In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Biennial Petition)

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Biennial Petition). Read the opinion of the Court — 40 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 330
Supreme Court of Florida·Decided November 9, 2017·No. SC16-1961·Published

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC16-1961 ____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR (BIENNIAL PETITION).

[November 9, 2017]

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on the petition of The Florida Bar proposing

amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules). We have

jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The Florida Bar (Bar) has filed its biennial petition proposing both new rules

and amendments to a number of existing Bar Rules. The proposals were approved

by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, and formal notice of the proposed

amendments was published in The Florida Bar News. The notice directed

interested persons to file their comments directly with the Court. The Court

received two comments; the Bar filed a response to the comments. After fully considering the Bar’s petition, the comments, and the response,

we adopt the majority of the Bar’s proposals, with some modifications,1 as

discussed in this opinion. However, as addressed below, we decline to adopt the

Bar’s proposed amendments to Bar Rule 4-7.14 (Potentially Misleading

Advertisements) at this time, and we refer this matter back to the Bar for further

consideration. We discuss the new rules and more significant rule amendments

below.

AMENDMENTS

First, Bar Rule 1-3.2 (Membership classifications) is amended in subdivision

(a) (Members in Good Standing), as proposed by the Bar, to allow members of the

Bar who have voluntarily selected inactive status to be classified as “members in

good standing.” New subdivision (a)(2) provides that members of the Bar who

have elected inactive status, paid their annual memberships fees, and who are not

retired, resigned, delinquent, suspended, or inactive because of incapacity, are

considered members in “good standing” for purposes of obtaining a certificate of

good standing and for no other purpose.

We amend Bar Rule 1-7.5 (Retired, Inactive, Delinquent Members), as

recommended by the Bar, to authorize retired or inactive Bar members to practice

1. We have revised the Bar’s proposals in several Bar Rules to make technical or editorial changes.

-2- law as an “emeritus lawyer” pursuant to the Emeritus Attorneys Pro Bono

Participation Program in Chapter 12 of the Bar Rules. This amendment, and other

amendments to the Bar Rules addressed herein, were recommended by the Florida

Commission on Access to Civil Justice, and are intended to increase the pool of

lawyers authorized to provide pro bono legal services to the community under the

supervision of a legal aid organization.

Next, we amend Bar Rule 1-12.1 (Amendment to Rules; Authority; Notice;

Procedures; Comments), as proposed by the Bar—subdivision (g) (Notice of Intent

to File Petition) will now require that the Bar’s notice of its intent to file a petition

to amend the Bar Rules, published in The Florida Bar News and on its website,

identify the rules to be amended and state in general terms the nature of the

proposed amendments; the full text of the Bar’s proposals will be published only

on the Bar’s website. Also in Bar Rule 1-12.1, we amend subdivision (h) (Action

by the Supreme Court of Florida) to provide that a summary of the Court’s final

action on a petition to amend the Bar Rules will be reported in The Florida Bar

News and on the Bar’s website.

Bar Rule 3-7.16 (Limitation on Time to Bring Complaint) is renamed

“Limitation on Time to Open Investigation” and is substantially amended to clarify

the limitations period for opening an investigation into allegations of lawyer

misconduct. Subdivision (a) is renamed “Time for Initiating Investigation of

-3- Complaints and Re-opened Cases,” and will now include three new subdivisions.

Subdivision (a)(1) (Initial Complaint or Investigation) provides that a complainant

must make a written “inquiry”2 to the Bar within six years from the time the matter

giving rise to the inquiry or complaint is discovered or should have been

discovered. In the case of an investigation initiated by the Bar, the Bar must open

the investigation within six years from the time the matter is discovered or should

have been discovered. Subdivision (a)(2) (Re-opened Investigations) provides that

a re-opened disciplinary investigation is not time barred if the matter is re-opened

within one year after it was closed. And subdivision (a)(3) (Deferred

Investigations) states that a timely disciplinary investigation that was deferred

consistent with Bar policy and the Bar Rules is not time barred if the grievance

committee finds probable cause and the Bar files its formal complaint within one

year after notice that the civil, criminal, or other proceedings that were the basis for

the deferral have concluded. The remaining subdivisions in this rule are also

amended as proposed by the Bar.

Bar Rule 4-1.8 (Conflict of Interest; Prohibited and Other Transactions) is

amended in subdivision (c) (Gifts to Lawyer or Lawyer’s Family) to prohibit a

2. We amend Bar Rule 3-2.1 (Generally), as proposed by the Bar, to add a new definition for the term “Inquiry,” meaning a written communication received by Bar counsel questioning the conduct of any Bar member.

-4- lawyer from soliciting any gift from a client, or from preparing an instrument that

gives the lawyer or a member of the lawyer’s family any gift. This change was

proposed by the Bar in response to a suggestion from the Real Property Probate

and Trust Law Section. We also amend the comment to rule 4-1.8 to explain this

prohibition, and other subdivisions throughout rule 4-1.8 to clarify language.

However, we have revised the Bar’s proposal in subdivision (h) (Limiting Liability

for Malpractice), as recommended in the comment from Attorney Timothy P.

Chinaris, to remove the reference to “prospective” malpractice.

We decline to adopt the Bar’s proposal to amend Bar Rule 4-7.14

(Potentially Misleading Advertisements). The Bar proposes amendments to this

rule in response to a decision from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Florida, which held, in relevant part, that provisions in Bar

Rule 4-7.14(a) broadly prohibiting lawyers who were not board certified from

making truthful statements that they “specialize in” or “have expertise in” a

particular field of practice were unconstitutional. In response to this decision, the

Bar recommended amending the rule in subdivision (a) (Potentially Misleading

Advertisements) to add a new subdivision (a)(5), which would prohibit lawyers

from using in their advertisements the terms “specialist,” “expert,” or other

variations of those terms unless the lawyer meets one of the four criteria

established in subdivisions (a)(5)(A)-(a)(5)(D). The criteria in subdivisions

-5- (a)(5)(A), (a)(5)(B), and (a)(5)(C) are similar to those in other parts of rule 4-7.14.

However, subdivision (a)(5)(D) would provide that a lawyer may identify as a

“specialist” or “expert” if the lawyer’s “experience and training demonstrate

specialized competence in an area of practice that is reasonably comparable to that

demonstrated by the standards of the Florida Certification Plan set forth in chapter

6 of these rules”; if the area of claimed specialization or expertise is or falls within

an area of practice under the Florida Certification Plan, the advertisement must

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

In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Biennial Petition), (Fla. 2017).

In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Biennial Petition) (In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Biennial Petition)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dowda and Fields, PA v. Cobb
452 So. 2d 1140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
The Florida Bar v. Golden
566 So. 2d 1286 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1990)
Goldberg v. MERRILL LYNCH CREDIT CORP.
35 So. 3d 905 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
The Florida Bar v. Hines
39 So. 3d 1196 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2010)
Arnold, Matheny, Pa v. First Am. Holdings
982 So. 2d 628 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2008)
The Florida Bar v. Silver
788 So. 2d 958 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2001)
Donahue v. Vaughn
721 So. 2d 356 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
The Florida Bar v. Krasnove
697 So. 2d 1208 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1997)
The Florida Bar v. Jose Carlos Marrero
157 So. 3d 1020 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2015)
Florida Bar v. Neely
587 So. 2d 465 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1991)