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, DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR PROPOSAL AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATIONAPPROACH, AND I THINK THE FOCUS FOR US IS THIS THREE-ARBITRATION LIMITATION. WHEN HE CAME OUT WITH THE OLD RULE ON PRO HAC V ICE, WHICH SAID THREE , AND T HEAMERI CAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS NOT RECOMMENDED THREE , AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE NONE OF THE OTHER STATES HAVE ADOPTED THREE. THEY USE AN OTHER APPROA CH. AS YOUR HONOR KNOWS, THE NEXUS APPROACH IS, IN FACT , AN OR GANIC LI MITATION ON PEOPLE COMING HERE, PO ACHING FOR CASES , WHICH I THINK IS WHAT THE BAR I S WOR RIED BEFORE IS WORR IED ABOUT.

SO THE N E XUS TO THE CASE ITSELF AS OP POSED TO THE EXPERTISE THAT THE LAWYER POSESSES?

THE NEXUS WOULD SAY THAT SOMEBODY HAS TO BE FROM YOUR STATE , OR IN OTHER W ORDSSOMEBODY, WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T SIT IN NEW YORK AND TRY TO GET CASES FROM FLORIDA AND HANDLE CASES I N FLORIDA, BUT IF YOU ARE A NEW YORK LAWYER AND YOU H AVE A CLIENT WHO HAS A PROB LEM , AND THEY TR UST YOU , YOU ARE THE LOGI CAL PERSON, I F YOU HAVE THAT EXPERTISE TO DO THAT CASE.

THAT IS A MEANINGFUL LIMITATION.

THAT IS A MEANINGFUL LIMITATION, ACCORDING TO THE ABA. LET ME EXPLAIN , THIS WHOLE PROBLEM WAS A PRO BLEM FOR MANY YEARS. YOUR HONORS INDICA TED BENI GN NEGLECT AS BEING, PERHA PS , THE SITUATION. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE . PROFESSOR WOLFRAM , WHO W ROTE WOLFRAM ON ETHICS , WROT E AN ARTICLE IN 19 95 , CALLED SNEAKING AROUND THE L EGALPROFESSION. HE WAS WELL AWARE THAT THERE IS LOTS OF, QUOTE , UNETHICAL CONDUCT , GOING ON , END QUOTE , GOING ON , AND WH Y? BECAUSE THE MODE RN PRACTICE OF LAW REQUIRED IT . WE HAVE AN OLD, M AYBE NOT 1700S BUT CERTA INLY 18 00S SYSTEM OF LOCAL CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT OF UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE, AND WE HAVE A MODERN LAW PRACTICE , SO PEOPLE WERE GOIN G OUT A NDTHEY WERE JUST DOING THINGS THAT WERE, QUOTE, UNETHIC AL , BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 1 99 8 WAS THE BIERBAUER CASE IN CALIFORNIA. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT CASE WAS A CONCEPTUAL TORPEDO, BECAUSE EVERYBODY SAID IF THE CAL IFORNIA SUPREME COURT , WHOM EVERYBODY HELD IN G REATREGARD, WOULD SAY SO MEBODY COULD COME IN AND DO AN ARBITRATION AND ONLY VISIT THE STATE THREE TIMES NOT FOR A HE ARING JUST TO FIND OUT INFORMATION TO GET READY FOR ARBITRATION AND LATER SETTLING, HAD FORFE ITED THEIR EN TIRE FEE THO FOR THAT ACTIVITY, THE N THERE WAS A TRE MENDOUS PROBLEM , BECAUSE THERE IS A TREMENDOUS DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHERE THE RU LES A REAND WHERE THE PRACTICE IS .

