The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar & the Rules of Judicial Administration


MARSHAL: PLEASE RISE. HEAR YE.HEAR YE.HEAR YE.THE SUPREME COURT OF THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW SESSION.ALL WHO HA VE CA USE TO PLEA , DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTIONAND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES , THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDAAND THIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPREME C OURT OF PLEASE BE SE ATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING , LAD IES AND GENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT.I WOULD LI KE TO WELCOME, THIS MORNING , STUDENTS F ROM THE LEGAL STUDIES C LASS OF KISER COLLE GE. THEY ARE HERE ON THEIR ANNUAL VISIT TO THE CAPITO L, WITH THEIR INSTRUCTOR , MONICA RA NGE.WE WELCOME YO U. VERY INTEREST ING CASE THATYOU WILL BE LISTENING TO IS THE FIRST C ASE.YOU M AY OR MAY NOT FIND IT INTERESTING , B UT I T IS WHAT WE HAVE FOR YOU THIS MORNING.BEFORE I CALL THE FIRST CASE AND BEFORE WE GET STAR TED, SINCE I KNOW WE HAVE 90 MINUTES ALLOTED, WHICH IS A FARRELLY LENGTH Y TI ME FOR A RULES A F AIR LY L E NGTHY TIME FOR A RULES CASE , I T RELATES TO THE RULES OF THE BAR AND THE RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATI ON. I KNOW THE PARTIES ARE READY , AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TIME IS DIVIDED WITH THE BAR AND INTERNAT IONAL LAW SECTION SPEAKI NG FOR THE FIRST 20 MINUTES AND THEN RESERVING 25 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL. I AM AUTHORIZ ED, ON BE HALF OF MY COLLEAGUES , TO SAY THAT, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE ALLOT ED 90 MIN UTES , OUT O F THE GOODNESS OF OUR HEARTS , DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU NEED CONSUME THE ENT IRE 9 0 MINUTES , AND THAT THE COURT IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PETITION AND HAS R EAD ALL THE COMMEN TS , AND SO WITH THAT, I WO ULD A SK THAT THE , FOR THE BAR TO PRE SENT THEIR CASE, AND THEN WELL SORT OF SEE HOW THE A R GUMENT GO ES. GOOD MORNIN G.

GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MY NAME IS JOHN YANCHUNIS. I AM REPRES ENTING THE BAR HERE TODAY, ALONG WITH LORI HOLCOMB, WHO IS STA FF UPL COUNSEL. JUSTICE PARIENTE, I WILL TAKE THOSE WORDS OF WISDOM. IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW , I DON'T SPEAK OVER JUD GES , I DON'T SPEAK AFTER THEY HAVE RULED, AND I WAS HAVING THE DICKENS, TRYING TO FI GURE OUT HOW I WILL T AKE UP 45 MINUTES OF THE COURT'S TIME, AND I WILL BE V ERY JUDICIOUSIN THE WAY I USE THAT THIS MORNING.YOU KNOW , THE PRA CTICE OF LAW DECADES , PERHAPS HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO , WAS FAR DIFFERENT IN THIS COUNTRY. LAW YERS BEGAN THE PRACTICE OF LAW , BY PRESENTS SHIP. THEY READ THE LAW AND APPRENTICESHIP. THEY READ THE LAW. THE FIRST COL LEGE WILL IAM AND MARY HAD THE FIRST LAW SCHOOL. IN THE 1900s , AND OVER TIME , LAWYERS OR UNIVERSITIES, BEGAN A MORE FOR MAL EDUCATION INDICATION OF STUDENTS . ED UCATION OF STUDENTS. AT ONE TIME IN THI S COUNTRY AND I THINK , STI LL, IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN , GRADUATES OF LAW SCHO OLS LOCATED IN THE STATE , WERE IMMEDIATELY ADMI TTED I NTO THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THAT STATE. OVER THE COUR SE OF TIME , THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS CHAN GED . BACK, YEARS AGO , LAWYERS TYPICALLY STAYED WITHIN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES TO PRACTICE. YOU HAD NO NEED TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE BARS OF DIFFERENT STATES, BEC AUSE TRANSPORTATION AND THE NE EDS OF THE LE GA L COMM UNITY , D IDNOT REQUIRE THAT LAWY ERS GO OUTSIDE OF THEIR OWN COMMUNITY , OR I F, S O O U TSIDE OF THE TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE TERRIT ORY OR STATE WH ERE THEY L IVEDIN. THE BAR ADM ISSION PRO CESS TOOK GR EATER SHAPE. WE BEGAN TO HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY , BAR EX AMS T O TEST , TO ENSURE THAT LAWYE RS OR LAW STUDENS , HAD A MO DICUM OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE LAW OF A PARTICULAR STATE. CHARACTER AND FITNESS W A SN'T REALLY A KNOWN CONCEPT , BUT THAT, TOO , BEGAN TO DEVE LOP . WHILE I WAS A MEMB ER OF THE BAR EXAM , EXAMINERS, FOR INSTANCE, THE COURT ADO PTED THE ESSENTIAL ELIGIBIL ITY REQUIRE MENTS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW. THE COURT TO OK A VERY PROGRESSIVE LOOK AT SOME O F THE ISSUES AFFEC T ING BAR EXAMINERS AROUND THE COUN TRY, SUCH AS ME NTAL HEA LTH . ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS. AND TODAY, IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA , WE HAVE THE GOLD STANDARD FOR CHARACTER AND FITNESS ADMISSION REQUIREMENTS FOR THEPRACTICE OF LAW. BUT THE LAW AND THE PRACTICE OF LAW CHA NGED. LAWYERS HAVE BEGUN , FOR M ANY YEARS, IN FA CT, IN THIS STATE , IN O THER STATES, TOO , TO TAKE THEIR PRAC TICES AND TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES I N STATES OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH THEY ARE ADMI TTED . WE HAVE HAD, FOR SOME TIME, LAWYERS WHO COME DOWN INTO THE STATE OF FLOR IDA, WHO HAVE REPRESENTED CLIENTS, WHETHER THEY BE IN THEIR HOST STATE OR IN THE STATE OF FL ORIDA . THE NEEDS OF THEIR CL IENTS , INSOFAR AS NEGOTIATING O F CONTRACTS, BOND ISS UE S AND, SOMETIMES , ARBITRATIONS , AND , EVEN, MORE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS LIKE C OURTPROCEEDINGS. TODAY , UN LESS THOSE , UNLESS WE MAKE A CHANGE , EACH OF THOSE PRACTICES , IS UNLAWFUL. IT IS THE UNLICE NSED PRACTICE OF L AW, FOR A NONLAWYER, THAT IS AN YONE NOT ADMITTED TO PRACTICE INTHE STATE OF FLORIDA, TO PRACTICE LAW IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. AND WE KNOW THAT THE PRACTICE OF LAW DO ESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN PRACTICE IN A COURTROOM . WE BE LIEVE IT INVOLVES REPRESENTING INDIVIDUALS IN ARBITRATION.IT REPR ESENTS, IT INVOLVES PEOPLE REPRESEN TING THEIR OWN CLIENTS IN THEIR STATE OR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA , IN THE NEGOT IATING OF CONTRACTS, IN TAKING DEPOSITIONS .

