e) of rule 2.050, Local Rules and Administrative Orders, as proposed by the Rules Committee, to delete the requirement that circuit court clerks furnish copies of administrative orders to the executive director of The Florida Bar.

We also amend rule 2.051, Public Access to Judicial Branch Records, as proposed by the Rules Committee, with the addition of a court commentary in response to a comment filed with the Court by Media General Operations.[1] The amendments address concerns identified by the Court in Media General Convergence, Inc. v. Chief Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, 840 So.2d 1008 (Fla.2003) (noting that rule 2.051 does not provide sufficient guidance for resolving disputes concerning access to judicial records and does not set forth a specific procedure for the appellate court to engage in an in-camera inspection). As amended, subdivision (d)(1) (Review of Denial of Access Request) and subdivision (e)(2) (Procedure) of the rule require (1) the judge denying access to judicial records to file a sealed copy of the requested records when ordered to do so by the appellate court, and (2) the custodian of the records to state in writing the basis for the denial. These requirements will provide the reviewing court with express reasons for the denial of a public records request and will allow the court to conduct an in-camera inspection of the documents. At the suggestion of Media General Operations,[2] a petitioner in Media General Convergence, we add a court commentary recognizing appellate courts' inherent authority to appoint a special magistrate to serve as commissioner for the appellate court to make findings of fact and oversee discovery in proceedings under this rule. Cf. State ex rel. Davis v. City of Avon Park, 117 Fla. 565, 158 So. 159 (1934) (recognizing appellate courts' inherent authority to do all things reasonably necessary for administration of justice within the scope of courts' jurisdiction, including the appointment of a commissioner to make findings of fact); Wessells v. State, 737 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (relinquishing jurisdiction to circuit court for appointment of a special master to serve as commissioner for court to make findings of fact).

The amendment to rule 2.060(b), retitled Persons Employed by the Court Not to Practice, clarifies that the prohibition against engaging in the practice of law applies to all full-time court employees. The amendment also adds court employees acting in their official capacity as individuals to whom legal representation may be provided. Consistent with the provisions of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.12, *160 the amendment to rule 2.060(b) further clarifies that the prohibition against an attorney formerly employed by a court representing anyone in connection with a matter in which the attorney participated personally and substantially while employed by the court may be waived after full disclosure and the consent of all parties.

New rule 2.085(d), Related Cases, is adopted in response to the Family Court Steering Committee's[3] year 2000 recommendations for implementing unified family courts in Florida. See In re Report of the Family Court Steering Committee, 794 So.2d 518 (Fla.2001). The new rule implements the Steering Committee's recommendation that the Court adopt a rule of judicial administration that would "require judges who are assigned to different cases involving the same family to confer, and to coordinate pending litigation to maximize judicial efforts, avoid inconsistent court orders, and avoid multiple court appearances by the parties on the same issues." Id. at 526. Consistent with this recommendation, the new subdivision creates a procedure for the filing of notice of related cases by a petitioner in a family case if related cases are known or reasonably ascertainable.

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

Related

John Doe v. State of Florida
217 So. 3d 1020 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2017)
In Re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
73 So. 3d 210 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
915 So. 2d 157, 2005 WL 2898649, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-rules-of-jud-admin-fla-2005.