IS THE POSITION , DO YOU AGREE WITH THE PARTS OF THE RULE THAT SAY, IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE PARTICIP ATING AS , E ITHER DEFENDING OR BRINGING AN ARBITRATION , THAT THEY SH OULD SU BMIT THEMSELVES TO THE BAR DISCIPLINARY PROCESS? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I S,DO YOU OP POSE THAT , OR IS THAT

NO. I BELIEVE THAT THE BUSI NESS LAW SECTION AND THE BAR COMMITTEE , BOTH, UNDERSTAND THAT, WHEN SOME ON E COMES TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA, THAT THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTIONS OF THIS COURT.

DO YOU , ALSO HOW, GO AHEAD.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT , I S THAT THE LAWYERS ON NOTICE FILE, COMES DOWN HERE F ROM SOUTH CARO LINA, SE TS UP A N OFFICE IN F T. LAUDER DALE , BE IS GOING TO REGULA RLY HAN DLE ARBITRATIONS OF CABLE COMPANY DISP UTES WITH T HEIR CUSTOMERS , SAY , AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THEM , AND SO THAT LAWYER IS HAND LING THOSE.IS HE FROM SOUTH CAR OLINA . NOW , HE SUBMITTED HIMSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF FLORIDA UNDER YOUR THE OR Y , BUT FLORIDA CANNOT DISCIPLINE HIM, IN SO FAR A S DISBARRING THAT LAWYER, BECAUSE HE I S ADMITTED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN SOUTH CARO LINA!

BUT, YOUR HONOR, IN THAT SCENARIO THAT YOU ARE GI VING , THAT LAWYER IS ENGA GED I N THE GENE RAL PRACTICE. THAT IS A VI OLATION OF THESE RULES.

WELL , I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS A NEXUS BETWEEN

THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT, EVEN, I BELIEVE, THE ABA DOES NOT END ORSE THE GEN ERAL PRACTICE OF LAW IN A FOREIGN JURIS DICTION.THE ONLY QUES TION THAT W E ARE FIGHTING ABOUT HERE , IS WHAT IS THE GENERAL PRACTICE OF LAW? WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS "THREE STRIKES" AND YOU ARE OUT! AND THE QUESTION IS , WHAT IF IT IS ONLY THREE DEMA NDS FOR ARBITRATION THAT, AS SOON AS THE DEMANDS ARE FILED , T HECASE IS SETTLED!

BUT WHAT I AM TRY ING

THAT IS NOT THE GENERAL RULE.

WHAT I AM TRYING T O UNDERSTAND IS HOW , PRACTICALLY , YOU CO ME UP WITH THE NEXUS I DEA , BECAUSETHERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN ALL OF THESE CASES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE CABLE COM PANY , AND ITS SUBSCRIBER S.

YOUR HONOR , THE CASE THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING HAS B EEN DEALT WITH BY THIS COURT IN THE ROCK PORT DECISION. YOU CAN'T MOVE HERE AND OPEN AN OFFICE AND PRACTICE LAW , WITHOUT TAKING THE BAR EXAM. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION IS ADVOCATING.

THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO FIND OUT.

WHAT WE ARE SAYING HERE IS , WHAT IS PROTEC TING CLIENTS? THIS IS ALL BEING DONE IN THE NAME OF PROTECTI NG THE CLIENT.

NEXUS HAS TO BE , IT H ASTO BE PERFORMED FOR A CLI ENT IN THE LAWYER 'S HOME STATE. IS THAT PART

THERE IS AN EITHER/OR.

WHAT ARE ONE OF THE SERVICES THAT A LAWYER IS REASONABLY ALLOWED TO PRACTICE IN A JURISDIC TION. AGAIN , W OULD THAT MEAN IF A LAWYER IS AN EXPERT IN SECURITIES? THAT IS IT? THAT IS THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT?

LE T'S TAKE THE QUESTION THAT WAS STATED EARLIER. WHAT IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS AN EXPERT IN A PARTICU LAR KIND OF CASE WHO THE CL IENT HIRES, BECAUSE HE IS THE BEST IN THE COUNTRY, IT T O COME TO THIS JURISDICTION AND TRY THE CASE.

HOW MANY TIMES?

