Rules Regulating the Florida Bar

494 So. 2d 977
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedSeptember 11, 1986
Docket65197, 65877, 67085 and 68293
StatusPublished
Cited by50 cases

This text of 494 So. 2d 977 (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
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, 494 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1986).

Opinion

494 So.2d 977 (1986)

THE FLORIDA BAR RE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR.

Nos. 65197, 65877, 67085 and 68293.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 17, 1986.
On Rehearing September 11, 1986.

Joseph J. Reiter, President, West Palm Beach, Ray Ferrero, Jr., President-elect, Fort Lauderdale, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Dennis S. Crowley, Ethics Counsel, John A. Boggs, Director of Lawyer Regulation, and Michael A. Tartaglia, Director of Public Interest Programs, Tallahassee, D. Culver Smith III, Chairman, Special Study Committee on Lawyer Referral Services, Palm Beach, and Phyllis Shampanier, Chairwoman, Integration Rule and Bylaws Committee, Miami Beach, Bill Wagner, Chairman, Committee on Proposed Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Tampa, Thomas M. Ervin, Jr., Chairman, Disciplinary Procedure Committee, Tallahassee, James P. Hahn, Chairman, Standing Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Lakeland, Catherine L. Dickson, UPL Counsel, Tallahassee, Stephen D. Busey, Chairman, Special Study Committee on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Jacksonville, Robert E. Livingston, Chairman, Program Evaluation Committee, Miami, and Stephen A. Rappenecker, Chairman, Bd. of Certification, Designation & Advertising, Gainesville, for petitioner, The Florida Bar.

Henry P. Trawick, Jr., Sarasota, Wilson Jerry Foster, Tallahassee, Andrew G. Pattillo, Jr., President and Jane E. Robertson, Executive Director of The Florida Bar Foundation, Orlando, Michael E. Allen, President, Florida Public Defender Association, Tallahassee, John C. Shepherd, Office of the President, American Bar Association, Chicago, Ill., J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., Antitrust Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Jeffrey H. Barker, Executive Director, Florida Legal Services, Inc., Tallahassee, on behalf of Florida Clients Counsel, Common Cause, Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc., Gulf-coast Legal Services, Inc., and Al Hadeed, Russell E. Carlisle, Chairman, Florida Bar Commission on Access to the Legal System, Fort Lauderdale, Stephen T. Maher, Attorney at Law, University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, and Neil Chonin, Coral Gables, responding.

Charles A. Kimbrell, Chairman, Florida State Committee, Miami, Robert M. Ervin, Sp. Florida Counsel, Tallahassee, and Gene W. Lafitte, President, New Orleans, La., for The American College of Trial Lawyers, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

In November 1984 this Court heard oral argument in case numbers 65,197 and 65,877, encompassing a total revision of the bar rules.[*] Since that time, numerous petitions for revision of both the currently existing bar rules and of the proposed new rules have been filed with and considered by the Court, and the proposed new rules have been revised several times. After rearranging and revising portions of the bar's proposed rules, we now adopt these new rules, entitled "Rules Regulating the Florida Bar." As can be seen in the new rules, the integration rule, bylaws, and code of professional responsibility no longer exist as separate entities. Rather, all rules pertaining to the bar have been integrated, in a chapter format, into a single document. It is the revisers' hope, as well as the Court's, that this new arrangement will make it easier to find things in the rules.

Several noteworthy changes have been made from the current rules and from the board's proposals. For instance, while *978 amendments to most of the rules still must be through petition to this Court, chapters 2, 7, and 9 can be amended by the board of governors without petitioning the Court. See rule 2-10. Dues, however, are still capped, and this Court will have to be petitioned for changes in the amount of members' dues. The new rules also provide for nonlawyer members of the board of governors; the period for disbarment has been raised to five years; and there are numerous changes in the disciplinary process, now set out in chapter 3.

