Home/Supreme Court of Florida/In the Interest of J.H.

In the Interest of J.H.

596 So. 2d 453, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 229, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 691, 1992 WL 63089
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedApril 2, 1992
DocketNo. 77550
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 596 So. 2d 453 (In the Interest of J.H.) 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 the Interest of J.H., 596 So. 2d 453, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 229, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 691, 1992 WL 63089 (Fla. 1992).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review In re J.H., 580 So.2d 162 (Fla.4th DCA 1991), in which the court below certified a question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const.

We deem it unnecessary to answer the question as phrased, but we approve the decision below for the reasons set forth in the majority opinion.

Rule ll-1.2(a) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar is hereby amended to read as follows:

[454]*454(a) An eligible law student may appear in any court or before any administrative tribunal in this state on behalf of any indigent person if the person on whose behalf he is appearing has indicated in writing his consent to that appearance and the supervising lawyer has also indicated in writing approval of that appearance. In such cases the supervising-attorney shall be personally present when required by the trial judge who shall determine the extent of the eligible-law-student’s participation in the proceeding, In those cases in which the indigent person has a right to appointed counsel, the supervising attorney shall be personally present at all critical stages of the proceeding. In all cases, the supervising attorney shall be personally present when required by the trial judge who shall determine the extent of the eligible law student’s participation in the proceeding.

This amendment shall become effective immediately.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, barkett, grimes, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Reigelsperger v. State
16 So. 3d 942 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
DK v. State
881 So. 2d 50 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Duval v. State
744 So. 2d 523 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
A.G. v. State
737 So. 2d 1244 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
A.D. v. State
740 So. 2d 565 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
MC v. State
687 So. 2d 832 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
S.B. v. State
670 So. 2d 1076 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
596 So. 2d 453, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 229, 1992 Fla. LEXIS 691, 1992 WL 63089, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jh-fla-1992.