WHEN IT BEC OME AS GENERAL PRACTICE

WHEN DOES THAT HAPPEN?

THAT IS A F A CTUAL DETERMI NATION.

BY THE TRIAL JUDGE?

WELL , IN THE CASE AFTER PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION THAT , IS HOW IT HAS BEEN DONE FOR 100 YEARS.THE TRIAL JUDGE H ASDETERMINED ELIGIBILITY FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION.

IS N'T THAT EXACTLY WH Y WE ARE HERE THOUGH , BEC AUSE THAT SYSTEM HAS NOT WORKED , BECAUSE PRIOR JUDGE RESPECT NOT POLICING THAT?

NO. THEY ADMIT IN THEIR PAPERS, THAT THERE IS ABSOL UTELY NO IMPERICAL EVIDENCE THAT THE SYSTEM IS BRO KEN IN THAT REGARD! THEY HAVE NOT COME UP WITH ANY PROOF THAT THIS SY STEMIS BEING AB USED!

IT IS KIND OF HARD T O PROVE THIS KIND OF ISSU E, ISN'T IT?

THEY HAVE NEVER TRI ED TO COLLECT ANY EVIDENCE. I REPRE SENT THE COMMITTE E.THE COMMITTEE WAS F IRSTASKED IN SEPTEMBER , THIS PAST SEPTEMBER, TO GATHER EVIDENCE ON THAT PO INT. THIS WAS AFTER THE RULE-MAKING WAS DONE ! WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT THAT IS AN EX CUSE NOT A REASON. THAT THE REAL REASON HERE, IS PROTECTIONISM, AND THESE CONCERNS, ALL THE LAWYERS ARE COMING IN AND DOING THIS , THEY DON'T KNOW. THAT EVERYTHING WE HAVE HEARD IS ANECDO TAL , AND W HAT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS THE REAL REASON BEHIND THIS R ULE IS TO PROTECT FLOR IDA LAWYERS FROM EXPERTS WHO CLIENTS HAVE CH OSEN TO CO MEIN HERE AND AR GUE THEIR CASES. IN IS OLATED CASES , THEY ARE NOT MOVING HERE TO OPE N AN OFFICE. THESE ARE, WE ARE THE BUSINESS LAW SE CTION.

LET ME ASK THE SAME QUESTION, JUST A FOLLOW-UP , IF THE OFFICE IS NOT I N FT. LAUDERDALE THAT JUSTICE WELLS JUST ASKED ABOUT , BUT THAT OFFI CE IS IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND THAT LAWYER JUST SPENDS ALL WEEK IN A HOTEL IN FT. LAUDER DALE , AND DOES THE SAME KINDS OF THI NGS, THEN THAT IS ACCEPTABLE UNDER YOUR P LA N .

IT IS NOT MY P LAN. IT IS THE AMER ICAN BAR ASSOCIATION.

IT IS ACCEPTABLE UNDERWHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TO US , CORRECT?

YES. IT DE PENDS UPON WHETHER IT BECOMES THE GENERAL PRACTICE. BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS NUMERICAL LIMI TATION , IS THAT, AS YOUR HONOR HAS NOTED, TW O COULD BE ALL YEAR. THREE COULD BE FIVE MINUTES . THE NUMBER IS INHERE NTLY ARBITRARY.

SO HOW WO ULD YOU DE FINE OR ARGUE GENERAL PRACTICE ?

IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE THE THREE DEMANDS FOR ARBITRATION THAT NEVER GO BEYOND THE SETT LEMENT AFTER THE LETTERS ARE SENT .

WHAT WOULD IT BE?

IT WOULD BE A FAC TUAL DETER MINATION THAT THE BAR WOULD HAVE TO MAK E!

AND ISN'T THAT JUST A S ARBITRARY AS THE THRE E?

NO.IT IS NOT, BECAUSE IT WOULD H AVE A FACTUAL BA SIS.

