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

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedMarch 3, 2022
DocketSC20-1467
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar - Biennial Petition (In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar - Biennial Petition) 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 Rules Regulating The Florida Bar - Biennial Petition, (Fla. 2022).

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC20-1467 ____________

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

March 3, 2022

PER CURIAM.

Before the Court is the biennial petition of The Florida Bar

(Bar) proposing amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida

Bar (Bar Rules). 1 The Bar proposes amending thirty-one existing

rules, as well as the addition of one new rule. With some minor

modifications, we adopt the amendments proposed by the Bar.

BACKGROUND

The Bar proposes amending existing Bar Rules: 1-3.2

(Membership Classifications); 1-3.6 (Delinquent Members); 1-3.8

(Right to Inventory); 1-7.3 (Membership Fees); 1-12.1 (Amendment

to Rules; Authority; Notice; Procedures; Comments); 1-13.1 (Time);

1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. 3-5.2 (Emergency Suspension and Interim Probation or Interim

Placement on the Inactive List for Incapacity Not Related to

Misconduct); 3-6.1 (Generally); 3-7.1 (Confidentiality); 3-7.7

(Procedures Before Supreme Court of Florida); 4-1.5 (Fees and

Costs for Legal Services); 4-1.10 (Imputation of Conflicts of Interest;

General Rule); 4-1.14 (Client Under a Disability); 4-5.8 (Procedures

for Lawyers Leaving Law Firms and Dissolution of Law Firms); 4-6.1

(Pro Bono Public Service); 4-7.13 (Deceptive and Inherently

Misleading Advertisements); 4-7.18 (Direct Contact with Prospective

Clients); 5-1.2 (Trust Accounting Records and Procedures); 7-1.3

(Administration); 7-1.4 (Definitions); 7-2.3 (Payments); 7-2.4

(Prerequisites to Payment); 7-2.5 (Claims Ordinarily Denied); 10-2.1

(Generally); 10-2.2 (Form Completion by a Nonlawyer); 10-6.3

(Recommendations and Disposition of Complaints); 10-7.2

(Proceedings for Indirect Criminal Contempt); 14-2.1 (Generally);

14-3.1 (Application Required); 20-5.1 (Generally); and 21-3.1

(Continuing Legal Education). The Bar also proposes the addition

of new Bar Rule 6-3.14 (Sunset of Certification Areas).

The Bar’s proposals were approved by the Board of Governors

of The Florida Bar, and consistent with Bar Rule 1-12.1(g), the Bar

-2- published formal notice of the proposed amendments in The Florida

Bar News. The notice directed interested persons to file their

comments directly with the Court. The Court received two

comments expressing support for the proposed amendments to Bar

Rule 4-7.13 (Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements).

Having considered the Bar’s petition, the proposed

amendments, and the comments filed, we hereby adopt the

amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar proposed by

the Bar, with some minor modifications. We explain the

modifications below, as well as discuss some of the significant rule

amendments.

AMENDMENTS

First, new subdivision (g) is added to rule 1-3.6 (Delinquent

Members) to make clear that a member who fails to file the trust

account certificate required in chapter 5 of the Bar Rules will be

deemed delinquent, and will be ineligible to practice law in Florida.

Next, several changes are made to rule 1-3.8 (Right to

Inventory). The title of subdivision (b) is changed to “Maintenance

of Confidentiality,” and the subdivision is amended to provide that

an inventory lawyer “may seek a protective order from the

-3- appropriate court or take other action necessary to protect

confidential information of the subject lawyer’s clients.”

Subdivision (c) (Status and Purpose of Inventory Lawyer) is

amended to clarify that an inventory lawyer does not represent the

lawyer whose files are being inventoried or that lawyer’s clients.

Subdivision (d) (Rules of Procedure) is deleted in its entirety, and

the remaining subdivisions are redesignated accordingly.

To assist in finding inventory lawyers for the files of lawyers

who are deceased, disbarred, or suspended for a lengthy period, or

who are either incapacitated or incarcerated, new subdivision (e)

(Payment of Inventory Lawyer) is added to rule 1-3.8. The new

subdivision provides that the Bar may pay an inventory attorney a

fee for his or her services. We modify the new subdivision to require

that the fee paid by the Bar be “reasonable.”

Subdivision (g) (Motions for Dissolution) of rule 3-5.2

(Emergency Suspension and Interim Probation or Interim Placement

on the Inactive List for Incapacity Not Related to Misconduct) is

amended to preclude the filing of a motion to dissolve or amend an

emergency suspension in cases where the Bar has demonstrated

-4- through either a hearing or trial that it is likely to prevail on the

merits of the underlying alleged rule violations.

Subdivision (a) (Authorization and Application) of rule 3-6.1

(Generally) is amended to include the phrase “lawyers on the

inactive list due to incapacity.” This change makes clear that a

lawyer who is placed on the inactive list due to incapacity and is

employed by a law firm is subject to the same restrictions as a

disbarred or suspended lawyer.

Subdivision (j) (Chemical Dependency and Psychological

Treatment) of rule 3-7.1 (Confidentiality) is amended to add judges

and justices to the category of those whose voluntary treatment for

chemical dependency or psychological problems is deemed

confidential. This change is aimed at encouraging members of the

Florida judiciary to seek treatment when necessary for chemical

dependency and mental health issues.

New subdivision (b)(12) (Examples of Deceptive and Inherently

Misleading Advertisements) and a corresponding comment are

added to rule 4-7.13 (Deceptive and Inherently Misleading

Advertisements). The new subdivision prohibits as a deceptive and

misleading advertisement “a statement or implication that another

-5- lawyer or law firm is part of, is associated with, or affiliated with the

advertising law firm when that is not the case, including contact or

other information presented in a way that misleads a person

searching for a particular lawyer or law firm, or for information

regarding a particular lawyer or law firm, to unknowingly contact a

different lawyer or law firm.” The corresponding new comment

provides explanation and examples of the types of advertisements

prohibited by new subdivision (b)(12).

A new comment with the heading “Permissible contact” is

added to rule 4-7.18 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients). The

new comment explains that a lawyer may initiate the mutual

exchange of contact information at business-related events and on

business-related social media platforms if the lawyer initiates no

discussion of specific legal matters. The comment also makes clear

that a lawyer who knows a person has a specific legal problem may

not go to a specific event in order to initiate such an exchange and

that “[a]n accident scene, a hospital room of an injured person, or a

doctor’s office are not business or professional conferences or

meetings.”

-6- New rule 6-3.14 (Sunset of Certification Areas) provides that

the Board of Legal Specialization and Education will petition the

Court to close a certification area to initial applicants if any

certification committee has not received an initial certification

application for five consecutive years.

Rule 10-2.1 (Generally) is amended to place definition terms

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

Related

Dowda and Fields, PA v. Cobb
452 So. 2d 1140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Donahue v. Vaughn
721 So. 2d 356 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Woodson v. Durocher
588 So. 2d 644 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1991)
The Florida Bar v. Pape
918 So. 2d 240 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2005)
Karim H. Saadeh v. Michael Connors, Colette Meyer Deborah Barfield and Jacob Noble
166 So. 3d 959 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar - Biennial Petition, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-rules-regulating-the-florida-bar-biennial-fla-2022.