LET ME DI RECT YOU, IF YOU WOULD , TO A CONCERN THAT I HAVE HEA RD EXPRES SED ACROSS THE COUNTRY , AND DISCUSSED IT, FOR INSTANCE, AT THE CONFERENCE OF CH IEF JU STICES ON MULTISTATE JURISDICTIONAL MATTERS , AND THAT IS HOW WE FIT THE PR ESENT LAWYER DISCIPLINE SY STEM AROUND THE CONCEPT THAT THE BAR IS DEALING WITH HE RE, BECAUSEWE HAVE THE MULT ISTATE , LOCALIZED DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, AND IT NECESSARILY , THE CONC ERN THAT THE COURT HAS TO HAVE , AS WELL A S THE BAR , IS THAT THE PUBLIC LOOKS TO US , TO EN SURE THAT LAWYERS WHO ARE PRACTI CING IN FLORIDA , ARE PRACTICING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF ETHICS . WHAT SPECIF ICALLY , IS DONE TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSU E?

THESE AMENDMENTS , YO URHONOR, TODAY, WOULD SE EK TO EXPAND, BO TH THE DISCIPLINARY ISSUES OF T HEFLORIDA BAR AND OF T HIS COURT , AS WELL AS THE PROTECTION TO SAY THE PUBLIC. FOR INSTANCE, WE W OULDREQUIRE THAT, I N ARBITRATIONS, THE PRACTICE , NOW , IS , BUT NOT THE RULE , THE PRACTICE IS THAT LAWYERS COME INTO OUR STATE F ROM OUT-OF-STATE AND REPRESENT FLORIDA RESIDE NTS IN ARBITRATIONS . UNREGULATED. EVEN THOUGH THAT IS A FEL ONY . EVEN THOUGH THAT IS THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW. BUT THE SY STEM IS COMPLAINT-DRIVEN. WE NEED TO HAVE A COMPLAINTFILED WITH THE FLORIDA BAR, BEFORE THE FLORIDA BAR WILL TAKE ACTION.WHAT THIS RULE DOES , IS IT REQUIRES THAT LAWYERS WHO SEEK TO REPRESENT INDIVIDUALS IN ARBITRATION OR COMPANIES IN ARBITRATION , HAVE TO FILE WITH THE FLORIDA BAR , A NOTICE THAT THEY ARE REPRESENTING SOMEBODY IN AN ARBIT RATION. WE RESTRICT THAT , OF COURSE, TO TH REE TIMES WITHIN A 365-DAY PERIOD, BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ENS URE , THAT THERE IS NOTINDIVIDUALS WHO ARE UNLICENSED, EN GAGED IN THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF LAW , THAT WE ARE , THEY ARE ONLY INVOLVED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW ON A TEMPORARY BA SIS. INSOFAR AS , BOTH , INTERN ATIONAL ARBITRATION ASWELL AS ARBITRATION, AS WELL AS THE TEMPORARY PRACTICE OF TRANSACTION ULE LAWYERS , W E TR ANSICS UAL LAWYERS, WE REQUIRE THAT TRANSACTION AL LAWYERS, WE RE QUIRE THAT THEY RESIDE IN A STATE WHE RE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REVO KED AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE I N ANOTHER STATE.

SO THAT IS THE DISCIPLINARY PART.IS THAT THE REASON FOR THIS $250 FE E, TO BE CHECKING THIS? IS THAT THE IDEA OF IT?

HONESTLY , YOUR HONOR , LAWYERS HERE IN THE STATE PAY A BAR DUE AN NUALLY, A NDTHE COURT WELL KNOWS THAT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THOSE BAR DUES GOES TO A SELF-FUNDED REGULATORY SYSTEM. PART OF THAT $250 GOES TO DEFRAY THE COST OF THE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM.

BUT I GUESS , LET 'S JUST , AS OF TODAY , AND OTHER THAN THE RAPA PORT CASE , I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY TIME. YOU SAID IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE, AND THIS SEEMS TO BE A DIS PUTE WITH THE OPPONENTS OF THIS RULE , THE BAR THINKS THAT THEY ARE EXPANDING THE PRACTICE AND MAKING IT MORE O PEN TO NONFLORIDA LAWYERS BY T HIS RULE, AND THE OP PONENTS THINK IT IS RESTRI CTING IT , AND SO WE START WITH THE IDEA THAT , I SEE MS. HOLCOMB IS MO VING UP, BECAUSE THIS IS UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE,THAT THIS HAS BEEN SORT OF A BENIGN NEG LECT THAT WE HAVE HAD , AS YOU HAVE CANDIDLY ADMITTED, FOR THE LAST HOW MANY YE ARS, LAWYERS HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING ARBITRATIONS IN FLORIDA , WITHOUT BEING SUBJECT TO BEING PROSECUTED FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF L AW. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THAT HAS NOT BEEN HAPPENING , OTHER THAN THE ONE CASE INVOLVING MR . HAPA RA PAPORT?

NO , YOUR HONOR , IN 19 97 , THIS COURT UNDERTOOK TO REVIEW AN ADVI SORY DECISION BY THE UPL COMMIT TEE OF THE FLORIDA BAR , WHICH LOOKED AT WHETHER NO NLAWYERS COULD REPRESENT INDIVIDUALS IN SECURITIES ARBITRATIONS . SEVEN YEARS AGO, THE C OURTSAID THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED.

BUT I GUE SS IN THE INTERIM , THERE HAS N'T BEEN ANY RULE IN P LACE, BUT YOU SAY THE BAR KNOWS THAT THIS HAS JUST BEEN HAPPEN ING?

N O , YOUR HONOR , THERE IS A RULE IN PLACE , AND T HERULE IS , WHAT IS DEFINED AS THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE O F LAW OR THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

HAS THE BAR BEEN PROSECUTING LAWYERS THAT THEY KNOW HAVE BEEN CONDUCTING OR DEF ENDING OR PROSECUTING ARBITRATIONS FOR THE UNAUTHOR IZED PRACTICE OF LAW?