AT ONE TIME YOU CAN SAY IT IS THREE AND ANOTHER TIME YOU CAN SAY IT IS THI RTY?

YOUR HONOR - -

ONE JUDGE WON'T KNOW HOWTHE OTHER JUDGE RULE D.

RIGHT NOW UNDER THESE PROPOSALS , THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE MOTION IS VERY DETAILED. THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE TRIAL JUDGE AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, HAS DONE A PRO HAC VICE MOTION REQUIREMENT, AL SO, THAT WOULD PRO VIDE THE TRIAL JUDGE WITH THIS KI ND OF INFORMATION.

I GUESS THE BENE FIT THAT THE BAR 'S PROPOSAL HAS IS UNIFORMITY. EVERYBODY KNOWS IT IS THREE AND YOU ARE OUT. RIGHT NOW IT IS THREE BUT THE JUDGE HAS DISCRETION TO LET YOU IN, ANYWAY, SO IT I S REALLY NOTHING, AND IT SE EMS LIKE YOUR PROPOSAL IS NOT MUCH MORE THAN WHAT W E HAVE. IT IS SJUTS AS IT I S J UST AS VAGUE AND AMBIGU OUS , A CASE BY CASE APPROACH. WOULDN'T WE BE BET TER OFF WITH JUST INCREASING T HE NUMBER?

WELL , YOUR HONOR , IT IS TRUE IN THIS CASE, THAT THE BAR IS , IN THE NAME OF LIBERALIZING, CUTTING BACK FROM A THREE-PLUS SYSTEM TO A "THREE STRIKES" YOU ARE OUT SYSTEM, SO ALTHOUGH THESE AMENDMENTS ARE ADVANCED AS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO OPEN UP PRACTICE TO SOME D E GREE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LAWYERS, INFACT IN THE PRO HAC VICE AREA, I THINK THEY PR ETTY MUCH CL EARLY ADMIT THAT T HEY ARE CUTTING BAC K TO THREE.

REAL LY, THOSE , REALLY WE ARE DEALING WITH TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.ONE IS IN THE ARBITRATIONAREA, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO WAY T O PRACTICALLY , TO REGULATE HOW LAWYERS ARE PRACTICING IN ARBITRATION, AND, YOU KNOW , I THINK THAT , SO YOU ARE NOT , ARE YOU PROPOSING A DIFFERENT STANDARD SHOULD PE RTAIN FOR THOSE ENGAGED IN ARBITRATION, THAN THOSE ENGAGED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS ? OR WOULD YOU SAY THAT WHATEVER IT IS WOULD BE T HESAME?

WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS COURT AD OPTING THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION PROPOSALS FOR ARBITRATION AND FOR PRO HAC VICE, AND OUR FALLBACK POSITION IS, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ADOPT THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

AND THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SAYS UNLIMITED BUT THEY HAVE TO

THERE IS NO NUMERICAL LIMITATION BUT THEY ARE LIMITED BY GENERAL PRACTICE. YOU CANNOT ENGAGE IN GENERAL PRACTICE.

HOW MANY STAT ES HAVE ADOPTED THAT PROPOSAL?

WITH MI NOR CHAN GES , WE WILL FIND IT FOR YOU. I BELIEVE THERE IS A NUM BER.

LET'S JUST , SO IF THE JUDGE IS THE PERSON , JUDGES NOW ARE SUPP OSED TO HOLD HEARINGS ON WHEN SOMETHING BECOMES THE GENERAL PRACTICE?

NO. THE BAR IS BEING SENT COPIES. ACCORDING TO THEIR PROPOSAL , EVERY TIME YOU COME TO FLORIDA AND YOU APPEAR IN AN ARBITRATION OR YOU A REINVOLVED IN PRO HAC VICE, YOU SEND THE BAR A CO PY. THE BAR HAS INFORMATION.

