eflon / Flickr / Piqsels / CC BY 2.0ALBANY — Rep. Tom Reed, State Sen. George Borrello and State Rep. Andrew Goodell are among a group of lawmakers who sent a letter to Gov. Andrew Cuomo blasting the state’s return to school guidelines.Reed and 12 New York State legislators sent a joint letter to Cuomo and the New York State Department of Health calling them out for what they say are confusing and potentially disastrous back-to-school guidance. The newly released New York State rules dramatically expand the criteria children or staff must meet before they can return to school.Previously, the state guidelines required students and staff to meet only one of these criteria: be quarantined for a certain number of days and be symptom-free upon return; receive approval from a primary care provider or school medical director after receiving an alternative diagnosis with similar symptoms such as ear infections, strep throat, seasonal allergies or other related illnesses or receive a negative COVID-19 test.Current guidance now requires staff and students who exhibit symptoms to meet all three criteria, which means these students and staff will require a negative COVID-19 test to return to school. This would place an undue burden on parents and families across the state, as well as cut children’s doctors out of the decision-making process. With this new policy, parents and school staff will often be responsible for the cost of COVID-19 tests. Likewise, these policies will unnecessarily overburden New York’s testing capacity, which in turn will take testing resources away from others.“We care about making sure common-sense guidelines are put into place that allow for a safe, practical return to school for students and staff alike,” said Reed. “These new state rules have introduced a tremendous amount of confusion and concern from parents, students, and staff worried about the burden of unnecessary costs and excessive classroom absences. We are committed to working together to make sure parents, students, and staff can all safely return to school and succeed in the classroom.”The letter calls for “common sense guidance that will provide clear, practical guidelines for a safe return to school that also does not overtax parents, staff, or the testing system.”In the letter, lawmakers argue the new testing levels will “dramatically curtail available testing capacity. COVID-19 has a wide array of symptoms including fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, and diarrhea. These symptoms also correspond with several common illnesses children get every year. If parents are required to have their child tested for exhibiting these symptoms, it will needlessly overwhelm our current capacity and take resources away from those that truly need it.”In addition, the writers argue testing results can often be delayed for nearly a week.“A child with a simple cough or runny nose, under these new rules, would be forced to stay at home and miss a week or more of school waiting for a COVID-19 negative test. Unnecessary absences will skyrocket, which in turn will limit children’s capacity to learn.”Also, the letter charges that new requirements will take “a child’s doctor out of the picture. There are illnesses that can be ruled out by family physicians. Under the current language, a child could see their doctor, test positive for Strep throat and still need a COVID-19 test before considering returning to school. This is not only a waste of COVID-19 testing capacity; increasing the number of tests unnecessarily delays the turnaround time for others waiting for a test result.”“Most major insurers are only reimbursing the cost of a COVID-19 test if it is medically necessary. By taking the doctor out of the equation, families will be forced to burden the cost of an unnecessary COVID-19 test. This could result in parents deciding to either not seek medical care for their child for fear of being required to personally cover a COVID-19 test, or parents trying to hide a child’s symptoms.” Share:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
Four University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CAES) students will expand their education beyond the university’s Athens campus thanks to the legacy of one pioneering agricultural scientist, Thomas Jackson “Jack” Ratcliffe Jr.In its inaugural year, the college’s Ratcliffe Scholars Program will give four CAES students $5,000 each to participate in immersive, hands-on educational experiences outside the bounds of a traditional classroom.The students can use the funds for internships, study abroad programs, research opportunities and other worthy experiential learning activities.The Ratcliffe family established the new scholarship in honor of their father and early 20th-century CAES graduate, Thomas Jackson Ratcliffe Jr.Ratcliffe, who was born in 1916, served as a UGA Cooperative Extension agent in Lanier County, Georgia, following his graduation from UGA. He moved to Tifton, Georgia, in 1945 with his wife, Mary Frances Moore. There, he went to work for the Georgia Department of Entomology, which has since merged with the Georgia Department of Agriculture.Through annual funding, the Ratcliffe Scholars Program will grant exceptional CAES students the ability to gain experiential learning in their fields that will impact their future careers.This year’s Ratcliffe Scholars are Grant Dawson, Lindsey Fenster, Savannah Finley and Jacqueline Kessler.Dawson is a third-year student who’s majoring in biological science with an emphasis in avian biology. On campus, he participates in the CAES students’ Mentoring Among Peers Program and the UGA Pre-Dental Society. He also took part in the CAES Spring Break Georgia Agriculture Tour and learned about farms and other agriculture-related businesses across the state.Dawson intends to use this scholarship funding to study the gardens of Europe this summer. He will use any funds left after the trip as a resource for his research with Assistant Professor Woo Kim in the poultry science department, studying the differentiation of chicken stem cells.Fenster is a third-year animal science major. A Department of Animal and Dairy Science teaching assistant and a small-animal internal medicine orderly at the UGA veterinary medicine hospital, Fenster also works with first-year students as a mentor in the UGA Honors Program’s Peer Assisted Leadership program.Fenster intends to use her Ratcliffe Scholar funds to support her summer internship in hog production with Smithfield Foods. This internship will expose her to new areas of swine production and veterinary medicine, adding dimension to her understanding of large-scale food organizations.Finley is a third-year student majoring in biological science and minoring in public health. On campus, she serves as a resident assistant at Busbee Hall and as an officer in the Minorities in Agriculture, Natural Resources and Related Sciences organization and One Health Club.Finley plans to use her scholarship to study abroad in Cortona, Italy, where she will learn about the health implications of wine consumption and the economic impact of the wine industry.Kessler is a third-year student majoring in environmental economics and management and minoring in Spanish. On campus, she is the president of the Agricultural and Environmental Economics Club; a board member for Bag the Bag UGA, an environmental activism organization; and the treasurer of the Georgia Chapter of the Society for Conservation Biology.Kessler plans to use her scholarship toward her stay in Washington, D.C., this summer, where she will intern with an environmental organization that focuses on environmental justice, climate change and renewable energy. She considers environmental service extremely important, and this internship is instrumental in meeting her long-term goal of a career in environmental policy.For more information about the Ratcliffe Scholars Program and experiential learning activities available to CAES students, visit www.students.caes.uga.edu.
March 1, 2004 Notices March 1, 2004 LAWS Regular News EXPLANATION Rule 8.415(f)(6) Amended to remove provision for commitment of child to licensed child-placing agency for adoption. Conforms the rule to section 39.812(1), Florida Statutes. See § 5, Ch. 2001-3, Laws of Fla. After a termination of parental rights, the child is committed to the Department of Children and Family Services, which may then place the child with a licensed child-placing agency. See also §§ 39.811(2), (4). Editorial changes. Board to make appointments in April The Board of Governors is seeking applicants for the following vacancies to be filled during its April 2 meeting: Supreme Court’s Bar Admissions Committee: One lawyer to serve a two-year staggered term commencing July 1. This Supreme Court committee, which is authorized under Rule 1-26.2 of the Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar, coordinates the work of the bench, bar, law schools, and bar examiners. It consists of 13 members, two of whom are designated by the Board of Governors.Persons interested in applying for these vacancies may download the application from the Bar’s Web site, www.flabar.org, or should call Bar headquarters at (850)561-5600, ext. 5757, to obtain an application form. Completed applications must be submitted to the Executive Director, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Streeet, Tallahassee 32399-2300 no later than close of business, Monday, March 8. Resumes will not be accepted in lieu of an application.Executive committee takes legislative position Under Rule 2-9.3 (b) – (e), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, active