THE BAR INVEST GATES , UPON THE FIL ING OF A COMPLAINT, AND IF A COMPLAINT IS FILED , THE B ARWILL TAKE AC TION TO GET THEM TO ST OP. IF THEY DON'T , THEN THE BAR WILL FILE A PE TITION WITH THIS COURT SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

NOW, THE DISCIPLINARY PART OF THIS , WOULD NOT JUST PERTAIN TO LAWYERS ENG AGED IN ARBITRATIONS , BUT W OULDTHIS, ALSO, BE A WAY THAT THE BAR WOULD MONI TO R WHO IS PRACTICING IN COURTS OF L AWAND BEING ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE?

YES, YOUR HONOR, BECAUSE IN BOTH ARBITRATIONS AS WELL AS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS, A NOTICE OR A CO PY OF THE NOTE NIECE A COURT PROCEEDING,HAS GOT TO BE FILED WITH THE FLORIDA BAR, SO THE FLORIDA BAR STANDS IN THE B EST POSITION, THROUGH THE DELEGATION OF THAT POWER TO THE BAR BY THIS COURT, TO MONITOR WHAT LAWYERS ARE DOING WITHIN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

THE QUESTION THAT I COME BACK TO.

YES.

IS, BY THIS FILING W ITH THE FLORIDA BAR , IS THE , IS THE SOUTH CARO LINA LAWYER THAT FILES WITH THE FLORIDA BAR, SUBMITTING TO T HEFLORIDA BAR DISCIP LINARY PROCESS.

ABSOLUTELY.

WELL, WHAT SAYS THAT ?

THE FACT THAT THE LAWYER IS PRACTICING LAW IN T HESTATE OF FLORIDA , SUBJ ECTS HIMSELF TO THE AR TICLE V POWERS OF THIS COURT.

IS THERE SOME , IS THAT PART OF THE NOTICE THAT IS FILED, THAT I AM SUB MITTING MYSELF IN AND AGREE TO THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURES O F THE FLORIDA BAR ?

YOUR HONOR , WE ALREADY HAVE TWO EX ISTING RULES , RULE 3-4 .1 AND 3 -4.1 , W HICHDEALS WITH OUT-OF -STATE LAWYERS WHO COME TO THE STATE AND ENGAGE IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW.

I THINK THE ANSWER, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT ONE OF THE FORMS THAT SAYS MOV ANT HAS READ THE APPLICABLE RULES AND CERTIFIES IT COMP LIES AND THEY CONSENT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS AND THE BAR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

THAT IS CORRECT. WE ARE TR YING TO STANDARDI ZE.

IS THAT, BOTH, FOR THE LAWYER THAT IS APPE ARING IN COURT , AS WELL S A THE ASWELL AS THE LAWYER WHO IS APPEARING IN AN ARBITRATION?

YES, MA'AM. IT STANDARDIZES T HE REQUIREMENTS ALREADY IN PLACE , UNDER THE RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINIST RATION AND ITS COMP ANION IN RULES OF LAWYER REGULATION, TO REQUIRE, BOTH, AN ARBITRATION , WHAT IS ALR EADY REQUIRED IN PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION .

WE WA NT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN OTHER STATES. YOU HAVE MADE AND BEEN V ER Y CANDID THAT , WHEN IT COMES TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS, THAT THIS IS SORT OF, FLORIDA IS THE SITE OF THE ARBITRATION. THERE IS NO PARTIC ULAR KNOWLEDGE OF FLORIDA LAW, AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE EXEMPTED FROM THIS RULE , CORRECT? INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

YES, YOUR HONOR, F OR ANUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS.

I THINK THOSE HAVE BEEN SET OUT. NOW, IF AN ARBITRATION , I NOTICE THAT YOU HAVE NO T ONLY LIMITED THE ARBITRATIONS TO THREE A YEAR , BUT YOU , THE RULE SAYS THAT THERE HAS TO BE A NE XUS BETWEEN THERE, IS A NEXUS REQUIREMENT THAT, IS THAT I T CAN'T JUST HAVE BEEN FLORIDA ARBITRATIONS. IT HAS TO SOMEHOW H AVE RELATED TO SOME THING IN THE LAWYER'S HOME JURISDICTION.IS THAT COR RECT? THERE IS A NEXUS REQUIREMENT?

THE NEXUS RE QUIREMENT IS AS BROAD TO INCLUDE THAT , IF A LAWYER IS PRACTICING IN HIS AREA OF PRACTICE , THAT IS SUFFIC IENT .

AND THAT IS JUST, THEY CERTIFY THAT. BECAUSE THERE IS NO , IN AN ARBITRATION, THERE IS , ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE , IS I T ANTICIPATED THAT THE ARBITRATION PANEL WILL EITHER AGREE TO THAT LAWYER'S ADMISSION OR NOT ?

NO, YOUR HONOR. IT IS NOT ANTICI PATED . IN FACT , THE S RO'S AND AL L OF THE A AA AND OTHER ARBITRATION ORGANI ZATIONS , DON'T DO ANYTHING IN THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS. WE DON'T ASK T HEM TO UNDERTAKE THAT DUTY. IT IS JUST THAT THE FL ORIDA BAR WANTS TO HAVE CONTROL OVER A PRACTICE THAT IS GOING , IS ONGOING , BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILIT Y OF GOING OUT AND ASKING ALL THESE ARBITRATION ASSOCIATIONS, TELL US WHAT LAWYERS ARE COMING IN , AND , FOR INSTANCE, THEY HAVE NO REASON TO RESPON D. SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO I S WE WANT TO CREATE CONTROL THAT WE CAN MONITO R.

DOES THE BAR SEE A DIFFERENCE BETW EEN LAWYERSTHAT ARE ENGAGING IN A N ARBITRATION, AS OPPOSE D TO LAWYERS THAT ARE ENGAGING IN A COURT PROCEEDING ? UNDER THIS RULE , THEY WOULD, B OTH , BE ESSENT IALLY TRE ATEDTHE SAME WAY .