A LAWYER, WHEN THEY SAY NOW YOU ARE IN GENERAL PRACTICE, YOU ARE UNAUTHORIZED, NOW THIS COURT WILL BE MONITORING THAT ISSUE AS A PRACTICAL MA TTER , WHICH , WITHOUT ANY REAL WAY , SENT TO REFE REES . I GUESS , A GAIN, YOU HAVE T O APPRECIATE THAT THAT SOUNDS, TO ME, LIKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD, REALLY , BE UNMANAGEABLE. I HAVE SOME SYMPA THY FOR THE ISSUE THAT, MAYBE, THE , FOR THE ARBITRATIONS, THE FACT OF THE DEMAND IS , R EALLY , NOT THE PLACE TO GO, BUT T O LOOK AT W HETHER THERE IS ACTUALLY AN ARBITRATION THAT TAKES PLAC E, AND I THINK THAT IS LEGITI MATE Q U ESTION THAT , I THINK , WAS BROUGHTTO LIGHT THAT WE OUGHT T O LOOK AT , BUT I HESITATE TO , AND DOES IT NOT SE EM THAT THE ALTERNATIVE , ALL, OR THE ALTERNATIVE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION , W H ICH I AM SURE IS MADE UP WITH MANY LAWYERS THAT HAVE MULTIJURISDICTIONAL PRACTICES, IS, REALLY, IN THE BEST INT EREST OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTIC E IN THIS STATE, AND THE PRACTICAL EV ENTS ECT S OF HAVING TO EFFE CTS OF HAVING TO MAKE THOSE DISTINCTIONS, SO IF YOU COULD HELP A LITTLE MORE O N WHERE, HOW THAT DETERMINATION WOULD BE MADE UNDER YOUR VI EW O F T HIS.

WELL, I THINK YOUR HONOR IS RIGHT. IN ARBITRATION, THAT YOU NEED A MORE MEANINGFUL CONNECTION TO FLORIDA THAN JUST FILING A DEMAND, BECAUSE AS I UNDERS TAND IT, MANY OF THOSE DO SET TLE , AND IT IS NOT A MEANINGFUL WAY TO LIMIT THIS.

COULDN'T THE SAME THING BE SAID FOR LITIGATION. I MEAN, A COMPLAIN T IS FILED AND THEN YOU ENGAGE IN EVERYTHING EL SE BUT YOU DON'T MAKE IT TO TRIAL , AND YOU MAY LITI GATE JUST AS YOU MAY BE ENGAGED IN ARBITRATION MATTERS FOR YEARS!

BUT

SO YOU ARE DOING, A NDWHAT YOU ARE REALLY TRY IN G TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS , SO TO DIRE CT IT TO THE CHARACTER AND FITNESS IS SUES , TO THE PROFICIENCY IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS AND THE PROTECTION OF FLORIDA CITIZENS , THAT THAT I S,WHETHER IT GO ES TO TRIA L OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. IT IS THE LE GAL WORK THAT I S DONE THAT LE ADS UP . HE MAY BE A TER RIBLE PERS ON THAT SETTLES EVERYTHING OUT FROM UNDER FOLKS AND YOU NEVER REACH AN ARBITRATION, SO I DON'T SEE THAT SOMEHOW THE FILING OF THE DOCUMENT , YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING ELSE AND IT IS MA GIC WHEN YOU G O INTO THE PROCEEDING, THAT THAT IS MAG IC .

BUT , JUDGE , WHEN YOU SAY THAT SOMEONE HAS SELE CTED , TALK ABOUT A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS PERSON , S LEKED AN OUT-OF-STATE

I HIM TALKING ABOUT J OE CITIZEN. YOU ARE NOT SPEAKING JUST TO BUSINESS PEOP LE OUT THERE. JOE C ITIZEN NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED AS WE LL.