members of the Bar may file a specific objection to any legislative position adopted by the Board of Governors.Objections properly filed within 45 days of this News issue will be considered for a refund of that portion of mandatory membership fees applicable to the contested legislative position, within an additional 45 days. The Bar’s governing board has the option to grant the appropriate refund to an objector or to refer the matter to arbitration.The arbitration process will determine solely whether the legislative position is within those acceptable activities for which compulsory membership fees may be used under applicable constitutional law. The objecting member’s fees allocable to the contested legislative position will be escrowed promptly upon receipt of the objection, and any refund will bear legal interest.Any active member may provide written notice to the executive director of The Florida Bar, setting forth an objection to a particular legislative position. Failure to object within 45 days of this News issue will constitute a waiver of any right to object to a particular legislative position within this notice.The policy requires the Bar to notice such legislative positions in the next available News issue following their adoption.Pursuant to Standing Board Policy 9.21, on February 17 the Board of Governors Executive Committee approved the following positions of The Florida Bar:12. Opposes amendment of Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution which would alter the Supreme Court’s authority to adopt rules for practice and procedure in all courts, or which would change the manner by which such rules may be repealed by the legislature.Young lawyers to fill board positions In considering the ABA Model Rules, the committee reviewed not only the changes recently adopted by the ABA House of Delegates, but also reviewed the existing ABA Model Rules to determine where Florida’s rules differ from the ABA Model Rules. The committee agreed that conformity with the ABA Model Rules was desirable as a goal, but not where Florida has diverged from the ABA Model Rules for important policy considerations. As an example, Florida’s confidentiality rule, 4-1.6, contains mandatory exceptions to prevent a client from committing a crime and to prevent death or substantial bodily harm, whereas the ABA model rule’s exceptions are merely permissive. The committee recommends retention of the existing Florida rule as providing more protection to the public by removing discretion of the lawyer not to disclose in those circumstances. As another example, Florida as a policy has determined that post-trial contact with jurors is impermissible without notice to the court and opposing side; therefore, a majority of the committee recommends retention of existing Rule 4-3.5 with no changes. As a final example, the committee does not recommend adopting any changes to the attorney advertising rules (4-7.1 through 4-7.11), as this area is one in which there is great divergence from the ABA Model Rules based on policy decisions by numerous Florida Bar commissions.The committee also reviewed changes to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) and 1.13 (Organization as Client) that were made at the recommendation of the ABA Task Force on Corporate Responsibility in the wake of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the SEC regulations that were adopted after Sarbanes-Oxley. The changes to ABA Model Rule 1.6 would allow an attorney to disclose confidential information to either prevent or mitigate financial injury in which the lawyer’s services have been used to further a client’s crime or fraud. Changes to ABA Model Rule 1.13 would allow an attorney to disclose a corporate client’s legal violations that would damage the corporation to those outside the corporation if the corporation fails to address the violation after the lawyer has reported the issue “up the ladder” at the corporation. The committee does not recommend similar changes to Florida rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.13 for a number of reasons: the proposed changes are broad, go beyond even the new SEC regulations created in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley, go far beyond any exceptions to confidentiality already in the rules of professional conduct, and create conflicts between attorneys and their clients.Some of the changes made were either of such import or were so pervasive throughout the rules that they merit special mention.Throughout the rules, the ABA House of Delegates changed “consent after consultation” to “informed consent.” The ABA Ethics Commission 2000 stated that they believed the change clarified and strengthened the requirement of communication with clients regarding consent. “Informed consent” is defined as “agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.” The committee agrees that the lawyer’s duty of communication to the client is more clearly delineated by this definition and therefore recommends adoption of this change throughout the rules, appearing in terminology, 4-1.2 (Scope of Representation), 4-1.4 (Communication), 4-1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 4-1.7 (Conflict of Interest; Current Clients), 4-1.8 (Conflict of Interest; Prohibited and Other Transactions), 4-1.9 (Conflict of Interest; Former Client), 4-1.11 (Special Conflicts of Interest for Former and Current Government Officers and Employees), 4-1.12 (Former Judge or Arbitrator), and 4-2.3 (Evaluation for Use by Third Persons).The ABA House of Delegates also adopted in many rules a requirement that consent be “confirmed in writing.” A lawyer is required to either have the person give consent in writing or the lawyer may obtain oral consent after which the lawyer gives or sends a written statement that the consent has occurred. The committee initially rejected this approach, then determined that the requirement did not place an unreasonable burden on the lawyer or unreasonably “chill” the lawyer-client relationship, because it does not require that the person actually sign a consent. It merely requires that the lawyer provide a written confirmation that the consent occurred to the person who consented. The committee does not recommend adoption of this requirement in every rule that the ABA House of Delegates modified, confining the change to terminology and rules 4-1.7, 4-1.11, and 4-1.12.The ABA House of Delegates adopted and the committee recommends changes to Rule 4-1.4 (Communication) that strengthen a lawyer’s obligation to communicate with clients. The changes to the rule set forth specific requirements of communication, such as the obligation to promptly inform the client of any decision or requirement in the rules, consult with the client about how the goals of the representation will be accomplished, keep the client informed on the progress of the matter, respond to requests for information, and consult with the client when the lawyer understands that the client wants the lawyer to engage in unethical or illegal conduct. Changes to the comment reflect the modifications to the rule.The committee recommends changes to Rule 4-1.7(Conflict of Interest) based on changes made by the ABA House of Delegates. In the main, no change in the substance of the rule is intended. The changes are intended to better organize and clarify the meaning of the rule. One change, already noted, is the requirement that the client give informed consent to waive a conflict, and that informed consent must be confirmed in writing. The ABA House of Delegates adopted numerous changes to the comment to Rule 4-1.7; the committee declines to recommend adoption of the vast majority of the changes. The committee believes the existing comment to the rule provides better guidance than the changes adopted by the ABA, and the additions made by the ABA are already covered in existing Florida authority such as caselaw and ethics opinions. The committee does recommend adding an explanation of confirmed in writing to the comment.The committee recommends adoption of requirements that strengthen the protection of clients in Rule 4-1.8 (Conflict of Interest; Prohibited and Other Transactions). The changes include clarifying that in a business transaction with a client, the requirement that there be written consent by the client includes that the writing spell out the terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction in subdivision (a). The committee also recommends adding to subdivision (c) that a lawyer cannot solicit a substantial gift from a client to the existing prohibition against preparing an instrument by a client giving any substantial gift to the lawyer or the lawyer’s family. The committee also recommends adding in subdivision (g) that consent to aggregate settlement of client claims must be in writing, signed by the client. There are also substantial additions to the comment, providing additional explanation to existing rules. Finally, new subdivision (k) imputes all conflicts listed in the rule to lawyers in the same firm; previously, subdivision (c) regarding preparing an instrument in which a client gave a substantial gift to the lawyer or lawyer’s family was excepted from the imputation of conflicts.Substantial amendments to ABA Model Rule 1.9 were adopted by the ABA House of Delegates. The committee recommends against adoption of most of the changes. As noted above, the committee recommends adopting the change from “consent after consultation” to “gives informed consent” for consistency with the other rules. However, the ABA changes require that consent be confirmed in writing. The committee