TREATED THE SAME WAY , AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

IS THERE A MOVE AF TER ANOTHER, AND JUSTICE - - A MOVE AF OOT , AND JUSTICE WELLS WAS MENTIONING THE CONFERENCE OF CH IEF JUSTICES , BUT IS THERE A MOVE ACROSS THE COUNTRY, YOU WERE STARTING TO T ALK ABOUT WHERE WE HAD COME FR OM IN LAWYER REGULATION AND WHERE WE A RETODAY, TO REALLY SAY THAT , UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES , WHY , IF A LAWYER IS CERTIFIED , I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY, IN A , I MEAN , WHY , LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN A GIVEN STATE, AND THAT STATE HAS ETHICAL STANDARDS THAT ARE AS HIGH AS FLORIDA , WHY THIS ARBITRARY LI MITATION OF THREE PER YEAR , AND ESPECIALLY WHEN , IF IT IS A COURT PROCEE DING, THE THREE PER YEAR CAN BE , IT COULD BE A TRIAL THAT GO ES ON FOR SEVERAL , IT C OULD BE AN ONGOING CASE, AND SO THE LAWYER IS ESSENTIALLY , THIS ONE CASE, IT IS A , ON AN ONG OING BASIS, BUT T HAT LAWYER HAS EXPE RTISE I N THAT AREA, AND HOW ARE T HEFLORIDA CITI ZENS HARMED B Y SOMETHING THAT IS MORE EXPANSIVE?

EXP ANSIVE? AND I GUESS WE ARE NOT REALLY TA LKING ABOUT COURT LAWYERS. THIS SEEMS TO BE ON THE ARBITRATION SIDE OF WHER E IS THE HARM SO TO SPEA K IN THAT , BEING MORE LIBERALIZED?

YOUR HONOR, THIS COURT HAS TAK EN A LONG STANDING POSITION ON THE ADMISSION S PROCESS THAT, LAWYERS WHO SEEK TO PRACTICE ON A PERMANENT NOT A TEMPORARYBASIS, SHO ULD BE FIT . CHARACTERIZE IT THAT FLORIDA IS GOAD STANDARD. WHILE I COULD D RA W UPON THE COURT'S DE CISIONS RESPECTTHERE WERE SE VERAL CASES, MAYBE A NUMBER, WHERE LAWYERS HAD BEEN A MEMBER OF THE BAR OF AN OTHER STATE FOR MANY YEARS, HAD BEEN ABLE TO MASTER THE FLORIDA BAR E XAM , SHOWED A PROFICIENCY FOR FLORIDA LAW BUT WERE UNA BLE TO GAIN ADMISSION BECAUSE OF SOME CHAR ACTER OR FIT NESS OR BOTH, ISSUE.

DOESN'T THAT HAP PEN, EVEN IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THREE PER YEAR. THAT CAN BE A SUBSTANTIAL PRESENCE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YOU ARE NOT PROPOSING , THESE AREN'T GOING TO BE SCREENED BY THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS FOR CHARACTER AND FITNESS?

NO , YOUR HONOR. IT IS JUST THAT

I KNOW WHAT YOU A RESAYING, BUT WHAT I AM THINKING IS THE PRACTICAL ISSUE ABOUT HOW THIS WOR KS IN THE REAL WO RLD OF, SAY , SECURITIES LITIGATION , AND WHETHER , YOU ARE NOT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF D AYS BUT THIS ARBITRARY , I SHOULDN'T SAY ARBITRARY BUT THREE PER YEAR , AND YOU ARE ALSO PROPOSING TO LIMIT THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE TO NOT ALLOW MORE THAN THAT.

CORR ECT. THE NU MBER THREE CAME FROM THE PRESENT R ULE.IT IS NOT A NUMBER WE CAME UP. IT IS NOT ARBITRARY. IN FACT , UNDER THE PRE SENTRULE THERE, IS A PRESUMPTION THAT, IN EXCESS OF THREE WITHIN A MOVING 365-DAY PERIOD, NOT WITHIN A CALENDAR YEAR, IS NOT, IS THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF LAW. IT IS NOT A TEMPORARY PRACTICE. SO WE ARE SI MPLY FOLLOWINGWHAT THIS COURT HAS ALR EADY APPROVED, BUT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS TAKING AWAY T HETRIAL COURT'S DISC RETION BECAUSE TRIAL COURT JU DGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN THE BEST POSITION OF BEING ABLE TO MONITO R WHAT LAWYERS ARE DOING AROUND THE STATE. THE FLORIDA BAR ISN'T INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. PLUS IT SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENT AND SOMETIMES UNFAIR, THAT IF YOU GO TO A COURT IN JACKSONV ILLE , FLORIDA, AND YOU ARE REPRESENTING A DEFE NDANT IN A, IN TOBA CCO LITI GATION THAT YOU MAY HAVE THE ABILITY OF REPRESENTING THAT DEFENDANT IN 100 CASES , BUT IF A LAWYER GOES DOWN TO MIAMI , OR ST. PETERSBURG AND THEY SEEK TO GAIN ADMISSION FOR THE FI FTH OR SI XTH OR SEVENTH TIME IN A 365 -DAYPERIOD, THAT JUDGE COULD SAY, NO , YOU ARE NOT GOI NG TO GET THAT RIG HT BEFORE ME. SO WHAT WE DO I S TRY TO CREATE PREDICT ABIL IT Y , CONSISTENCY AND FA IRNESS , AND THAT IS WHY TAKING THE COURT 'S THREE-TIME LIMITATION IN A 365-DAY, WE SIMPLY REMOVE THE T RIAL COURT 'S DISCRETION.

WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE BAR'S POSITION WITH REGARD TO THESE UNRELATED MATT ERS. I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE , CE RTAIN PRODUCTS , COMPANIES THAT MAKE CERTAIN PRODUC TS , MAY DEVELOP COUN SEL THAT WORKS ON TH OSE KIN DS OF CASES , AND FOR EXAMPLE IN FLORIDA, I F YOU HAVE A LA DDER , ONE KIND OF LADDER GOES BAD IN M IAMI , ONE IN TA MPA , JACKSONVILLE , TALLAHASSEE, ARE THOSE RELATED?ARE THOSE UNR ELATED ? WHAT IS, SO WE HAVE SOME GUIDELINE, BECAUSE THAT , REALLY, DEVELOPS IN TO, REALLY, THE GENE RAL PRA CTICE OF LAW WITHIN THE STATE.

THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT IS WHY WE TOOK THAT OUT , BECA USE IT WAS AMBIGUOUS. IT WAS SUBJECT TO B ROAD INTERPRETATION, AND WE TRIED TO ENSURE THAT THAT NOT OCCUR, AND I THINK THE ARGUMENT FROM THE PROPONENTS IS, WELL, GOSH, IF WE HAVE A LAWYER WHO IS REPRESENT AGO DEFENDANT IN ALL THEIR LADDER CASES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THEY HAVE GOT 100 OF THEM AND SHOULDN' T WE BE ALLOWE D TO HIRE OURLAWYER? SURE. BUT WE HAVE AN ADMISSION PROCESS IN THE STATE, AND WHEN IT BECO MES FROM TEMPORARY TO REGULAR PRACTICE, THE COURT HAS AN INTEREST IN ENS URING THAT THE PU BLIC IS PRO TECTED, THAT THAT LAWYER GA INED ADMISSION. AS A BAR EXAM INER , I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY WOULD NOT WANT TO TAKE THE BAR EXAM.IT IS A GREAT PROCESS. CERTAINLY VERY THOROUGH , AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE BAR EXAM AGAIN , BUT YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE OBLIGATION H ERE,IN THE STATE, THAT IF YOU WANT TO PRACTICE ON A PERMANENT OR REGU LAR BASIS , THAT YOU TAKE THAT BAR E XAM.

AS WE L OOK AT THIS ENTIRE AREA, AND I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN INVOLVED HEA VILY WITH THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS , THERE SEEMS TO BE AL SO, A NATIONWIDE TREND TO DO AWAY WITH BAR EXA MS. IS THAT THE PU SH FROM THE EDUCATION OR THE ACAD EMIC COMMUNITY, THAT THEY HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR CHARACTERAND FITNESS , AND ALL WE ARE GOING TO DO IS EDUCATE THEM AND WHY DO YOU NE ED TO DO A BAR EXAM BECAUSE WE DO A GREAT JOB. WHAT IS THE BAR'S THOUGHTS WITH REGARD TO THAT?

WELL , I THINK CERTAINLY THE BAR EXAMINERS HAVE SHARED THAT , AND THE BAR'S POSITION WOULD BE THAT, DESPITE THE ADVOCACY POSITION OF THE LAW SCHOOLSTHAT THEY DO A FINE JOB OF EDUCATING THEIR STUDENTS, IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC AS WE KNOW FROM THE PASS/FAIL LI NE, THAT THOSE LAWYERS W HOGAINED, THOSE LAW STU DENTS WHO TAKE THE EXAM PASS , PLUS THEIR CHARACTER AND FITNESS ISSUES THAT LAW SCHOOLS DO NOT SCRUTINIZE. THEY HAVE AN APPLICATION. YOU CAN CHECK I F YOU HAVE HAD DISCIPLINARY ISSU ES, BUT THEY DON'T GO INTO THE RIGOROUS EXAMINATION AFTER STUDENT 'S C HARACTER AND FITNESS. WE REMAIN , I THINK , WE ST ILL NEED A BAR ADMISSION PROCESS. WE STILL NEE D A TE STING OF THE PROFICIENCY OF LAWYERS. IN FACT , IN THIS COURT'SMOST RE CENT OPINION WHEN IT LOOKED AT WHETHER TO INCREASE THE PASS/FAIL LINE , THE COURT RECOGNIZED T HECONTINUED RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE OF A NEED FOR THE ADMISSION PROCESS AND THE BAR

YOUR TIME IS A BOUT U P, BUT IN RES PECT TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT YOU DON'T KNOW ANY REASON WHY ANYB ODY WOULDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE BAR EXAM , MY DAUGHTER IS GOING TO TAKE IT IN TWO WEEKS , AND I WILL GIVE YOU HER P HONE NUMBER .

WELL , AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, O N THE 250 DOLL ARS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY , ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT FOR EACH CASE OR IS THAT FOR THE 365-DAY PERIOD? WHAT IS THAT?

JUSTICE QUI NCE, IT IS , BOTH, FOR, IT IS FOR EACH APPEARANCE, EA CH CASE OR EACH ARBITRATIO N.

SO I F YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THREE, YOU ARE TA LKING ABOUT SOMEONE PAY ING $750 FOR THAT 365 -DAY PERI OD, TO APPEAR IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA , AND DOES THAT SEEM SOMEWHAT EXCESSIVE? I ME AN, THOSE WHO ARE ACTUAL MEMBERS OF THE BAR , WHAT ARE OUR DUES NOW , $290 A YEAR?

$2 65.

$265 A Y EAR.

WELL, THAT PRESUPPOSES THAT THERE IS GOING TO B E SOMEBODY AP PEAR IN G T HREETIMES IN 365 DA YS , BUT REMEMBER THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE BALANCED. ONE , IS WE HAVE A REGULATORY SYSTEM THAT NEEDS TO BE FUNDED, AND , TWO , IF SOMEBODY IS PRACTICING O R COMING DOWN ON THREE OCCASIONS , WHAT THEY ARE NOT HAVING TO DO THAT LAWYERS HERE IN THE STATE HAVE TO D O IS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN ADM ISSION PROCESS WHICH IS , ALSO, FEE-DRIVEN , OR THER E IS A IMPO SITION OF A FEE THERE. SOMETIMES IT CAN BE IN EXCESS OF $250 , DEPENDING UPON HOW QUIC KLY YOU REGISTER IN THE BAR ADMISSION PROCESS. SO WE LOO KED AT, IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF M O NE Y WE HAD TO DEDI CATE AS THE BAR , TO THE DISCIPLI NARY SYST EM, WE LOOKED AT THE EXPANSION OF OUR DISCIP LINARY SYSTEM, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED DISCIPLINARY RESPONSIBILI TY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ME ET. WE LOOKED AT THE NEED FOR THE CLIENT SEC URITY F UND,WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE FUNDED, AND THEN, ALS O, W E LOOKED AT ALL THE O THERSTATES. WE HAVE AN APPENDIX G , I BELIEVE IT IS APPE NDIX G , AT LEAST AT THAT PO INT IN TIME WHAT ALL THE STATES ARE DOING, AND FOR STATES OF OUR SIZE , WE LOOKED FOR A NUMBER WHICH OTHER STATES HAD FOLLOWED.

AND HAS THE BAR LOOKED AT THIS IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE RULE THAT WAS PASSED BY THE, THE STATUTE THAT WAS PAS SED BY THE LEGISLAT URE , WHICH REQUIRES PEOPLE APPEAR ING PRO HAC VI CE , TO PAY A $1 0 E 0 FEE?

A $100 FEE?