BU SINESS PEOPLE NEED TO BE PROTECTED AS WEL L. YOU CAN'T P UT IT ASIDE UNDER THE THAT THERE MAY BE SOMEBODY OUT THERE WHO HAS TO BE PROTECTED. WHEN YOU HAVE THE BEST PERSON IN NO , WHO COMES DOWN BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN S UED WITH DEFECTIVE PROD UCT AND HE COMES DO WN TO FLORIDA A NDYOU PICK THREE OF THEM BECAUSE HE CAN'T DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE THREE , IN THE NAME OF THE CLIENT , THAT IS PROTECTIONISM.

LET ME SUGGEST SOMETHING THAT, COULD IT BE RESOLVED WITH THIS RULE, PROTECTING EITHER PARTY , BUT ALONG THE LINES OF YOU WILL HAVE DISCRETION OF UP TO FIVE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF T HEFLORIDA BAR, SO THAT IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO HAS S IX CASES REPRES ENTING A LA DDER COMPANY IN MORNING NEW YORK,COMING DOWN HERE COMPANY IN NEW YORK COMING DOWN HERE AND THERE ARE SIX IDENTICAL PRODUCT LIABILITY CASES, THELAWYER CAN GO TO THE BAR NOT JUST TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, BECAUSE THOSE ARE ISOLATED CASES. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER JUDGES ARE DOING, BUT TO GO TO THE BAR AND PRESENT YOUR CASE TO THE BAR THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE T O REPRESENT ALL SIX CASES .

THAT IS A POT ENTIAL COMPANIES MIZE , YOUR HO NOR , BUT COMPROMISE , YOURHONOR , BUT LET ME EMPHASIZEAGAIN, WE ARE NOT HERE TO DAY BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A PROVEN PROBLEM AND YOU HAVE GOT TO WATCH THIS LIKE A HAWK. WE ARE HERE TODAY TO LIBERALIZE. THIS WAS ALL BECAUSE OF THE BIERBAUER CASE. THE ABA STU DIED THIS AND SAID LET'S OPEN THE G ATES GAETS AND THEY SAID LET'S OPEN UP THE GA TES BY SHUTTING DOWN PRO HAC VICE. WE SHOULDN'T BE SO CONCERNED. TELL THE BAR TO COME BA CK AND STUDY THE PROBLEM WHEN THERE IS A PROBLEM, BE FORE IT COMES UP WITH THE RULES. IT IS ANEC DOTES AND CONC ERNS OF REGULATORS .

WHAT KIND OF IMPERICAL DATA ARE YOU BA SING THAT ON THAT IT IS NOT IN FLORID A? YOU ARE TRYING LADDER C ASESTHAT COME ABOUT ALL THET IME.IF YOU ARE DOING TRANSACTIONAL CASES, ARE YOU IN THE COURTROOMS I N BROWARD AND DADE COUNTIES , WHERE THIS IS HAPP ENING ON A REPRESENTATIVE BASIS?

I AM AN APPE LLATE LAWYER , YOUR HONOR, BUT W HAT I AM SAYING IS IN THIS CASE WE SHOULDN'T BE LO OKING AT THIS AS IF THEY FOUND A PROBLEM AND SHOULDN'T BE TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM UNDER PRO HAC V ICE.WE ARE SA YING STAY UNDER THE RULES OF THE FLORIDA BAR AND SHOW US DATA . COLLECT DATA. FIND OUT HOW MA NY PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE, PRACTICING WHEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE , ENGAGE IN THE GENERAL PRACTICE.