recommends against this change, believing that although conflicts involving current conflicts of interest should be confirmed in writing because of the existing relationship, confirmation in writing should not be required when conflicts involving former clients because the relationship considerations are minimized with former clients. The committee believes that a lawyer should not be disciplined for failing to confirm a waiver of a conflict of interest involving a former client in writing if the former client has made an informed waiver. Although the ABA did not attempt to define “generally known” for purposes of this rule, Florida’s rule 4-1.9 has a definition of “generally known.” In the process of examining the rule regarding the ABA changes, the committee reviewed the definition. The committee believes the definition of “generally known” is best placed in the comment of the rule, being more consistent with the general format of the rule. The committee also recommends the language be clarified to make clear that “generally known” is subject to a “but for” test; that is, “but for” the prior attorney-client relationship, the lawyer would neither know nor discover the information. Finally, the committee appreciates the attempt by the ABA to define “substantially related;” however, the committee finds the ABA’s attempt to define “substantially related” unhelpful because it blurs the distinction between the duties of loyalty and confidentiality owed to former clients. The committee therefore recommends adoption of some of the explanatory language of the new ABA comment, but separates the two concepts of loyalty and confidentiality for purposes of Florida’s comment.ABA Model Rule 1.10 was amended so that personal conflicts of interest of one lawyer are not imputed to the lawyer’s firm unless there is a significant risk that the representation of the client would be affected. The rationale for the change is that neither loyalty considerations nor protection of confidential information are raised by removing the imputation as long as the remaining firm members who will actually represent the client are not affected by the personal conflict of one firm lawyer. The example provided in the new comment is a lawyer with strong political beliefs in conflict with the representation of the client. As long as the other lawyers in the firm remain unaffected by the individual lawyer’s personal conflict, those other lawyers should be able to represent the client. The committee agrees with the rationale offered for the change and therefore recommends the change in Florida rule 4-1.10. An addition to the comment to this rule addresses the frequently raised issue of conflicts of nonlawyer employees. The addition notes that conflicts of nonlawyers will not be imputed to the entire law firm, but that the law firm must make adequate provisions to screen the nonlawyer from participation in the matter.ABA Model Rule 1.12 was amended to extend the rule to include former mediators and other third-party neutrals. The change recognizes that more lawyers are serving in the capacity of third-party neutrals and clarifies their responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee agrees with and recommends this change. The committee recommends the further addition to the comment that a Florida Bar member who is a certified mediator is subject to applicable law and other rules governing certified mediators.The committee recommends the changes to Rule 4-1.14 approved by the ABA House of Delegates. The rule, currently titled client under a disability, involves a change in terminology to “diminished capacity.” The rule currently allows an attorney to take protective action when the client cannot act in the client’s own interest because of the disability, and the committee recommends adding the requirement that the client is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless the action is taken. Additionally, changes to the rule would specifically allow an attorney to disclose confidential information in order to protect the client’s interests, but only to the extent necessary to protect those interests. The changes to the comment reflect the changes to the rule, and address factors a lawyer should consider in determining diminished capacity. The comment also would provide additional guidance on appropriate protective action for an attorney in dealing with a client with diminished capacity.The ABA House of Delegates approved changes to its sale of a law practice rule (model rule 1.17) that would allow the sale of part of a practice as opposed to the former requirement that the sale be of the entire practice to one purchaser. The change eliminates the requirement that the sale be to a single purchaser. The rationale for the change is that the prior rule was unduly restrictive for its purpose: to ensure that all cases and clients were disposed of in the event the practice was sold. The committee agrees with the rationale and therefore recommends amendment of Florida Rule 4-1.17 to allow the sale of a practice or an area of practice to one or more purchasers. The committee disagreed, however, with the ABA requirement that the seller discontinue the practice of law in the event of a sale of the entire practice or discontinue the area of practice if an area of practice is sold. The committee believes that requirement is unduly restrictive and does not serve to protect the interests of clients.An entirely new rule, 1.18, was added to the ABA Model Rules regarding duties to prospective clients. The rule mainly addresses the lawyer’s responsibility to maintain confidentiality of prospective clients’ information, based on the duty of confidentiality owed to former clients. Lawyers would therefore be precluded from representation adverse to a prospective client who had consulted with the lawyer in the same or a substantially related matter if the information gained from that consultation “could be significantly harmful” to the prospective client. The ABA adopted two exceptions to the prohibited representation: with the informed consent of both the client and prospective client or with timely appropriate screening of the disqualified lawyer. The committee believes the principles set forth in the rule are important and would provide guidance to lawyers on dealing with prospective clients. However, the committee disagrees with the concept of screening to avoid conflicts, which is generally impermissible in Florida except under very limited circumstances that are not present in the prospective client situation. Therefore, the committee recommends adoption of new Rule 4-1.18, but without the screening exception employed by the ABA and changing the phrase “could be significantly harmful” to “could be used to the disadvantage of” to the prospective client to more closely conform to existing concepts in Florida.ABA Rule 2.2, Intermediary, has been deleted in its entirety. The reporter’s explanation for the deletion is that the rule was mainly adopted to address the perception that lawyers believed that common representation of multiple clients was prohibited. However, common representation is much more accepted today, and the concepts of common representation are best set forth in 1.7, the rule dealing with conflicts involving current clients. The committee agrees with the action of the ABA House of Delegates and therefore recommends deletion of Rule 4-2.2. However, in order to retain the existing numeric scheme for ease of use and research, the committee recommends designating the number 4-2.2 as “open” so that the rules need not be renumbered.The ABA also adopted an entirely new rule on lawyers serving as third-party neutrals, in recognition that many more lawyers are serving in this capacity. New ABA Model Rule 2.4 includes a definition of serving as a third-party neutral and a requirement that the lawyer inform the parties involved that the lawyer does not represent them. The new rule imposes a duty on the lawyer to correct any misunderstanding regarding the lawyer’s role when acting as a third-party neutral. The committee agrees with the rationale and rule and recommends adoption of new Florida Rule 4-2.4 that is identical to the model rule.Although the changes made by the ABA House of Delegates to the trial publicity rule (3.6) were relatively minor with no intended change in substance, the previous ABA model rule already substantially differed from the current Florida rule, 4-3.6. After study, the committee recommends adopting changes in Florida’s rule to conform Florida’s rule to the ABA model rule by adding the safe harbor provisions existing in the ABA model rule and by adding the self defense exception. The safe harbor provisions, which the committee recommends adding in subdivision (c), set forth those things that an attorney may state to the media without fear of violating the trial publicity rule. The self defense exception, which the committee recommends adding in subdivision (d), would allow an attorney to respond with public statements to the media on behalf of a client when there has been adverse publicity not initiated by the lawyer or client. The committee believes that these additions will provide clearer guidance to lawyers regarding their responsibilities under the trial publicity rule.Similarly, there were only minor changes made by the ABA House of Delegates to model rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of Prosecutors, but there were already significant differences between it and Florida’s counterpart, 4-3.8. The committee recommends that Florida’s rule be changed to encompass some, but not all, of the concepts addressed