YOUR HONOR , WE LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THAT $100 F EE. IT IS , THE $100 AS I UNDERSTAND IT , IS PA ID TO THE CLER K'S OF FICE AND IT GOES TO THE G E NERAL RE VENUE FUND, SO WHILE IT MA Y BE AN OBLIGATION OF A LAWYER SEEK ING TO PRACTICE PRO HAC V ICE , IT DOESN'T COVER ARBITRATIONS , BUT IT IS NOT MONEY THAT GOES IN TO THE SYSTEM TO PAY FOR THE REGULATION OF LAWYERS AS WELL AS CLIENTS OF SECURITY FUNDS , SO I AM AWARE OF IT AS YOU ARE, BUT WE DIDN'T LOOK AT IT , AND IT WOULD NOT , TO DAY, WE WOULD CONTINUE TO UR GE $25 0.

JUSTICE BELL HAS A QUESTION.

JUST REAL QUICK, ON THE TRIGGERING POINT FOR APPEARANCES IN ARBITRATION , LET'S S AY YOU HAVE SOM EONE WHO REPRESENTS ON A ROUT INE BASIS, A SECU RITY COMPANY , AND THEY HAVE STANDARD PROVISIONS WHERE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ARBITRATED , MAY BE ARBITRATED OUTS IDE THE STATE . WOULD YOU RESPOND TO THE REQUEST BY MR . CROCHELL THAT IT SHOULD BE A DIFFERENT TRIGGERING POINT FOR THE COUNTING OF THE ARBITRATIONS , FOR EXAM PLE THE FI LING OF A VERIFIED STATEMENT FOR LE AVE TO AMEND OR EVEN ACTUAL ATTENDANCE AS AN ARBITRATION. RIGHT NOW THE TRIGGERING POINT IS FILING A DEM AND FOR ARBITRATION.MY QUESTION IS , SOMEBODY FILES A COMP LAINT HERE IN FLAT. DEMAND IS FIL ED. NOTHING ELSE IS DONE IN THESTATE OF FLORIDA. IT IS JUST AN AUTOMATI C, MAYBE THE COURT HAS NO FURTHER INVOLVEMENT. BECAUSE EVERYBODY AG REES THAT THERE IS A BIN DING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT, AND NOTHING ELSE IS DONE BY THE OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEY IN FLORIDA . UNDER THE RULE A S IT STAN DS NOW , THAT WOULD COUNT AS ONE APPEARAN CE.

CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

CAN YOU SPEA K TO THAT REQUEST, THAT THERE BE A DIFFERENT TRIGGERING POINT . THAT THERE IS MORE SUB STANCE TO THE ACTUAL APPEARANCE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN FLORIDA.

I AM NOT SU RE THAT THERE IS. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS HAVE STANDARD IZATION OF ANY TYPE OF RULE, AND T O CREATE SOME THING DIF FERENT FOR ARBITRATION , AS OPPO SE D TO THE ACTUAL COMMEN CEMENT OF LITIGATION, I THINK , WOULD NOT SERVE US WEL L. I THINK THE DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION IS THE SA ME AS THE FILI NG OF A COMPLA INT. BOTH SEEK DEMA NDS FOR RELIEF. THE WAY THOSE PROCESSES ARE, THEN, PER SUED, ARE FAIRLY SIMILAR, IN RESP EC T TO RESPONSES, DISCOVERY, ALTHOUGH IT IS G REATER OUTSIDE OF ARBITRATION THA N IT IS , BUT, BOTH , SEEK AN ULTIMATE CONCLUSION THRO UGH AN ARBITER. I THINK THEY ARE IDENTI CAL IN CONCEPT. I WOULD NOT URGE THE COURT TO AD OPT DIFF ERENT TRIGGERING POINT AND I THINKIT IS A RED HERRING . I THINK IT IS FINE THE WAY WE PROP OSE .

JUSTICE ANSTEAD HAS A QUESTION. YOU SEE, WE BECAME MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN THIS WHOLE SUBJECT.

WELL , YOUR HONOR, I APPRECIATE THAT, PARTICULARLY WITH THOSE OPENING COMMENTS THAT S OME MIGHT NOT FIND IT INTERESTING .

CHIEF JUSTICE: ESPECIALLY AS YOU STARTED IN THE HISTORY BA CK TO THE 1700 S, IT GOT OUR ATTENTION.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

AS LONG AS WE ARE ON YOUR TICKET AND SP ENDING YOUR TIME, HOWEVER IT GOES , LET ME PLAY THE DEVI L'S ADVO CATE A LITTLE BIT , ABOUT THIS THREE-APPEARANCE LIMI TATION. I REALIZE THAT , TO A GREAT EXTENT, WE ARE TAKING BABY STEPS NOW , AND IF WE HAD A TIME MACHINE, THAT THE WORLD WOULD PROBABL Y LOOK A LOT DIFFERENT IN TEN , TWE NTY , THIRTY YEARS , IN TER MS OF THIS MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICE . CLEARLY IN PLACES LIKE GERMANY AND THE U. K. AND ALL OF THOSE PLACES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A T ICKET, Y OUKNOW, IN A REGIONAL AREA , AND THAT THAT LIM ITS YOU THE RE . IF YOU HAVE YOUR TI CKET IN GERMANY, YOU CAN PRACTICE IN BERLIN AND YOU CAN PRACTICE IN MU NICH , AND SO ON AND SO ON, AND I AM WONDERINGWHETHER OR NOT , PERHAPS, WE ARE IG NORING REALITY OUT THERE , AND, AL SO, TO SOME EXTENT, PERHAPS , BI TING O URNOSE OFF TO SPITE OUR FACE , WITH THIS THREE-APPEARANCE LIMITATION. JUSTICE LE WIS USED THE , YOU KNOW, PRO DUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. CLEARLY , I F A MANUFACTURER HAS DEVELOPED A LE GAL TE AM THAT HAS THE EXPERTISE AND THE MOST KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT KIND OF LIT IGATION , AREN'T WE, REALLY , DEPRIVING FLORIDA JUDGES AND JURIES, THEN, OF THE BEST LEGAL TALENT AVAILABLE TO RESOLVETHAT PARTIC ULAR IS SU E ? SIMILARLY, WITH RE FERENCE TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE ADD HAVE INDICATED HAVE ADVO CATED ON THE PART OF INJU RED PEOPLE IN CLA SS ACTIONS OR HOWEVER THAT MIGHT AR ISE , AND IN REALITY, WE ALL KNOW THAT, WHOEVER MAY BE IN THE COURTROOM, ALSO, IS GO ING TO BE CONSULTING HEAVILY , W ITH THIS OTHER LEGAL TEAM , THAT HAS BEEN DEVELO PED WITH REFERENCE TO THAT , AND S O AREN'T WE REALLY DEP RIVING FLORIDA JURIES AND FLORIDA JUDGES OF THE BEST LEGAL TALENT AVAILABLE , AND IF WE HAVE THESE PROT ECTION S BU ILT IN NOW, WITH REF ERENCE TO BEING SUBMITTED TO FLORIDA'S JURISDICTION, WHY SHO ULDN'T WE HAVE , IN STEAD OF TAKI NG, REALLY, A TE ENY TINY STEP HERE , WHY WE SHOULDN'T B E MORE EXPANSIVE ? AREN'T WE IG NORING REALITY , AND AREN'T WE DEPRIVING OURSELVES, REALLY , OF THE BEST ADVOCACY IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THESE IMPORTANTISSUES?

