IN RE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court denied the Florida Bar's request to mandate that foreign lawyers admitted temporarily in Florida must associate with Florida counsel, instead leaving such requirements to the discretion of the trial court. The Court adopted amendments to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(b) and Florida Bar Integration Rule Article 11(2) to eliminate confusing double qualifiers and conform the rules.
The Court denied the mandatory association requirement for foreign lawyers, instead leaving such requirements to the discretion of the court having jurisdiction over the cause. The Court acknowledged the need to eliminate the double qualifiers and adopted amendments to Rule 2.060(b) and Florida Bar Integration Rule Article 11(2) to address the confusion.
[1] A court may permit attorneys from other states to appear in particular cases upon motion, provided they are members in good standing of the bar of another state.
[2] Attorneys from other states are prohibited from engaging in general practice in Florida unless they are active members of The Florida Bar in good standing.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We find it more appropriate to leave such a requirement to the discretion of the court which has jurisdiction of the cause; the requirement may be imposed when that court finds it necessary.”
The Court's holding that foreign lawyer association with Florida counsel should be discretionary rather than mandatory, allowing courts to impose the requirement based on case-specific circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Bar filed a motion for rehearing requesting amendment of Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(b) to require foreign lawyers admitted on a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
The Florida Bar has filed a motion for rehearing requesting that we reconsider their suggestion that Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(b) be amended to specify that foreign lawyers admitted on a temporary basis in Florida must associate Florida counsel.
The Bar asserts that this amendment is necessary to avoid conflict with Florida Bar Integration Rule, Article 11(2).
The Florida Bar further brings to our attention the possible confusion resulting from the double qualifier in paragraphs (b) and (d) of Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060.
We deny the request to require foreign lawyers admitted on a temporary basis to mandatorily associate Florida counsel.
We find it more appropriate to leave such a requirement to the discretion of the court which has jurisdiction of the cause; the requirement may be imposed when that court finds it necessary.
We acknowledge the need to eliminate the double qualifier in Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(b) and (d), and we recognize that Florida Bar Integration Rule, Article 11(2), should be amended to conform to the new Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(b).
The appended amendments of Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060(b) and Florida Bar Integration Rule, Article 11(2), are hereby adopted as revised and shall take effect upon the filing of this opinion.
It is so ordered.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, OVER-TON and McDONALD, JJ., concur. BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion, with which ALDERMAN, J., concurs.
SUNDBERG, J., dissents.
Upon consideration of the motion for rehearing filed by the Florida Conference of Circuit Court Judges, IT IS ORDERED by the Court that said motion be and the same is hereby denied.
ENGLAND, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur. OVERTON and SUNDBERG, JJ., would grant the motion for rehearing.
McDONALD, J., did not participate on this motion for rehearing.
RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION RULE 2.060.
ATTORNEYS (b) FOREIGN ATTORNEYS.
Upon motion filed with a court showing that an attorney is a member in good standing of the bar of another state, attorneys of other states may be permitted to appear in particular cases in a Florida court. A request for an appearance shall be submitted before oral arguments in an appellate court proceeding and before trial in a trial court.
Attorneys of other states shall not do a general practice unless they are members of The Florida Bar in good standing.
INTEGRATION RULE OF THE FLORIDA BAR ARTICLE II MEMBERSHIP 2.
No person shall engage in any way in the practice of law in this state unless such person is an active member of The Florida Bar in good standing except that a practicing attorney of another, state, in good standing, who has professional business in a court of record of this state may, upon motion, be permitted to practice for the purpose of such business only, when it made to appear that he has associated and appearing with him in such business an active member of The Florida Bar; upon such conditions as the court deems appropriate under the circumstances of the case.
BOYD, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The only way to control the handling of litigation before the courts of this state is to have attorneys in cases who are accountable and subject to discipline by Florida judges. This cannot be accomplished effectively unless foreign attorneys are required to associate Florida attorneys over whom the courts exercise direct control.
The Florida Bar’s request for such requirement should be adopted.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lagstrom v. Lagstrom, 662 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…d to stay in the home as if she were awarded a life estate in the husband’s interest in the home. If the court were concerned with providing for the wife, this may be one method. See Lange v. Lange, 357 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 380 So. 2d 1027 (Fla.1980) (special circumstance of wife’s mental illness held to justify exclusive award). An award of exclusive use of property must be determined by the equity of the cause and the final judgment must reflect on its face the reasons for the award…
-
Mosbarger v. Mosbarger, 547 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…is clearly manifested and professionally diagnosed, we are not inclined to believe it should be treated with less compassion. See Simzer v. Simzer, 514 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Lange v. Lange, 357 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), cert. denied, 380 So. 2d 1027 (Fla.1980). Among the factors which the trial court must consider in awarding alimony are both the physical and emotional condition of each party. § 61.08(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1987). Upon remand, we do not compel the trial court to utilize any specifi…
-
Trenton Taylor v. Taylor, 381 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 1980)…of the case.” We find the facts in the instant case are at least as compelling as those in McDonald, and clearly justify the award of exclusive possession by the trial court. See also Lange v. Lange, 357 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), approved in 380 So. 2d 1027 (Fla.1980) (exclusive possession proper where wife was mentally ill and without employment prospects). The petition for writ of certiorari reflected apparent jurisdiction in this Court. We have determined that, subsequent to McDonald and Duncan, th…