in the ABA model rule. The committee agrees that prosecutors should make efforts to ensure that a person accused of a crime has been advised of the right to counsel and has been given a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel, and therefore recommends addition of new subdivision (b). The committee also agrees with and recommends adoption of new subdivision (e), which prohibits a prosecutor from issuing a subpoena to a lawyer in a proceeding to testify about a client unless the information is not privileged and is necessary to the case. On the other hand, the committee disagrees with and recommends against adding the requirement that prosecutors make efforts to ensure that others such as police and investigators, follow the trial publicity rule. Prosecutors are already required to make such efforts under the trial publicity rule, so a special requirement here is unnecessary.Because the issue arises so frequently with modern modes of communication, the ABA House of Delegates chose to address the issue of the misdelivered document in model rule 4.4, adding a provision setting forth the lawyer’s responsibility under that circumstance. The provision states that the lawyer must promptly notify the sender. Additional commentary provides further guidance, but notes that any other responsibility and whether or not the document is privileged are matters outside the scope of the rules. The committee agrees that the issue arises with such frequency that guidance in the rules is desirable and recommends adoption of the new subdivision (b) and commentary to Florida Rule 4-4.4.The ABA House of Delegates approved changes to model rule 5.4 to allow fee sharing with nonprofit, pro bono legal services organizations that employ or recommend a lawyer in accordance with ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 93-374, which found such fee-sharing permissible. The reporter’s notes indicate that the change to the rule was proposed because many states, although agreeing with the rationale for allowing such fee sharing, felt that it was prohibited by the plain language of the rule. The reporter’s notes indicate that Ethics Commission 2000 believed that division of fees with a nonprofit, pro bono legal services organization offered less of a “threat to independent professional judgment” in making the recommendation. The committee agrees with this rationale and recommends the change to Florida’s Rule 4-5.4.The ABA House of Delegates approved changes to the scienter requirement in the reporting rule, model rule 8.3 from “having knowledge” to “knows” to conform to scienter requirements elsewhere in the rules. The committee recommends making those changes. While reviewing the model rule, the committee noted that the ABA model rule contains an exception to the reporting requirement for lawyers participating in a lawyers assistance program to encourage lawyers and judges to take steps to seek assistance. The committee agrees with the rationale and recommends conforming Florida’s rule 4-8.3 to include such an exception, but also recommends provisions that allows disclosure of information about lawyers who are participating in an assistance program as part of a disciplinary sanction.The committee recommends only minor changes to some rules. The changes are mainly organizational, to add clarity, or to conform to terminology used elsewhere in the rules. Rules with minor changes include: 4-1.6, 4-1.11 (former and current government officers and employees), 4-1.13 (Organization as Client), 4-1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation), 4-3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 4-3.3 (Expediting Litigation), 4-3.7 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 4-3.9 (Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings), 4-4.3 (Dealing with Unrepresented Persons), 4-5.1 (Responsibilities of a Partner or Lawyer), 4-5.3 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants), 4-5.6 (Restrictions on Right to Practice), 4-8.4 (Misconduct), and 5-1.1 (Trust Accounts).The committee recommends changes to only the comments in 8 rules: 4-1.1 (Competence), 4-1.3 (Diligence), 4-1.5 (Fees for Legal Services), 4-2.1 (Adviser), 4-3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 4-4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), 4-4.2 (Communication with Person Represented by Counsel), and 4-8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters).The committee recommends making no changes to 25 rules: 4-3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 4-3.5 (Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal), 4-5.2 (Responsibilities of a Subordinate Lawyer), 4-5.5 (Unlicensed Practice of Law), 4-5.7 (Responsibilities Regarding Nonlegal Services), 4-6.1 (Pro Bono Public Service), 4-6.2 (Accepting Appointments), 4-6.4 (Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests), 4-6.5 (Voluntary Pro Bono Plan), 4-7.1 through 4-7.11 (Attorney Advertising Rules), 4-8.1 (Bar Admission and Disciplinary Matters), 4-8.2 (Judicial and Legal Officials), 4-8.5 (Jurisdiction), 4-8.6 (Authorized Business Entities), and 5-1.2 (Trust Accounting Records and Procedures). Some of the counterparts in the ABA Model Rules were changed by the ABA House of Delegates.As noted above, the committee recommends against making changes to rules where Florida has clearly chosen as a policy to diverge from the ABA Model Rules. Additionally, the committee recommends against adopting some of the changes made to the ABA Model Rules, where the changes involve issues under study by other Florida Bar committees. The ABA House of Delegates adopted changes to the model rules in response to a study on multijurisdictional practice in ABA Model Rules 5.5 and 8.5. The committee recommends against adopting the change in Florida’s counterpart rules 4-5.5 and 4-8.5, because of the study currently being concluded by The Florida Bar’s Special Commission on the Multijurisdictional Practice of Law 2002. Similarly, the committee recommends against most changes to Florida’s Rule 4-4.2, because The Florida Bar’s Special Committee to Review Rule 4-4.2 concluded a study of the rule in October 2002, recommending a very minor change to the comment of the rule only. Therefore, the committee recommends adopting relatively minor changes to the comment that do not conflict with the recommendations of the Special Committee to Review Rule 4-4.2, and recommends against adopting the “authorized by law or court order” exception to the rule contained in new ABA Model Rule 4.2 (the model rule already contained the “authorized by law” exception, but added the exception of authorized by court order).Finally, as a form change, the committee recommends numbering the paragraphs of the commentary of all rules, following ABA format for the model rules. The change is not substantive, but is intended for ease of reference in researching the rules.The full text of the report, including proposed changes to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, can be found on the bar’s website at www.flabar.org, under organization, committees, special.The affected rules are: Subchapter 4-1, 4-1.1, 4-1.2, 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-1.5, 4-1.6, 4-1.7, 4-1.8, 4-1.9, 4-1.10, 4-1.11, 4-1.12, 4-1.13, 4-1.14, 4-1.15, 4-1.16, 4-1.17, 4-1.18, Subchapter 4-2, 4-2.1, 4-2.2, 4-2.3, 4-2.4, Subchapter 4-3, 4-3.1, 4-3.2, 4-3.3, 4-3.4, 4-3.5, 4-3.6, 4-3.7, 4-3.8, 4-3.9, Subchapter 4-4, 4-4.1, 4-4.2, 4-4.3, 4-4.4, 4-5.1, 4-5.2, 4-5.3, 4-5.4, 4-5.5, 4-5.6, 4-5.7, Subchapter 4-6, 4-6.1, 4-6.2, 4-6.3, 4-6.4, 4-6.5, Subchapter 4-7, 4-7.1, 4-7.2, 4-7.3, 4-7.4, 4-7.5, 4-7.6, 4-7.7, 4-7.8, 4-7.9, 4-7.10, 4-7.11, Subchapter 4-8, 4-8.1, 4-8.2, 4-8.3, 4-8.4, 4-8.5, 4-8.6, Chapter 5, Subchapter 5-1, 5-1.1, 5-1.2.Proposed Rules of Juvenile Procedure Rule 8.535(c) Amended to add sentence stating that petition for adoption must be filed in court that entered the judgment terminating parental rights unless a motion for a change of venue is granted. Conforms rule to section 39.812(5), Florida Statutes. Editorial changes. Rule 9.142 (Procedures for Review in Death Penalty Cases)Amends (a)(6) to change the remedy portion of the rule’s language, “a new trial”, to “remand for appropriate relief.” Rule 3.800 (Correction, Reduction, and Modification of Sentences) Amendment proposed by Court allows a movant to file a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion under rule 3.800. Rule 8.410(b)(4) Amended to clarify court’s determination when a case plan has a goal of reunification. (c) Amended to change from goals for reunification to goals for permanency for the child. Not all case plans have a goal of reunification. See §§ 39.601(3)(a), (3)(l), Fla. Stat. (Case plan to describe “permanency goal” for child.) Deletes Committee Note. Editorial changes. Rule 8.255Deletes subdivision (i) because of creation of Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.257, General Masters. Editorial changes. Rule 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Non-Final Orders and Specified Final Orders)Amends (a)(3)(C) by adding a new subdivision (viii) to make the rule consistent with the Bert Harris Act, F.S. 70.001(6)(a), which provides a statutory grant of a right of interlocutory appeal. This statutory paragraph is a nullity unless rule 9.130 is amended. The new subdivision provides for interlocutory review of a determination that a property has been inordinately burdened. Amends (a)(5) to allow appeals from orders entered on motions for relief from judgment filed under Juvenile Procedure Rule 8.270. Rule 9.130(a)(5) inadvertently omitted rule 8.270 when