Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

April 12, 2020 by Jennifer Kennedy

Florida Bar — Rules — Amendment — Covid-19 emergency measures — More streamlined response to impact ongoing public health crisis is having on regulation of The Florida Bar — Recognition that Chief Justice is authorized to institute mitigating measures that are necessary to respond to public health emergencies or other emergency situations that may impact The Florida Bar’s and the various Bar participants’ ability to meet procedural requirements of the Bar Rules

45 Fla. L. Weekly S123a

Florida Bar — Rules — Amendment — Covid-19 emergency measures — More streamlined response to impact ongoing public health crisis is having on regulation of The Florida Bar — Recognition that Chief Justice is authorized to institute mitigating measures that are necessary to respond to public health emergencies or other emergency situations that may impact The Florida Bar’s and the various Bar participants’ ability to meet procedural requirements of the Bar Rules

IN RE: COVID-19 EMERGENCY MEASURES RELATING TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR AND AMENDMENT TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 1-12.1. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC20-392. April 9, 2020. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.

(PER CURIAM.) In response to the ongoing public health emergency caused by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and at the request of The Florida Bar, on March 20, 2020, the Court issued an emergency order in this case temporarily suspending certain time periods, deadlines, and requirements in the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar (Bar Rules). Now, the Court, on its own motion,1 amends the Bar Rules to provide for a more streamlined response to the impact the ongoing public health crisis is having on regulation of The Florida Bar.2

Specifically, at the Bar’s request, in the March 20, 2020, order, the Court temporarily suspended all time periods and deadlines in Chapter 3 (Rules of Discipline) and Chapter 10 (Rules Governing the Investigation and Prosecution of the Unlicensed Practice of Law) of the Bar Rules for all Bar discipline cases and for all unlicensed practice of law cases, respectively, and suspended the filing and evaluation requirements for lawyer advertisements under Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-7.19 (Evaluation of Advertisements). Those time periods, deadlines, and requirements will remain suspended until reinstated or otherwise modified by order of the Chief Justice, under the procedure provided below.

The Court has determined that it should amend the Bar Rules to provide for a more streamlined response to the changing circumstances affecting The Florida Bar’s and Bar participants’ ability to comply with certain rule requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. The adoption of the new procedure also will provide a more expeditious procedure for responding to future public health crises and other emergency situations that could impact The Florida Bar and others who are governed by the procedural requirements of the Bar Rules.

Therefore, we amend Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1 to recognize that the Chief Justice is authorized to institute mitigating measures that are necessary to respond to public health emergencies or other emergency situations that may impact The Florida Bar’s and the various other Bar participants’ ability to meet procedural requirements in the Bar Rules.

Accordingly, we add new subdivision (j) (Action by the Chief Justice) to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 1-12.1 (Amendment to Rules; Authority; Notice; Procedures; Comments) to provide as follows:

(j) Action by the Chief Justice. Upon request of The Florida Bar, or sua sponte, in the event of a public health emergency or other emergency situation that requires mitigation of the effects of the emergency on The Florida Bar and other participants under the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, the chief justice may enter such order or orders as may be appropriate to: suspend, extend, toll, or otherwise change time periods, deadlines, or standards imposed by the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, orders, or opinions; suspend the application of or modify other requirements or limitations imposed by rules, orders, or opinions, including, without limitation, those governing the use of communication equipment and proceedings conducted by remote electronic means; and require or authorize temporary implementation of procedures and other measures, which may be inconsistent with applicable requirements, to address the emergency situation.

Accordingly, the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar are amended, as reflected in this opinion. The amendment shall become effective immediately upon the release of this opinion.3

It is so ordered. (CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-12.1(a).

2We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

3Because the amendment was not published for comment prior to its adoption, interested persons shall have seventy-five days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court. All comments must be filed with the Court on or before June 23, 2020, with a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (Portal) in accordance with In re Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-7 (Feb. 18, 2013). If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in Florida, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the Portal. Comments filed via the Portal must be submitted in Microsoft Word 97 or higher. See In re Electronic Filing in the Florida Supreme Court, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC17-27 (May 9, 2017). Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927; no additional copies are required or will be accepted.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Homeowners — Attorney’s fees — Trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees and costs in favor of insureds where filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute — Where insurer admitted coverage for damage to interior of home, but denied coverage for damage to roof, the dispute over cause of loss to roof was an amount of loss issue for appraisers, not a coverage issue for court — Where insurer demanded appraisal prior to filing of lawsuit by insured, and indicated that it would repair any damage awarded in appraisal, the filing of lawsuit was not a necessary catalyst to resolve dispute over roof damage
  • Insurance — Commercial liability — Exclusions — Assault and battery — Insurer had no duty to defend insured in action alleging injury arising out of assault and battery on insured’s premises where policy contained endorsement excluding coverage for injury arising out of or resulting from assault or battery
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Appraisal — Assignees — No error in finding that appraisal provision of insured’s homeowner’s policy applied to insured’s assignee and granting insurer’s motion to compel appraisal — Policy did not classify appraisal as a duty of the insured — Assignee received an assignment that entitled it to receipt of payment from insurer, and concomitant with that right was its duty to comply with the conditions of the contract that afforded it payment
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Water damage — Post-loss obligations — Sworn proof of loss — Trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of insurer after finding that insureds had forfeited their policy coverage for failure to provide a sworn proof of loss — Policy did not eliminate duty of insured to provide sworn proof of loss where insurer opted to repair — However, because insureds complied to some extent with policy requirements, and policy required insurer to prove it was prejudiced by insureds’ failure to provide sworn proof of loss, material issues of fact remain
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Watercraft exclusion — No error in determining that watercraft exclusion in the insureds’ homeowners’ insurance policy precluded coverage for injuries sustained by a third party in a boating accident that occurred when the insured son, who had permission to use the boat from the insured father, allowed another third party to pilot the boat while intoxicated — The only applicable exception to the watercraft exclusion unambiguously states that the watercraft exclusion does not apply if the outboard engine or motor is not owned by an insured, and the boat and engine in this case were owned by the insured father — Severability clause, which provides that the policy “applies separately to each insured,” did not render watercraft exclusion ambiguous — Exceptions to the watercraft exclusion are not dependent on the insured who seeks coverage, but on the nature of the watercraft at issue

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982