In Re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

24 So. 3d 63, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 628, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1949, 2009 WL 3858062
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 19, 2009
DocketSC08-1890
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 24 So. 3d 63 (In Re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar) 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, 24 So. 3d 63, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 628, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1949, 2009 WL 3858062 (Fla. 2009).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the Court on the petition of The Florida Bar proposing amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-12.1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The omnibus petition, which proposes new rules and amendments to existing rules, was approved by the Board of Governors. Formal notice of the proposed amendments was published in the September 1, 2008, issue of The Florida Bar News. In the notice, the Bar directed interested parties to file their comments directly with the Court. Thereafter, on October 7, 2008, the Bar filed the proposed amendments with the Court. The Court received only one comment.

The Bar proposes amendments to rules 1-3.6 (Delinquent Members); 1-3.7 (Reinstatement to Membership); 1-3.8 (Right to Inventory); 1-3.10 (Appearance by Non-Florida Lawyer in a Florida Court); 1 — 4.3 (Committees); 1-7.5 (Retired, Resigned, Inactive, Delinquent Members); 1-12.1 (Amendment to Rules; Authority; Notice; Procedures; Comments); 2-4.5 (Nominations for President-Elect); 2-7.3 (Creation *64 of Sections and Divisions); 3-2.1 (Generally); 3-3.2 (Board of Governors of The Florida Bar); 3-3.3 (Counsel for The Florida Bar); 3-5.4 (Publication of Discipline); 3-6.1 (Generally); 3-7.2 (Procedures Upon Criminal or Professional Misconduct; Discipline Upon Determination or Judgment of Guilt of Criminal Misconduct); 3-7.4 (Grievance Committee Procedures); 3-7.6 (Procedures Before a Referee); 3-7.7 (Procedures Before Supreme Court of Florida); 3-7.11 (General Rules of Procedure); 3-7.13 (Incapacity Not Related to Misconduct); 3-7.17 (Vexatious Conduct and Limitation of Filings); 4-1.5 (Fees and Costs for Legal Services); 4-1.8 (Conflict of Interest; Prohibited and Other Transactions); 4-1.9 (Conflict of Interest; Former Client); 4-1.18 (Duties to Prospective Client); 4-2.4 (Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral); 4-3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal); 4-7.2 (Communications Concerning Lawyer’s Services); 4-7.4 (Direct Contact With Prospective Clients); 4-7.5 (Advertisements in the Electronic Media Other Than Computer-Accessed Communications); 4-7.7 (Evaluation of Advertisements): 4-7.10 (Lawyer Referral Services); 4-8.4 (Misconduct); 5-1.1 (Trust Accounts); 5-1.2 (Trust Accounting Records and Procedures); 6-3.5 (Standards for Certification); 6-3.9 (Manner of Certification); 6-10.3 (Minimum Continuing Legal Education Standards); 6-10.4 (Reporting Requirements); 6-10.5 (Delinquency and Appeal); 6-10.6 (Reinstatement); 10-6.3 (Recommendations and Disposition of Complaints); 10-7.1 (Proceedings for Injunctive Relief); 10-7.2 (Proceedings for Indirect Criminal Contempt); 10-7.3 (Enforcement of Award of Civil Penalty); 14-4.1 (Arbitration Proceedings); 17-1.2 (Definitions); 17-1.4 (Registration); 17-1.5 (Termination or Withdrawal of Registration); and 17-1.9 (Continuing Legal Education Requirement). After considering the Bar’s petition and the comment, the Court adopts The Florida Bar’s proposals, except as follows.

The Court modifies or declines to adopt the following proposals. The Bar proposes new rule 3-5.4 (Publication of Discipline) to explain the publication of disciplinary sanctions. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1 (Types of Discipline). After reviewing the proposal, the Court has determined that the new rule would benefit from further clarification. On occasion, respondents mistakenly conclude that admonishments are confidential sanctions because the orders state “Not to be Published.” These respondents do not understand the phrase means that admonishments will not be published in Southern Reporter or in The Florida Bar News. To resolve this confusion, the Court modifies the proposal by adding the following language to subdivision (d):

“Not to be Published” does not have the same meaning as “confidential.” The Florida Bar may post information regarding specific orders of admonishment on the Bar’s website. Further, the Bar may provide information regarding an admonishment upon inquiry.

Next, the proposed amendment to rule 4-1.5 (Fees and Costs for Legal Services) includes definitions for the terms “retainer,” “flat fee,” and “advanced fee” in the Comment. The Court declines to include these definitions in the Comment. If the Bar seeks to define these terms, the definitions should be thoroughly studied and proposed as a portion of the rule, rather than placed in the Comment.

In the proposed amendment to rule 4r- 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), the Bar seeks to add the phrase “impartial exposition of law” to an introductory paragraph in the Comment. However, the separate paragraph titled “Misleading legal argu *65 ment” that is in the existing Comment already uses the phrase “disinterested exposition of the law.” Thus, to provide consistency with existing language in the Comment for rule 4-3.3, the Court modifies the proposal to state “disinterested exposition of the law.”

The proposed amendment to rule 4-7.2(b) (Permissible Content of Advertisements and Unsolicited Written Communications) would have placed a requirement on attorneys who advertise to only present material that is “permitted by law.” The Court changes the phrase “permitted by law” to “not prohibited by law.” This modification makes it easier for attorneys to determine whether the content of their advertising is permissible.

With regard to the proposed amendment to rule 10-7.1 (Proceedings for Injunctive Relief), the Court modifies proposed subdivisions (e) (Record) and (f) (Review by the Supreme Court of Florida) to conform with the language in existing rule 3-7.6(n)(4) (“Denial of a motion to supplement the record or to remove an item from the record may be reviewed in the same manner as provided for in the rule on appellate review under these rules.”). Similarly, the Court also modifies the proposed amendment to rule 10-7.2 (Proceedings for Indirect Criminal Contempt), subdivisions (d) (Record) and (e) (Review by the Supreme Court of Florida) to conform with the language in existing rule 3-7.6(n)(4).

The Court modifies the proposed amendment to rule 14^.1 (Arbitration Proceedings), subdivision (a), by removing the phrase “by order of a court or other tribunal.” In addition, the Court declines to adopt proposed subdivision (f) (Referral by Referees).

Also, the Court modifies the proposed amendment to rule 17-1.5 (Termination or Withdrawal of Registration). The Bar asserts that the proposed amendments to subdivision (a) would add “involuntary placement on inactive status” as a ground for termination of authorized house counsel status. However, proposed subdivision (a) does not provide any language stating “involuntary placement on inactive status.” Thus, the Court modifies proposed rule 17-1.5 to clearly include that phrase.

Finally, the Court declines to adopt the proposed amendment to rule 4-7.5 (Advertisements in the Electronic Media Other Than Computer-Accessed Communications), which would have removed the requirement that nonlawyer spokespersons in advertising disclose that they are not lawyers. A similar proposal was submitted to the Court in In re Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar — ■ Advertising, 971 So.2d 763, 764 (Fla.2007).

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

Related

United States v. Stewart
931 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (S.D. Florida, 2013)
Florida Bar v. Patrick
67 So. 3d 1009 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)
Florida Bar v. Roberto
59 So. 3d 1101 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 So. 3d 63, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 628, 2009 Fla. LEXIS 1949, 2009 WL 3858062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-rules-regulating-the-florida-bar-fla-2009.