WELL , YOUR HONOR, WHAT I THINK WE ARE DOING IS ACTUALLY MEETING REALITY. I WI LL TAKE IT , WE ARE TAKING A BABY STEP , P ERHAPS , BUT WE ARE EXPA NDING THE PRACTICE TO ALLOW SOME OF THAT, TO THE EX TENT THAT YOU ADVOCATE OR NOT ADVOCATE , BUT YOU MENTION IN YOUR DEVIL'S ADVOCACY PO SITION , THAT I F ON E OF THE AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANIES HAS A TEAM OF LAWYERS THAT HAVE GR EAT EXPERTISE IN REPRESENT ING THAT CLIENT, IN FACT THAT DOES O CCUR , ANECDO TALLY , MEMBERS OF THE COMMIT TEE HAD OCCASIONS WHERE THEY HAD CASES AGAINST THE SAME LAWYERS, OVER AND OV ER AND OVER AG AIN, EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T ADMI TTED , BUT WE DON'T HAVE YET , A NATIONAL BAR ADMISSION PROCESS. THE STATE OF FLORIDA ST ILL HAS THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC T O PROTECT , AND IF THAT SOPHI STICATED CL IENT EMPLOYEES THAT LEGAL TEAM OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN , AT SOME POINT , OUR INTEREST AND THE INTERE ST OF THE PUBLIC ARE SER VED , BY MAKING THOSE LAWYERS TAKE THE BAR EXAM. THE CHARACTER AND FITNESS ISSUES ARE NOT MET IN A PRO HAC V ICE ADMISSION, IF IT I S OPEN ENDED AND LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT , AND WELL I T MAY B E THAT THOSE LAWYERS ARE PROFICIENT IN CONSULTATION WITH LAWYERS HERE IN THE STATE , ABOUT THE NUANCES OF FLORIDA LAW, HO W ARE WE LOOKING AT OTHER ISSUES, SUCH AS ME NTAL HEALTH, PAST DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS , CAN DOR ISSUES THAT MAY LURK IN THEIR PAST THAT MAY POP-UP BE FORE A T RIALJUDGE AND NOBODY WILL E VER KNOW. ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS. NONE OF THAT , EVER , IS SCRUTINIZED BY THE TRIAL COURT.

BUT YOU SEE THERE, IF THERE ARE THREE, THAT IS WHAT I WAS SA YING , YOU CAN BE IN FOR THREE, AND THREE COULD TAKE THE WHOLE YEAR , WE ARE STILL, IT IS STIL L THE SAME ISSUE , UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO SCR EEN FOR THESE CHARAC TER AND FITN ESS ISSUES AS PART OF THE $2 50 , WE ARE STILL , WE STI LL HAVE THAT OUT THERE. I THINK YOUR POINT ABOUT THERE NOT YET BEING A NATIONAL BAR EXAM INATION PROCESS, MAY, REALLY , BE WHERE THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE GOING. ESPECIALLY WITH THE L AWFIRMS THAT HAVE OFF ICES IN EVERY STATE . HOW MUCH TIME , HOW MUCH DI D WE USE OF

CHIEF JUSTICE: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

WOULD YOU TAKE THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT DEVIL'S ADVOCACY AS WEL L. IF WE HAVE A CALIFORNIA LAW FIRM THAT SPECIALIZED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE , S HOULD THEY BE ALLO WED TO COME INT O THE STATE AND REPRESENT 1,000, 2 00 0 DIFF ERENT INJURED PA TIENTS AGAI NST THE HOSPITALS AND DOCT ORS AROU ND THE STATE? WOULD THAT BE ANY DIFFEREN T?

NO. IT WOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT.IN FACT , I HAVE A NATIONAL PRACTICE. I DO CONSUMER CL ASS LITIGATION. I GO AROUND THE COUNTRY, A NDI HAVE TO FACE THE SAME LIMITATIONS THAT I, T HAT FACE ME HER E.I HAVE TO BE COGNIZ ANT OF THAT, BUT AT SOME POINT IF I APPEAR IN CALIFORNIA ENO UGH,I AM GOING TO BE TAKING THE CALIFORNIA BAR EXAM. THAT IS THE REALITY, AND IT ISN'T , THE NAT IONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERSIS LOOKING AT ISSUES RELATING TO NATIONAL CERTIFICATION. THE NATIONALIZATION OF CHARACTER AND FITNESS ISSUES , BUT WE ARE NOT THERE YET, AND THE THREE TI MES THAT I KNOW JUSTICE PAR IENTE , BOTHERS YOU , THIS ISN'T PERFECT. AS A BAR EXAMINER , FORMER BAR EXAMINER , I WOULD LI KE TO HAVE SOME CHARACTER AND FITNESS EXAMINATION, BU T I AM NOT PROPOSING THAT ON BEHALF THE FLORIDA BAR. THE FLORIDA BAR IS N OTPROPOSING THAT. WE ARE SIMPLY TAKING WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE RULE A NDTAKING AW AY THE COURT'S DISCRETION AND SAYING T HAT, IF IT IS MORE THAN THREE TIMES, TAKE THE BAR.

JUSTICE CANTERO.

BEFORE YOU SIT DO WN , I WOULD LIK E YOU TO ADD RESS THE DISTINCTION BET WEEN THE DOMESTIC ARBITRATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS , BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED T HAT,ABOUT THE E QUAL PROTECTION ISSUES ON THAT. I AM NOT, I THINK THAT T HEJUSTIFICATION FOR THAT IS THAT, WELL, WE WANT T O ATTRACT INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TO SAY FLORIDA. I AM NOT SURE THAT THAT IS A SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR EQUAL PROTECTION PURPOSES. I THOUGHT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SUBSTANTIVE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS AND DO MESTIC , THAT WOULD JUST IFY A DISTINCTION .

