In Re: Amendments to The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

150 So. 3d 787, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3222
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedOctober 30, 2014
DocketSC14-219
StatusPublished

This text of 150 So. 3d 787 (In Re: Amendments to The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration) 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 The Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, 150 So. 3d 787, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3222 (Fla. 2014).

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC14-219 ____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.

[October 30, 2014]

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration the regular-cycle report of proposed rule

amendments filed by The Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration

Committee (Rules Committee). See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(4). We have

jurisdiction1 and adopt the amendments as proposed.

BACKGROUND

The Rules Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial

Administration 2.430 (Retention of Court Records), and 2.510 (Foreign Attorneys).

Consistent with rule 2.140(b)(2), the Rules Committee published the proposals for

comment before filing them with the Court. The Committee did not receive any

1. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. comments. The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar approved the proposals.

The Court also published the proposals for comment. One comment was filed with

the Court by the Florida Association of Court Clerks, Inc. (Clerks) opposing the

amendments to rule 2.430. The Rules Committee filed a response urging the Court

to adopt those amendments as proposed.

In response to a request by the Court, the Judicial Branch Records

Management Committee filed a comment making recommendations on the

proposed amendments to rule 2.430, and addressing the issues raised in the Clerks’

comment. See In re Amends. to the Fla. Rules of Jud. Admin., No. SC14-219 (Fla.

order filed June 18, 2014) (requesting comment); see also In re Amends. to Rule of

Jud. Admin. 2.430, 973 So. 2d 437, 440 n.6 (Fla. 2008) (stating that the Judicial

Branch Records Management Committee has responsibility to comment on

proposed amendments to the retention rules); In re Judicial Branch Records Mgmt.

& Retention Program, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC08-5, 1-2 (Dec. 15, 2008)

(charging the Judicial Branch Records Management Committee with responsibility

to comment on proposed amendments to the retention rules). The Clerks filed a

response to the comment, after being granted leave to do so.

AMENDMENTS

After considering the Rules Committee’s proposals, the comments filed, and

the responses to the comments, we amend the rules as proposed.

-2- The more significant amendments to rule 2.430 (Retention of Court

Records) extend the retention periods for misdemeanor and criminal traffic

violation records, and clarify that criminal traffic violations records are considered

either misdemeanor records or felony records. Currently, as relevant here, rule

2.430(c)(1)(C) allows the clerks to destroy misdemeanor and criminal traffic

violation records that are not permanently recorded five years after the judgment

becomes final. The reference to “criminal traffic violations” is removed from the

retention schedule and those records are now subsumed under the schedules for

misdemeanor and felony records. The amendments to subdivisions (c)(1)(C),

(c)(1)(E), and (c)(1)(F) require the same 10- and 75-year retention periods for

misdemeanor records as are currently required for felony records, under

subdivisions (c)(1)(E) and (c)(1)(F). According to the Rules Committee’s report,

the longer retention periods were suggested by the Florida Prosecuting Attorneys

Association. The prosecutors were concerned about the destruction of

misdemeanor records by clerks after five years and explained the need to maintain

those records in order to prove recidivism if the crimes in question occur more than

five years apart. In addition, the prosecutors urged that misdemeanor records are

needed for postconviction motions, impeachment with prior convictions, and

preparation of sentencing guideline scoresheets.

-3- The Court has given due consideration to the Clerks’ concerns about the cost

of maintaining misdemeanor and criminal traffic records for the extended retention

periods. While we appreciate the Clerks’ concerns, all agree that the cost to

maintain paper records will continue to diminish as the judicial system moves to a

fully electronic filing and document management system. And the Court agrees

with the Rules Committee and the Judicial Branch Records Management

Committee that any remaining fiscal concerns attendant to electronically retaining

the records for the extended periods cannot outweigh the retention value of those

records in proving recidivism and protecting defendants against false allegations.

The more significant amendments to rule 2.510 (Foreign Attorneys) include

the following. The amendment to subdivision (a) (Eligibility) allows the court to

waive the pro hac vice filing fee in pro bono cases in which the foreign attorney’s

client may not be technically “indigent,” where good cause is shown. According to

the committee report, the trial judge would have discretion to determine what

constitutes a “pro bono” client and what constitutes “good cause” for purposes of

the rule. Subdivision (b)(1) is amended to provide that a certificate of good

standing from the foreign attorney’s home jurisdiction is not required. The

amendment to subdivision (b)(3) clarifies the requirements regarding disclosure of

all disciplinary, suspension, disbarment, or contempt proceedings that have been

initiated against the attorney in the preceding five years. This subdivision

-4- corresponds to amendments to item 5 of the verified motion for admission to

appear pro hac vice form, which now requires the movant to certify as to any

disciplinary, suspension, disbarment, or contempt proceedings initiated against the

movant. Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 of the form are deleted because their substance is

now part of paragraph 5 and the form is renumbered.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration as

reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by

underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments

shall become effective January 1, 2015, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

Original Proceedings – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration

Murray Bruce Silverstein, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, Florida, Judge Jon Berkley Morgan, Past Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Kissimmee, Florida, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, and Krys Godwin, Bar Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida,

for Petitioner

-5- Fredric W. Baggett and Mary Hope Keating of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, on behalf of Florida Association of Court Clerks, Inc., Judge Cheryl Kendrick Thomas, Chair, Judicial Branch Records Management Committee, and Joseph E. Smith, President, Florida Court Clerks & Comptrollers, Fort Pierce, Florida,

Responding with comments

-6- APPENDIX

RULE 2.430. RETENTION OF COURT RECORDS

(a) – (b) [No Change]

(c) Records Not Permanently Recorded. No court records under this subdivision shall be destroyed or disposed of until the final order, final docket entry, or final judgment is permanently recorded for, or recorded in, the public records.

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

Related

In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.430
973 So. 2d 437 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
150 So. 3d 787, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 651, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-judicial--fla-2014.