it allowed appeals from orders on motions for relief from judgment. RULE/FORM The Florida Bar Appellate Court Rules Committee (committee) has filed its regular-cycle report of proposed rule changes. The committee proposes amendments to existing rules 9.020 (Definitions); 9.030 (Jurisdiction of Courts); 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Non-Final Orders and Specified Final Orders); 9.142 (Procedures for Review in Death Penalty Cases); 9.145 (Appeal Proceedings in Juvenile Delinquency Cases); 9.180 (Appeal Proceedings to Review Workers’ Compensation Cases); 9.190 (Judicial Review of Administrative Action); 9.220 (Appendix); 9.370 (Amicus Curiae); 9.420 (Filing; Service of Copies; Computation of Time); 9.430 (Proceedings by Indigents); 9.800 (Uniform Citation System); and 9.900 (Forms). The Court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, a summary of which is provided below. The proposals are reproduced in full online athttp://www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/proposed.html. An original and nine copies of all comments must be filed with the Court on or before April 1, 2004, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, The Honorable Mark King Leban, 175 Northwest First Avenue, Suite 2322, Miami, Florida 33128-1846. If comments are directed toward the proposed amendment to rule 9.030, the certificate of service shall verify that a copy also has been served on the proponents of the amendment, The Honorable Larry Klein, Fourth District Court of Appeal, Post Office Box 3315, West Palm Beach, Florida 33402, and The Honorable Nancy Daniels, Public Defender, 302 South Monroe Street, Suite 401, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1803. A separate request for oral argument must be filed if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument scheduled in this case for June 2004. All comments must be filed in paper format and in WordPerfect 5.1 (or higher) format on a DOS formatted 3-1/2 inch diskette. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CASE NO. SC04-100. Rule 9.370 (Amicus Curiae)Responds to Supreme Court request in Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 827 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 2002). Amends rule to require amicus to obtain consent of the court to file amicus brief and clarifies by leave of court is the only way to file these briefs. The motion seeking leave to file amicus brief must inform the court whether the parties agree to the filing. Criminal Procedure Rules The Florida Bar Criminal Procedure Rules Committee (committee) has filed its regular-cycle report of proposed rule changes. The committee proposes new rules 3.575 (Motion to Interview Juror) and 3.995 (Order of Revocation of Probation/Community Control). The committee proposes amendments to existing rules 3.150 (Joinder of Offenses and Defendants); 3.180 (Presence of Defendant); 3.191 (Speedy Trial); 3.710 (Presentence Report); 3.986 (Forms Related to Judgment and Sentence). On its own motion, the Court proposes an amendment to rule 3.800 (Correction, Reduction, and Modification of Sentences). The Court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, a summary of which is provided below. The proposals are reproduced in full online athttp://www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/proposed.html. An original and nine copies of all comments must be filed with the Court on or before April 1, 2004, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, The Honorable Olin Wilson Shinholser, Post Office Box 9000, Bartow, Florida 33831-9000. If comments are directed toward the proposed amendment to rule 3.180, the certificate of service shall verify that a copy also has been served on the proponent of the amendment, The Honorable Scott J. Silverman, 1351 N.W. 12th Street, Suite 712, Miami, Florida 33125-1627. If comments are directed toward the proposed amendment to rule 3.986, the certificate of service shall verify that a copy also has been served on the proponent of the amendment, The Honorable Robert L. Doyel, Polk Co. Courthouse,Post Office Box 9000, Bartow, Florida 33831-9000. If comments are directed toward new rule 3.995, the certificate of service shall verify that a copy also has been served on the proponent of the rule, The Honorable Chris W. Altenbernd, Second District Court of Appeal, 1700 N. Tampa Street, no. 300, Tampa, FL 33602-2648. A separate request for oral argument must be filed if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument scheduled in this case for June. All comments must be filed in paper format and in WordPerfect 5.1 (or higher) format on a DOS formatted 3-1/2 inch diskette. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CASE NO. SC04-100. Rule 8.257Creates new rule governing use of general masters in dependency proceedings. This rule was created at the Supreme Court’s request (see Amendments to Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, 827 So.2d 219 (Fla. 2002)). It is patterned after Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.490 and creates a procedure for referral to a general master, consent by the parties, orders of referral, hearings before the master, the master’s report, exceptions to the report, and creation of a record. Some changes were made from the Family Law Rule to conform the rule to juvenile dependency proceedings. The Family Law Rules Committee invites comment on proposed out-of-cycle amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure shown below. The proposed amendments, prepared at the Supreme Court’s request, have been filed with the court. The full text of the proposals can be found on The Florida Bar’s website at www.flabar.org. Interested persons have until April 1, 2004, to submit comments to Jeffrey P. Wasserman, committee chair, 7777 Glades Road, Ste. 110, Boca Raton, FL 33434-7722. Rule 8.510(a)(3) Amended to require failure to personally appear and to specify action to be taken. Conforms rule to sections 39.801(3)(a), (3)(d), Florida Statutes. (a)(4) Amended to clarify entry of admissions or consents to termination of parental rights. Termination of parental rights now requires a two-prong determination. The best interest of the child is the second prong. See § 39.802(4), Fla. Stat. Editorial changes. Rule 8.165(a) Amended to require that child be given meaningful opportunity to confer with counsel before waiving counsel. (b) New subdivision (3) added requiring that when child is entering plea or being tried on delinquent act that a written waiver of counsel be submitted in the presence of a parent, legal custodian, responsible adult relative or an attorney assigned by the court to assist the child and that that person verify that the child’s decision to waive counsel has been discussed and appears to be knowing and voluntary. Both of these amendments were made in accordance with recommendations of The Florida Bar Commission on the Legal Needs of Children. (Final Report, June 2002). Editorial changes. Additional Proposed Family Law Rules The Special Committee to Review the ABA Model Rules 2002 has been created to study the changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct adopted by the ABA House of Delegates in February 2002 from recommendations of the American Bar Association Ethics Commission 2000. Building on the work of the Ethics 2000 Review panel, this committee’s charge is to analyze the changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, compare them with existing Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and consider whether The Florida Bar should adopt the recommended changes. The primary concern in analyzing the changes to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct should be protecting the public and maintaining the core values of the legal profession. Rule 8.245(g)(2)(B) Amended to allow the clerk, the court, or any attorney of record to issue subpoenas for taking depositions. Conforms this subdivision to Fla.R.Juv.P. 8.225(a)(2) and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.410(a). Editorial changes. The Florida Bar Young Lawyers Division is now seeking applicants for the positions of secretary, sergeant-at-arms, recorder, historian, and parliamentarian for its 2004-2005 board.Applicants will be expected to attend all seven of the YLD’s board meetings during the Bar year beginning in June and ending June 2005.Applicants may apply for more than one position.Anyone interested should send a resume and letter explaining why they wish to serve on the board to YLD Administrator Austin Newberry, The Florida Bar, 651 E. Jefferson St., Tallahassee 32399-2300.The appointments will be made by Michael Faehner, YLD president-elect. The deadline to submit letters and resumes is March 20.Barnett petitions for readmission Rule 3.150(c) (Joinder of Offenses and Defendants)Amendment requires trial court to make inquiry when 2 or more codefendants are represented by same counsel. It is intended to avoid post-conviction litigation concerning joint representation of defendants by counsel and is based on Rule 44, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 12.900(e)19-1-2As required by Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.040(d), creates form for Acknowledgment of Assistance by Attorney. The Board of Governors is seeking applicants for the following vacancies for nominations to be submitted to Governor Bush on or before June 3: Judicial Nominating Commissions: One lawyer vacancy for each of the 26 JNCs. The Florida Bar must nominate three lawyers for each vacancy to the governor for his appointment. Each appointee will serve a four-year