In RE: AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION-2017 REGULAR-CYCLE REPORT

226 So. 3d 223, 2017 WL 3910513
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 7, 2017
DocketSC17-155
StatusPublished

This text of 226 So. 3d 223 (In RE: AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION-2017 REGULAR-CYCLE REPORT) 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-2017 REGULAR-CYCLE REPORT, 226 So. 3d 223, 2017 WL 3910513 (Fla. 2017).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration The Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee’s (RJA Committee) regular-cycle report of proposed rule amendments. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(b)(4). We have jurisdiction 1 and adopt many of the unopposed amendments as proposed. We modify several of the proposals and adopt, *224 on our own motion, additional amendments to further clarify and delineate the current procedures for amending court rules. However, we decline to adopt the opposed amendments that would expand the RJA Committee’s responsibilities as the “rules coordinating committee.”

BACKGROUND

The RJA Committee proposes amendments to Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.140 (Amending Rules of Court); 2.510 (Foreign Attorneys); and 2,516 (Service of Pleadings and Documents). The RJA Committee published the proposals for comment before filing them with the Court. The RJA Committee received comments from the Appellate Court Rules Committee (ACR Committee), the Family Law Rules Committee (FLR Committee), and the Small Claims Rules Committee (SCR Committee) objecting to the amendments to rule 2.140(a)(6) that (1) would recognize the RJA Committee as the central rules coordinating committee and reviewer of rules proposals to determine if a proposal is of general or common application and to make recommendations to resolve conflicts, inconsistencies, and redundancy between a proposal and existing or other proposed rules, and (2) would allow the RJA Committee to issue a formal response to the proposals to be included in the rule submissions to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar and to this Court. After considering the comments, the RJA Committee did not make any revisions to its proposals. The Board of Governors approved all the proposed rule amendments.

After the RJA Committee filed its report, the Court published the proposed amendments for comment. The ACR Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (CPR Committee), the SCR Committee, and The Florida Bar’s Criminal Law Section filed comments opposing the proposed amendments to rule 2.140(a)(6). The FLR Committee, the Juvenile Court Rules Committee (JCR Committee), and the Probate Rules Committee (PR Committee) filed a joint comment also opposing those amendments. The comments filed with this Court raise the same objections to the proposed amendments as were raised in the comments submitted to the RJA Committee. The RJA Committee responded to the comments submitted to it in its report and filed a response to the comments filed with the Court.

AMENDMENTS

After considering the RJA Committee’s proposals, the comments submitted to the RJA Committee and filed with the Court, and the RJA Committee’s responses to the comments, we decline to adopt the opposed amendments to rule 2.140(a)(6). However, we adopt the amendments to rules 2.510 (Foreign Attorneys), and 2.516 (Service of Pleadings and Documents), and many of the noncontroversial amendments to rule 2.140 (Amending Rules of Court). 2 We modify several of the proposed amendments to rule 2.140 and, on our own motion, make additional changes to rule 2.140 in order to more fully delineate the current procedures for amending court rules.

We commend the RJA Committee for its willingness, as our “rules coordinating committee,” to take on more responsibilities to ensure the quality of the rules of court. We also greatly appreciate that committee’s efforts to improve communication among the Bar’s rules committees and to suggest procedures designed to improve *225 the rule coordination process. However, after considering the proposed amendments to rule 2.140(a)(6) and the comments opposing those amendments and hearing oral argument, we decline to adopt amendments that would require the RJA Committee to have a more involved role in coordinating rule proposals. We agree with. the commenters that expanding the RJA Committee’s rule coordination responsibilities as proposed could result in undue delay in the rule-making process and unnecessarily overburden the RJA Committee.

Currently under rule 2.140(a)(6), each rules committee provides the RJA Committee with a copy of all proposed rules changes, and the RJA Committee refers proposed rules changes to any rules committees it determines may be affected by the change. Since this Court recognized the RJA Committee as the rules coordinating committee, that committee has been responsible for identifying rules proposals that might affect other existing or proposed rules and referring those proposals to the appropriate rules committees. See Fla. Bar re Rules of Judicial Admin., 458 So.2d 1110, 1110-11 (Fla. 1984) (adopting rule 2.130(b)(5) effective January 1, 1985 (renumbered 2.140(a)(6)); Fla. R. Jud. Admin, 2.140(a)(6). The Court has explained that this rule coordination function was created “to identify how proposed changes in one set of rules inter-relate with existing and proposed rules in other areas” and to provide “a means for determining the potential impact of rules changes on rules in other areas.” Fla. Bar re Rules of Judicial Admin., 458 So.2d at 1110-11. Currently, the affected committees, whose members have expertise in their respective practice areas, are responsible for reviewing the referred rule change and working with the proposing committee to determine what action, if any, should be taken to avoid conflicts and other potential issues with the proposal. While this coordination scheme may not be perfect, it allocates rule coordination responsibilities to ■ the committee best suited to each task. The RJA Committee, with its diverse membership and liaison subcommittee, is best suited to review all proposed rules changes to identify changes that might impact other rules or pending proposals; and the several substantive rules committees are best equipped to work together to resolve identified issues with rules proposals.

According to the RJA Committee’s report and response to the comments, that committee’s liaison subcommittee currently reviews all rules proposals to determine how they relate to other rules and whether a proposal should be referred to any potentially affected rules committees for consideration. The liaison subcommittee consists of members from each of the other rules committees who are appointed to serve as liaisons between their respective committees and the RJA' Committee. As amended, subdivision (a)(4) of rule 2.140 will specifically require the liaison committee members appointed to the RJA Committee by the chairs of their respective rules committee to “facilitate and implement routine periodic reporting by and to the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee on the development and progress of rule proposals under consideration .and their potential impact on other existing or proposed rules.” This ongoing, active communication between the RJA Committee and the other rules committees about the status of rules proposals will enhance the RJA Committee’s rule coordination efforts. While we decline- to adopt the proposed amendments that would expand the RJA Committee’s rule coordination responsibilities, there is nothing to preclude the RJA Committee from including in its referral to an affected rules committee or providing in a comment submitted to a proposing com *226

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

Related

In Re Amendments to Rules Regulating Fl Bar
916 So. 2d 655 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
101 So. 3d 807 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2012)
Florida Bar re: Rules of Judicial Administration
458 So. 2d 1110 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
226 So. 3d 223, 2017 WL 3910513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-judicial-administration-2017-fla-2017.