THE FLORIDA BAR. IN RE AMENDMENT TO THE INTEGRATION RULE AND BYLAWS RESPECTING CLIENTS' SECURITY FUND
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 declined to expand the Clients' Security Fund to cover misappropriations by attorneys acting in fiduciary capacities unrelated to attorney-client relationships. The Court held that while such misconduct may reflect poorly on the profession, expanding the Fund would exceed the Court's proper jurisdictional boundaries and encroach upon legislative power.
The Court declined to expand the Fund, holding that while it has supervisory jurisdiction over attorneys, it must exercise extreme caution when that jurisdiction overlaps with legislative power. The Fund was properly established to protect persons victimized through attorney-client relationships, and the Legislature has already enacted laws protecting persons who use individual fiduciaries, including those who are attorneys.
[1] The Clients' Security Fund is established to protect persons victimized as a result of an attorney-client relationship.
[2] The Supreme Court's supervisory jurisdiction over attorneys is exercised cautiously, particularly in areas overlapping with legislative power.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 must be extremely cautious when we exercise our supervisory jurisdiction over attorneys in areas which are coextensive with legislative power.”
Establishes the fundamental principle limiting the Court's authority to expand the Fund, preventing encroachment on legislative domain.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board of Governors of The Florida Bar petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to amend the Integration Rule and By-laws to extend the Clients' Securi…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legislative Power cases and more on FLexlaw
By petition we are asked by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar to amend the Integration Rule and By-laws relating to the Clients’ Security Fund1 to extend the Fund’s coverage to misappropriations by attorneys acting in fiduciary capacities unrelated to an attorney-client relationship, such as a personal representative, testamentary trustee, guardian or escrow agent. The Fund presently insures the clients of Florida attorneys against misappropriations of property or funds held by attorneys by reason of an attorney-client relationship.
Based on our jurisdiction to discipline attorneys,2 the Board requests that we expand the coverage of the Fund because there are adequate funds on hand which can be used for that purpose and because any misconduct by attorneys, even when they are not acting in their capacity as a lawyer, reflects adversely on the profession. The Board also suggests that the expansion is needed because attorneys appointed by courts to act in a fiduciary position frequently are not required to obtain fiduciary bonds in as high an amount as other indi viduals acting in the same fiduciary capacities.3
While we appreciate the concerns of the Board and share its desire for an untarnished professional image, we nonetheless decline to expand the Fund as requested. We must be extremely cautious when we exercise our supervisory jurisdiction over attorneys in areas which are coextensive with legislative power. Two examples will illustrate the problem. On the one hand it has long been recognized that a violation of the criminal law adversely reflects on the character of an attorney to such a degree that this Court may take disciplinary action even though a client-attorney relationship is not directly involved.4 On the other hand it is doubtful that we have the power to establish a fund to recompense persons who are assaulted by someone who happens to be an attorney.
The Clients’ Security Fund was established to protect persons victimized as a result of an attorney-client relationship. The Legislature has already acted to protect persons who must use individual fiduciaries, and the reach of the law quite clearly encompasses persons serving as fiduciaries who happen to be attorneys.
If the trial judges of this state presume too much when they require lower bonds for attorney-fiduciaries than for others, the remedy lies within the power of trial judges to apply the law by its terms. The selection of fiduciaries requires a careful inquiry into the character of the individual, not his status or title in our society.
For these reasons, the petition is denied.
ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUND-BERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur. OVERTON, C. J., dissents.
. Fla.Bar Integr.Rule, Art. XVII, § 1; Fla.Bar Integr.Rule By-laws, Art. XVI, § 2(f).
. Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const. . The statutes of this state command the courts to require an adequate bond for all non-corporate fiduciaries, which laws would reach all but private, attorney escrow arrangements. See, for example, §§ 733.402, 733.403, 744.351, 747.-12, Fla.Stat. (1975).
. See Times Publishing Co. v. Williams, 222 So. 2d 470, 475 (Fla.2d DCA 1969), discussing the concurrent authority of this Court and the Legislature to regulate conduct of attorneys which is deemed criminal.