term, commencing July 1. Applicants must be engaged in the practice of law and a resident of the territorial jurisdiction served by the commission to which the member is applying. Applicants must comply with state financial disclosure laws. Commissioners are not eligible for state judicial office for vacancies filled by the JNC on which they sit for two years following completion of their four-year term.Applications must be completed for each vacancy you are applying for and must be received by mail or fax, (850) 561-5826, no later than 5:30 p.m., Friday, March 19.Resumes will not be accepted in lieu of an application. Screening committees of the Board of Governors will review all JNC applications. The committees will then make recommendations to the Board of Governors.Persons interested in applying for any of these vacancies may download the proper application form (there is a specific JNC application) from the Bar’s Web site, www.flabar.org, or should call Bar headquarters at (850) 561-5600, ext. 5757, to obtain the application. Completed applications must be received by the Executive Director, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300 by the March 19 deadline.Board of Bar Examiners, Commission on Professionalism appointments available The Board of Governors is seeking applicants for the following vacancies to be filled during its May 28 meeting: Florida Board of Bar Examiners Vacancy : Lawyer applicants are being sought to fill two vacancies on the Florida Board of Bar Examiners. The Board of Governors will be selecting six nominees for two lawyer vacancies at its May 28, 2004, meeting. The nominations will then be forwarded to the Supreme Court to fill the five-year terms commencing November 1 and expiring on October 31, 2009.Attorney members must have been a member of The Florida Bar for at least five years. They must be practicing lawyers with scholarly attainments and have an affirmative interest in legal education and requirements for admission to the Bar. Appointment or election to the bench at any level of the court system will disqualify any applicant. Law professors or trustees are ineligible.Board members of the Bar Examiners must be able to attend approximately 10 meetings a year in various Florida locations. Members volunteer 300 or more hours per year on Board business depending on committee assignments. Actual travel expenses connected with the meetings and examinations are reimbursed. Supreme Court’s Commission on Professionalism : Five lawyers to serve on this 23-member commission for four-year terms commencing July 1. The commission acts as a steering and long-range planning commission for the creation and implementation of programs promoting the ideals and goals of professionalism, oversees the development of judicial professionalism programs and the teaching of professionalism in law schools. In addition, it establishes the policies of the Bar’s Center for Professionalism and acts as the center’s governing board.Persons interested in applying for these vacancies may download the applications from the Bar’s Web site, www.flabar.org, or should call The Florida Bar at (850) 561-5600, ext. 5757, to obtain the proper application form. Applications may also be obtained by writing the Executive Director, The Florida Bar, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300. Completed applications must be received no later than the close of business Thursday, April 8. Resumes will not be accepted in lieu of the required application. The Board of Governors will review all applications and may request telephone or personal interviews. Rule 8.500(a)(2) Amended to delete licensed child-placing agency from list of those who may file a petition to terminate parental rights. Conforms rule to sections 39.811(2) and 39.802(1), Florida Statutes. See § 2, Ch. 2001-3, Laws of Fla. The Committee Note has been deleted as it is no longer relevant. Editorial changes. Rule 8.505(a)(5) Amended to require notice of adoption proceedings to grandparents as provided by law. Amends rule to conform to section 63.0425(1), Florida Statutes, as amended by section 6, Chapter 2003-58, Laws of Florida. (c) Clarifies that notice is only required for parties who are known. Conforms rule to section 39.803(1) and (4), Florida Statutes. (d) Removes reference to commitment of child to licensed child-placing agency. Conforms rule to sections 39.811(2) and 39.812(1), Florida Statutes. See §§ 4–5, Ch. 2001-3, Laws of Fla. Editorial changes. Rule 9.030 (Jurisdiction of Courts) Clarifies (b)(1) to give district courts jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final order of a county court holding a statute or provision of the Florida Constitution invalid. VOTE Rule 9.900 (Forms)Partial indigency rule forms and proposed order tracking changes to rule 9.430 explained above. Rule 8.240(b) Amended to add cross-reference to new subdivision (d). (d) Adds new subdivision to create procedure for motion for continuance or extension of time. Conforms rule to amendments to section 39.013(10), in section 1 of chapter 2002-216, Laws of Florida. Editorial changes. Forms 8.908, 8.959, 8.960, and 8.979Adds language regarding assistance to persons with disabilities to notices of hearing. Conforms forms to Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Fla.R.Jud.Admin. 2.065. Editorial Changes Rule 9.800 (Uniform Citation System)Updates (a)(3) and (b)(2) to reflect current case number practice and to correct an apparent error. Deletes in (I) obsolete citations and ensures examples still cite current rules. Adds (n), a citation to the United States Constitution. Mark Stephen Barnett of Jacksonville has submitted an application for readmission to the Bar with the Board of Bar Examiners.Barnett resigned from the practice of law pursuant to Supreme Court case no. 90,953, based on allegations of misappropriation.The Florida Board of Bar Examiners will conduct a public hearing on Barnett’s application for readmission. All members of the public may write to the board with information concerning the applicant, particularly in relation to his character and fitness for readmission. If you wish to be notified of the time and place of the hearing, submit a written request to Eleanor Mitchell Hunter, FBBE Executive Director, 1891 Eider Court, Tallahassee 32399-1750.Zouzoulas petitions for reinstatement Pursuant to Rule 3-7.10, Alexander Zouzoulas has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for Bar reinstatement.Zouzoulas was suspended from practice of law for six months, effective January 4, 2003, for failing to act diligently in his representation of clients, failing to maintain adequate communication with clients, engaging in a conflict of interest, failing to account for funds held for a third person, failing to respond to the Bar during its investigation, and failing to comply with the terms of a prior term of probation.Anyone having knowledge bearing upon Zouzoulas’ fitness or qualifications to resume the practice of law should contact Kenneth H. P. Bryk, Bar Counsel, The Florida Bar, 1200 Edgewater Dr., Orlando 32804-63 14, telephone (407) 425-5424.Reid petitions for Bar reinstatement Pursuant to Rule 3-7.10, Donald Wayne Reid, who formerly practiced in Alachua County and now resides in Bronson, Michigan, has petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for Bar reinstatement.Anyone having knowledge bearing upon Reid’s fitness or qualifications to resume the practice of law should contact James A.G. Davey, Jr., Bar Counsel, at (850) 561-5789.Planned Board of Governor’s actions Proposed Rules of Traffic Court The Florida Bar Traffic Court Rules Committee (“committee”) has submitted to the Florida Supreme Court its regular-cycle report of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Traffic Court. The committee proposes the adoption of new rule 6.292 (Conviction of Criminal Traffic Offense). The committee proposes amendments to existing rules 6.100 (Traffic Violations Bureau), 6.190 (Procedure on Failure to Appear; Warrant; Notice), 6.200 (Pleas and Affidavits of Defense), 6.500 (Pronouncement and Entry of Penalty; Penalizing Official), and 6.580 (Completion of Driver School; Conditions). The Court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, a summary of which is provided below. The proposals are reproduced in full online athttp://www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/proposed.html. An original and nine copies of all comments must be filed with the Court on or before April 1, 2004, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, Brian L. Tannebaum, Museum Tower, 150 West Flagler Street, Penthouse, Miami, Florida 33130. A separate request for oral argument must be filed if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument scheduled in this case for June. All comments must be filed in paper format and in WordPerfect 5.1 (or higher) format on a DOS formatted 3-1/2 inch diskette. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT, CASE NO. SC04-101 FLORIDA RULES OF TRAFFIC COURT 2004 TWO-YEAR CYCLE AMENDMENTS Rule 8.315(a) Amends sentence two: “If an admission or consent is entered and no denial is entered by any other parent or legal custodian.. . . ” Amended to provide for situations when one parent admits dependency but another parent or legal custodian does not. If any parent denies the allegations of the petition, it is a denial of due process to move to disposition without an adjudicatory hearing. See §§ 39.506(1)–(2), Fla. Stat. (a) Amends sentence three to delete “or grant a continuance as provided by law.” Continuances at arraignment are not provided by statute. See §§ 39.506, 39.507(1)(a), Fla. Stat. If a continuance of the adjudicatory hearing set at arraignment is required, it should be requested at another time. Editorial changes. EXPLANATION EXPLANATION EXPLANATION Rule 3.710 (Presentence Report)Creates subdivision (a) titled “Cases In Which Court Has Discretion” for the current rule. Subdivision (b) titled “Capital Defendant Who Refuses To Present Mitigating Evidence” is new. It is based on Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 (Fla. 2001), in which the court held that when a defendant in a death penalty action refuses to present mitigating evidence, a comprehensive presentence investigation report must be placed in the record. RULE/FORM JNC applications being accepted Rule 3.995 (Order of Revocation of Probation/Community Control)Creates new form. The proposed form came before the committee as a result of SB 888 (2001). The form is intended to serve as a reminder to the court to enter written orders in violation of probation cases. Rules 6.100, 6.190, 6.200, 6.500, 6.580Amended to add titles to major rule subdivisions as required by the Supreme Court’s Rules of Procedure Style Guide. RULE EXPLANATION Rule 8.290(c) Amended to delete “unless waived by all parties and approved by the court.” The amendment requires dependency mediations to comply with statutory time requirements. See, e.g., §§ 39.601(7) and 39.701(8)(f), Fla. Stat. Mediation is not listed as an exception to time requirements in section 39.013(10), Florida Statutes. Editorial changes. Rules 8.203, 8.603, and Form 8.911Amended to change name of act to Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Conforms rule to repeal of sections 61.1302 et seq., Florida Statutes, and creation of sections 61.501 et seq., Florida Statutes, by chapter 2002-65, Laws of Florida. Proposed Appellate Court Rules Rule 8.525(i)(1) Amended to change end of last sentence to read “placed for adoption” rather than “adopted.” Conforms rule to section 39.811(7)(b), Florida Statutes. Editorial changes. 12.900(b)19-1-2As required by Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.040(a) and (c), creates form for Notice of Limited Appearance. 12.900(d)19-1-2As required by Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.040(c),creates form for Termination of Limited Appearance. Rule 9.430 (Proceedings by Indigents)Creates partial indigency rule to correct problem arising when inmates have been declared indigent previously, yet have money in their inmate accounts with which they could be paying court costs. Gives district courts discretion whether to remand and allows them to presume that an inmate claiming indigency is in fact indigent. Rule 3.575 (Motion to Interview Juror)New rule to provide procedure for interviewing jurors. Based in part on Defrancisco v. State, 830 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 2d DCA) and Rule 4-3.5(d)(4), Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. RULE/FORM Rule 8.305(b)(9) Amended to clarify that if a shelter hearing is conducted by a judge other than one assigned to hear dependency cases, a judge assigned to hear dependency cases shall review the child’s status within two working days. The previous version of the rule stated “juvenile court judge.” This could include a judge hearing delinquency cases. See § 39.402(12), Fla. Stat. (c)(1) Amended to clarify that findings need only be made in an order granting shelter care. Previous version of rule seemed to require findings if the order denied shelter care. See § 39.402(8)(h), Fla. Stat. Editorial changes. Rule 9.145 (Appeals Proceedings in Juvenile Delinquency Cases)Clarifies (c)(2) because it does not mention rendition. 12.900(f)19-1-2As required by Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.040(e), creates signature block to be added to other pleadings and papers when an attorney is making a limited appearance. Rule 9.190 (Judicial Review of Administrative Action) Clarifies the time requirement in the rule. Rule 9.220 (Appendix)Amends rule to create two subdivisions to provide for supplementation of the record in nonfinal appeals to correct the problem recognized in Hill v. Hill, 778 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2001). Adds language to (a) to clarify the use of appendices in various appellate proceedings. Rule 9.020 (Definitions)Deletes “for clarification” from the list in rule 9.020(h) of motions filed in the trial court that toll rendition to clarify that (h) governs rendition of trial orders only. Adds a new subdivision (I) to govern rendition of appellate orders and to clarify the interaction of motions under rules 9.330 and 9.331 and the finality of appellate orders. The deletion in (h) is recommended only if the Court adopts the proposal to add new subdivision (I). Rule 9.420 (Filing; Service of Copies; Computation of Time)Pursuant to the Supreme Court request in Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2002), new subdivisions (c)(2)and (3) require a certificate of service for pro se inmates and other pro se litigants. Adds language to indicate adherence to rule’s form for proof of service will be prima facie proof of service in renumbered (d). Rule 8.515(a)(1) Amended to delete requirement to offer counsel if parents have executed voluntary surrenders to termination of parental rights. Conforms rule to section 39.013(9)(d), Florida Statutes. Deletes Committee Note. 12.52523-1-0Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.525, Motions for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees, was added to the Civil Rules effective January 1, 2001. By operation of Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.020, the rule applies in family law cases. The committee believes that the rule, as written, is problematic in family law cases, and is asking the court to exempt family law cases from the provisions of this rule while the committee considers whether alternative language for a separate family law rule should be submitted to the court in the 2005 cycle. Rule 9.180 (Appeal Proceedings to Review Workers’ Compensation Cases)Adds a new subdivision(b)(2) so that under F.S. 440.25(4)(d) (abbreviated final orders), if the JCC fails to enter written findings despite a timely request, the party can file the notice of appeal and the district court will relinquish jurisdiction for entry of written findings. Deletes the requirement in rule 9.180(h)(1) (“A copy shall be served on the appellee”) because the rule already requires service. Deletes 9.180(b)(4) because the Division of Workers’ Compensation and the Department of Labor and Employment Security no longer require copies of the orders appealed; several housekeeping amendments reflect (b)(4) deletions and update the rule. 12.900(c)19-1-2As required by Fla.Fam.L.R.P. 12.040(a), creates form for Consent to Limited Appearance by Attorney. The Family Law Rules Committee invites comment on a proposed out-of-cycle amendment to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure shown below. The proposed amendment has been filed with the court. The full text of the proposal can be found on The Florida Bar’s website at www.flabar.org. Interested persons have until April 1, 2004, to submit comments to Jeffrey P. Wasserman, committee chair, 7777 Glades Road, Ste. 110, Boca Raton, FL 33434-7722. Pursuant to Standing Board Policy 1.60, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar hereby publishes this notice of intent to consider or take final action at its April 2 meeting on the following items. These matters are additionally governed by Rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, where applicable.Most amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that are finally acted upon by the board must still be formally presented to the Supreme Court of Florida, with further notice and opportunity to be heard, before they are officially approved and become effective.Chapters 4 and 5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar would be revised throughout based on the final report of the Special Committee to Review the ABA Model Rules 2002. The report and recommendations can be found on pages 10 and 11 of this issue of The Florida Bar News. The full report including proposed changes in legislative format can be found on the bar’s website (flabar.org): Organization – Committees – Special.To receive a full copy of the text of any of the proposed amendments listed below call (850)561-5751 – please reference any requested proposal by its title or item number and date of this publication. RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline Subchapter 3-7 Procedures 1. Rule 3-7-4 Grievance Committee ProceduresSummary: Within subdivision ( l ), alters the requirement that the presiding officer of a grievance committee sign a formal complaint, to only require that the document be “approved” by such officer. 2. Rule 3-7.9 Consent JudgmentWithin subdivision (a), conforms the authority of disciplinary staff regarding consent judgments before a formal complaint is filed, to that after a complaint is filed – as reflected in subdivision (b) – by changing a reference to “staff “ counsel, to read “bar” counsel; within subdivision (e) deletes redundant references to staff counsel authority and retitles subdivision to read “Effect of Pleas on Certification” to more clearly reflect its content. 