A few of the changes made by the Court in the board's proposal include: an addition to rule 4-3.6 regarding persons making extrajudicial statements in criminal cases; a proviso regarding holding and maintaining property as a client wishes added to rule 4-1.15(a); and expansion of confidentiality in minor misconduct reports in 3-5.1(b). Also, rule 4-7.3, as originally proposed, prohibited direct mail solicitation of persons known to have specific legal problems. After studying this matter, we have concluded that such mailing cannot be prohibited. Instead, we have revised rule 4-7.3 to regulate, rather than proscribe, such communications. If this regulation proves unworkable or if a pattern of abuse in direct mailings is established, we will consider amending the solicitation rule.

The rules as finally adopted also include recent amendments regarding confidentiality for attorneys seeking treatment for alcohol abuse, 490 So.2d 937 (Fla. 1986), contingent fees, 494 So.2d 960 (Fla. 1986), and graduation from an accredited law school for emeritus attorneys, 490 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1986). The rules will be printed in both this year's edition of the bar Journal and the West rules pamphlet.

We express our thanks to all members and officers of the bar who worked on these revisions and who favored the Court with their comments and suggestions regarding the proposed rules. These rules will become effective at 12:01 a.m., January 1, 1987, and we urge all members of the bar to familiarize themselves with these new rules.

It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

ON REHEARING GRANTED

The board of governors of the Florida Bar has filed a petition for rehearing or clarification regarding this Court's adoption of new bar rules. The board seeks amendment of the opinion itself as to the applicability of the new rules as well as changes in the text of the rules to correct errors in and omissions from the rules as submitted by the board and requests rewording of several provisions. After reviewing these matters we adopt the changes set out in the petition.

The last sentence of our original opinion is revised to read as follows:

These rules will become effective at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 1987. Thereafter, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar shall govern the conduct of all members of the Florida Bar. All disciplinary cases pending as of 12:01 a.m. January 1, 1987 shall thereafter be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. We urge all members of the bar to familiarize themselves with these new rules.

The individual pages of the rules affected by the changes adopted hereby are attached to this rehearing opinion.[**]

McDONALD, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

*979 RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR

Chapter 1

GENERAL

The Supreme Court of Florida by these rules establishes the authority and responsibilities of The Florida Bar, an official arm of the Court.

1-1 Name. The name of the body regulated by these rules shall be THE FLORIDA BAR.

1-2 Purpose. The purpose of The Florida Bar shall be to inculcate in its members the principles of duty and service to the public, to improve the administration of justice, and to advance the science of jurisprudence.

1-3 Membership.

1-3.1 Composition.

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

Related

Harrell v. the Florida Bar
608 F.3d 1241 (Eleventh Circuit, 2010)
Liberty Counsel v. Florida Bar Board of Governors
12 So. 3d 183 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2009)
The Florida Bar v. Rodriguez
959 So. 2d 150 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2007)
ALLIEDSIGNAL RECOVERY v. AlliedSignal, Inc.
934 So. 2d 675 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet
267 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (M.D. Florida, 2003)
Ex Parte Janezic
723 So. 2d 725 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1997)
John S. Freund v. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General
117 F.3d 1543 (Eleventh Circuit, 1997)
Lane v. Sarfati
676 So. 2d 475 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
CHANDRIS, SA v. Yanakakis
668 So. 2d 180 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
The Florida Bar v. Berman
659 So. 2d 1049 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995)
Gill v. State
632 So. 2d 660 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)
Wirth v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
613 N.E.2d 874 (Indiana Tax Court, 1993)
In Re Disciplinary Proceedings Regarding Doe
876 F. Supp. 265 (M.D. Florida, 1993)
Kaufman v. DAVIS & MEADOWS, PA
600 So. 2d 1208 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
The Florida Bar v. MacMillan
600 So. 2d 457 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
494 So. 2d 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rules-regulating-the-florida-bar-fla-1986.