ILL SHARE WITH YOU A FEWCOMMENTS, AND THEN I HAVE NEVER DON E THIS BEFORE, BUT MR . ASTIGARRAGA ASKED TO TAKE SOME TIME. BUT THERE ARE SOME SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION FINDS ITS WAY INTO FLORIDA MERELY AS A CONVENIENCE. IT IS A G REAT PL ACE TO APPEAR. THERE ARE A LO T OF FACILITIES TO FACILITATE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION INVOLVES INTERNATIONAL LAW OR ITS APPLICATION OR T HELAWS OF FOREIGN COUN TRIES OR ITS APPLICATION. MANY TIMES, IT IN VOLVES CITIZENS OF OTHER COUN TRIES AND NOT THE STATE OF FLORIDA.THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES , WHICH FORM THE BASIS FOR AN EXE MPTION FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW , AS OPPOSED TO DOMESTIC ARBITRATION.THOSE ARE THE THREE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCES , AND IF YOUR HONOR WOULD ALLOW ME , I WILL ASK M R . ASTIGGARR GEORGIA BECA USE HE ASKED FOR THE TIME .

A LOT HAVE RESPONDED THAT WAY .

I DI DN'T KNOW THE ANS WER BECAUSE IT WAS CONC EDED TO ME, APPEARING BEFO RE THIS PARTICULAR COURT.

ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT MAY BE ANSWERED AND MAYBE IN YOUR APPENDIX , WHERE WILL FLORIDA BE IF WE AD OPT T HIS RULE? WHERE WILL WE BE , IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE LARGER STATES, YOU KNOW , NEW Y O RK , CALIFORNIA , IN T E RMS OF, A REWE STILL BEING MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE AND HOME TOWN , OR ARE WE GOING TO BE KEE PING PACE WITH THOSE OTHER A STATES?

THREE STATES HAVE TO DAY ADOPTED THE RULE WITH WHAT THE ABA PRO POSES IN ITS MODEL RULE AND E LEVEN STATES HAVE ADOPTED RULES SIMILAR TO THE ABA, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. THERE ARE SE VERAL PEN DING BEFORE COURTS IN OTHER STATES. THERE ARE SEVEN IDENTI CAL PROPOSALS TO WHAT THE ABAHAS PROPOSED , PE NDING AT COURTS, SEVEN WHICH ARE SIMILAR PENDING, SO THERE ARE PRES ENTLY 14 COURTS

THE ABA , THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR PROPOSAL AND THE ABA PROPOSAL IS?

WELL , WE ALREAD Y HAVE A FOREIGN CONSULTANT RULE. THEY HAD ONE. WE ALREADY HAVE AN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL RULE. THEY PROPOSED ONE. SO WE REJ ECTED BOTH THOSE. AND

WERE YOU SATISFIED THAT OUR FOREIGN REGIS TRATION IS , DID THEY GO THROUG H THE BAR? I THOUGHT THEY HAVE TO REGISTER IN OUR COURT OR SOMETHING.

THEY DO , YOUR HON OR.

THEY WILL FILE WITH THE BAR?

THEY FILE WITH THE BAR. THAT SYSTEM HAS WO RKED EXTREMELY WELL. OBVIOUSLY AS PART OF OUR ANNUAL REVIEW, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT.WE HAVE LOOK ED AT THE IN-HOUSE COUNSE L RULE , AND WE THOUGHT NO REA SON TO CHANGE WHAT ISN'T BROK EN. WE, ALSO , HAVE PROPOSED TO THE COURT, I THINK , A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FEE SCHEDULES FOR WHAT OVER STATES PROPOSED. THEY RANGE F ROM A 25 DOLL ARS TO $ 550.

IS THERE ANY STATE THATJUST TAKES THE POSITION THATARBITRATIONS ARE TO TALLY EXEMPT F R OM THE REGULATORY PROCESS ?

I DON'T BE LIEVE THAT ANY DO. I DO KNOW THAT CALIFO RNIA , WHICH HAS SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT IT, PARTICULARLY AT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT LE VEL DOES LOOK AT ARBITRATION AS SYNONYMOUS WITH IN-COURT LI TIGATION.

WHAT ABOUT NEW YORK? DO YOU KNOW?

I DON'T KNOW, YOUR HONOR.

BUT ARE N'T THERE A NUMBER OF STATES THAT DO NOT T R EAT ARBITRATION AS THE PRACTICE OF LAW, IN TERMS OF REGULATION OF THE IR STATE ORGANIZATIONS?

I DON 'T, O KAY , LE T ME RESPOND TO IT THIS WAY. I GUES S THERE ARE SOME, YOUR HONOR, BUT THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF STATES THAT DON'T D O MUCH IN CONNECTION WITH TRYING TO POLICE THE UNLICENSED PRACTI CE OF LAW. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, I THINK , AT ONE TIME , I BET YOU IT IS PROBABLY STILL THE CASE, HAD A BUDG ET FOR UPL CUMULATIVELY BIGGER THAN ALL THE OTHER STATES COMBINED .

I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST WANT TO BE C LEAR. THE BAR IS AWARE THAT THERE ARE A LOT O F STATES THAT DON'T TREAT PRACTICE BEFORE ARBITRATION BOARDS AS THE PRACTICE OF LAW.

ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT BEING A LAWYER IN THIS STATE AND HAVING SER VE D ON THE BOARD OF BAR EXAMINERS AND THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS , IS WE ARE A TREND SET TER AS A BAR AND AS STATE.

I AM NOT TALKI NG ABOUT THE MERI TS OF IT RIGHT N OW. I AM JUST TALKING ABOUT THEFACT THAT WE SHOULD B E AWARE.

YE S. WE ARE B RINGING THEM INTO THE LIGHT , YOUR HONOR, AND WE THINK, IF THIS COURT ADOPTS OUR RULES PACKAGE , THAT THERE WILL BE A GR OUP FOLLOWING US.

BUT THE ABA DOES SUGGEST OR RECOM MEND IN THEIR MODEL , PROPOSALS THAT ARBITRATION BE WITH IN OR NOT. THAT IS WHAT I WAS JUST

YES, YOUR HONOR. THAT IS PART OF THE MODEL PROPOSAL, AND WE ADO PTED THAT WITH SOME CHA NGES , OBVIOUSLY, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: ANY? I THINK YOU ARE WELL INTO EVERYONE'S REBUTTAL TIME BUT YOU STILL HAVE ENOUGH T IME.

YOU ARE VERY GRACIOUS. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK Y OU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT IS MR . MAHER FOR THE BUSINESS LAW SE CTION.

THANK, YOUR HONOR. MY NAME IS STEPHEN MAH ER OF THE SH UTTS AND BONE FIRM IN MIAMI. WITH RE SPECT TO Y OUR COMMENTS THERE,