3. Rule 4-1.5 Fees for Legal ServicesSummary: Consistent with existing commentary language, adds verbiage within subdivision (f)(4)(B)(ii) to discuss the disfavored status of fees in excess of the rule amounts, places the burden of justifying an increased fee on the lawyer and client, and the criteria for trial judges to consider in approving such fees. Subchapter 4-5 Law Firms and Associations 4. Rule 4-5.8 Procedures for Lawyers Leaving Law Firms and Dissolution of Law FirmsSummary: New rule, which sets forth guidance for allowable client contact by lawyers and law firms when a lawyer is leaving a law firm or when a law firm is being dissolved. Subchapter 4-7 Information About Legal Services 5. Rule 4-7.7 Evaluation of AdvertisementsSummary: Within subdivision (b)(5), increases the filing fee for the evaluation of lawyer advertisements, from $100 to $150. Chapter 6 Legal Specialization and Education Programs Subchapter 6-3 Florida Designation Plan 6. Rule 6-3.5 Standards for CertificationSummary: Adds new provision allowing attorneys applying for certification in international law to count the international practice of law as up to 3 of the 5 years required for certification. Chapter 9 Legal Services Plans Subchapter 9-2 Requirements 7. Rule 9-2.2 Form and Content of Plan ApplicationSummary: Within subdivision (e), increases the prepaid legal services plan application fee from $50 to $125. Chapter 10 Rules Governing the Investigation and Prosecution of the Unlicensed Practice of Law Subchapter 10-2 Definitions 8. Rule 10-2.1 Generally Summary: Clarifies what forms are Supreme Court-Approved forms for purposes of the rule. BYLAWS 9. Appellate Practice SectionSummary: In Article IV (Duties & Power of Officers), adds that the section treasurer shall serve as chair of the website committee and shall supervise the development and maintenance of the section site; in Article VI (Meetings of the Section), clarifies that the executive council may direct matters to be submitted in writing to section members for mail vote “unless otherwise specified herein”; in Article IX (Committees) adds the website committee as a standing committee, and confirms that annual committees of the section may be created or dissolved either upon recommendation of the chair or chair-elect and majority approval of the executive council, or by motion of the council and its majority approval; and in Article XII (Amendments), clarifies that these bylaws may only be amended at the section’s annual meeting. 10. Elder Law SectionSummary: Within Article II (Membership) revises the definition of affiliate members by deleting graduates of any law school, legal assistants, and public members; also adds and defines “at large”membership in the section; within Article III (Officers) adds that the chair-elect shall serve as chair of the legislative committee, and clarifies that the chair-elect automatically becomes chair at the conclusion of duties, without election; within Article IV (Executive Council) revises membership to include past chairs for the 5 preceding years rather than just the immediate past chair; also adds at large members, if any, to the council; within Article V (Committees) deletes from the administrative division group the coordination & liaison committee and the public & member information committee; also deletes from the substantive division group the home & community-based services for the elderly & residency issues committee and the health care committee; retitles estate & financial planning committee, to be the estate planning & advance directives committee, and revises committee scope accordingly; adds medicaid committee to the substantive group; clarifies scope of government benefits committee, to exclude medicaid issues; within Article VI (Meetings) clarifies that advance notice of meetings shall be at least 15 days and may include regular modes of electronic communication used by the section; within Article VIII (Miscellaneous) clarifies that compensated contractual services require the approval of the executive committee, and adds a procedure for approval of bylaw amendments by the executive council. Reorganizes throughout to conform to latest guideline. 11. Young Lawyers DivisionSummary: Within Article IV (Election of Division Officers) revises voting timelines for office of president-elect, effectively shortening the process by 1 month in most instances; within Article V (Board of Governors) deletes provisions requiring automatic removal of board members for lack of attendance, and substitutes new provision allowing removal for cause by resolution of the board adopted by two-thirds vote of the entire membership; revises subdivision title accordingly, from “Lack of Attendance,” to “Removal”.Board to act on ABA Model Rules The Special Committee to Review the ABA Model Rules 2002 has issued a final report to The Florida Bar Board of Governors, which will take action on the report at its April 2004 meeting. The special committee was charged with the following mission statement: Rule 3.180 (Presence of Defendant)Amendment clarifies the court’s authority to require a defendant to be present at any pretrial conference despite the defendant’s written waiver of presence. The Florida Bar Juvenile Court Rules Committee has submitted to the Florida Supreme Court the committee’s regular-cycle report of proposed amendments to the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure. The court invites all interested persons to comment on the committee’s proposed amendments. A summary of the amendments is provided below. The amendments are reproduced in full online at www.flcourts.org/sct/sctdocs/proposed.html. An original and nine copies of all comments must be filed with the court on or before April 1, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the committee chair, Jennifer A. Parker, Department of Juvenile Justice, 2737 Centerview Drive, Suite 312, Tallahassee, 32399-0999, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument which is scheduled in this case for June. Further, if comments are directed toward the proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.165, Providing Counsel to Parties, the certificate of service shall also verify that a copy has been served on the proponent of the amendment, The Florida Bar Commission on the Legal Needs of Children, 651 East Jefferson Street, Tallahassee 32399-2300. All comments must be filed in paper format and in WordPerfect 5.1 (or higher) format on a DOS formatted 3-1/2 inch diskette. I IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE, CASE NO. SC04-97 Rule 6.292Added to make the rule for criminal offenses comport with Rule 6.560 governing the effect of a withheld adjudication in the traffic infraction context. Rule 3.986 (Forms Related to Judgment and Sentence)(c): Amends this form for charges, costs, and fees by adding the following check-off provision: $201 pursuant to section 938.08, Florida Statutes (Funding Programs in Domestic Violence). (e) and (f): Amends these forms by adding to each the following check-off provision: You will attend and successfully complete a batterers’ intervention program. RULE/FORM RULE/FORM REASONS FOR CHANGE Rule 3.191 (Speedy Trial)Amendment corrects internal inconsistency and conforms the rule to State v. Williams, 791 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 2001) by deleting “by indictment or information” from (a). 12.01519-1-2Amends rule to assign responsibility for maintenance of unbundled legal services forms to rules committee Rule 8.325Deletes subdivision (d), Stipulations. This provision was originally included in the rules to govern “Walker” plans and other plans and stipulations. These plans and stipulations have been deleted from the dependency statutes. Deletes Committee Note; Editorial changes. Proposed Family Law Rules Rule 8.300(a) Amended to conform rule to section 39.401(1)(b), Florida Statutes. (c) Amended to specify that an order to take a child into custody order that the child be held in a suitable place pending transfer of physical custody to the Department of Children and Family Services. If a child is taken into custody by court order, there is no statutory requirement to return immediately to court for another order to detain the child. See § 39.401, Fla. Stat. Editorial changes. Rule 8.400Adds new subdivisions (b)(2) and (b)(3), clarifying the procedure for amending a case plan. The Supreme Court in M.W. v. Davis, 756 So.2d 90, 107 (Fla. 2000), noted the lack of guidance regarding the type of evidence required to amend a case plan. This language provides that guidance. See also §§ 39.601(9)(f), 39.603(2), 39.701(8), Fla. Stat. Editorial changes. VOTE
Okenwa was however quick to add that the state government must put other facilities in place at the arena insisting that a few things are still lacking.“I have made my observations known to the authorities. There are a few other facilities that should be provided to make the stadium complete and ready for local and international matches,” Okenwa said.Bayelsa teams campaigning in the male and female leagues have over the years been playing away from home. But with the Samson Siasia Stadium now ready for use, the teams would stage a return home.Share this:FacebookRedditTwitterPrintPinterestEmailWhatsAppSkypeLinkedInTumblrPocketTelegram Chairman of the nation’s second tier league, NNL, Offor Okenwa has described the Samson Siasia Stadium turf in Yenagoa as simply magnificent.Okenwa who was in the Glory Land to inspect the 10,000 capacity arena ahead of the new season said he was impressed with what he saw.“The pitch in Yenagoa is simply magnificent. It is world-class and I just hope other states would do what Gov Seriake Dickson has done. The contractor that did the job Monimichelle deserves a pat on the back. I am particularly happy that the pitch which is not only lush green but a FIFA approved geo-technology grass was done by an indigenous contractor.”