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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • 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

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

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. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982