HOW DO YOU EFFECTIV ELY DO THAT? O NE OF MY CON CERNS IS ONE OF THE MOST VAL UABLE ASPECT S OF AN INDEPENDENT LAWYER PRACTICING, IS THERE IS A LOYALTY TO THE PUBL IC, LOYALTY TO THE BAR , ET CETERA. IF YOU OPEN THIS DOOR, WHAT IS TO KEE P A M A JOR BUSINESS FROM JUST HI RING A BU NCH OF IN-HOUSE COUNSEL SO THERE IS NOT THAT INDEPEND ENCE , AND THEY ARE GOING ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, TRYING THE LADDER CASE OR THE OTHER PRODUCT LIABILITY CASE, AND YOU REALLY LO SE THE INDE PENDENCE . I UNDERSTA ND IT IF YOU HAVE AN INDEPENDENT PRACTICE , LET'S SAY IN BIRMINGHAM , WHERE YOU ARE REALLY AN INDEPENDENT LAWYER, AND SO THERE IS THAT INDEPEND ENCE THAT CONCERNS ME ON THE PRACTICE OF LAW, BUT IF WE OPEN IT UP AS BROA DLY AS YOU DO, WHAT TA KES A HOME DE POT FROM HIRING 20 LAWYERS AND THEY GO THROUGH FLORIDA AND EVERY OTHER STATE, TRYING THESE CASES, AND THEY DON'THAVE THE INDEPENDENCE FROM THE CLIENT THAT IS SO VALUABLE TO OUR SYST EM?

WELL , I AM GOING TO EXERCISE MY LEG A LITTLE BIT AND PU NT TO MY NE XT SPEAKE R. SHE IS GOING TO ADD RESS IN-HOUSE COUNSEL BUT I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ONE S TEP FURTHER AND SAY WHAT ABOUT THE FAM OUS CRIMINAL ATTORN EY WHOM EVERYBODY WANT S TO HIRE WHO COMES IN FROM NEW YORK TO TRY THIS CRIM INAL CASE AND HE HAS GOT TH REE , AND UNDER THE IR RULE , THAT FOURTH CLIENT IN A YEAR CALLS HIM AND HE HAS GOT T O SAY TO HIM, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T GO TO FLORIDA AGAIN UNTIL NEXT APRIL.SEE IF YOU CAN DE LAY THE INDICTMENT!

BUT IS N'T THE SIXTH AMENDMENT HORRIBLES IS A DIFFERENCE A DIFFERENT ISSUE, AND IF THAT NE EDS TO BE ADDRESSED , IT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY A JUDGE SAYING IF IT NEE DS TO BE APPL IE D THEN WE CAN APPLY IT IN THAT FASHION, BUT WHY NOT THE REASON AS JUSTICE BELL HAS INDICATED , THE WHOLE SE LF PRACTICE OF LAW IN C IVIL MATTERS THAT IS NEVER RECOGNIZED, THAT KIND OF CONSTITUT IONAL PROTECTION, BUT YOU CAN JUST H IRE WHOEVER YOU WANT WITHOUT REGARD TO BOUNDARIES , AND IT IS MY UNDERSTA NDING THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS ALWAYS RECOGNIZED THE ABILITY OF STATES TO CONTROL WHO ACTUALLY IS IN THE COURT ROOMS AND WHO IS ADVISING , PROVIDING LEGAL ADVISE T O ADVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF THAT STATE.

WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE WAY THIS IS SET UP , IT WILL BE A RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, WHICH WILL APPLY IN BOTH CRIMI NAL AND CIVIL SIDE, AND YOU ALSO HAVE CASES LIKE U.S. V ERSUS ALVAREZ OUT OF THE FI RST ZUKT IN 19 87 , WHICH FOUND A NUMERICAL LIMI TATION AS APPLIED IN A CRIMINAL CASE, TO BE IN VALID .

MY POIN T IS , WHY DO WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO TIE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CIVIL ARENA TO THE COATTAILS OF A N ARENA THAT DO ESN'T APPL Y.

WHAT , THE PO INT I AM TRYING TO MAKE IS AS PRO HAC VICE, WE WOULD URGE THAT YOU LEAVE THE PRO HAC VICE ALONE BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. TOO ARBITRATION, THERE IS A PROBLEM.I THINK EVER YBODY ADMI SSTHE CURRENT RULE IN THIS COURT'S

YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE CURR ENT RULE THAN THERE WOULD BE IN TRYING TO

EXACTLY.

, REALLY , EXPAND , BUT YOU REALLY ARE CUTTING BACK IN THAT CA R.IS THAT CORRECT?

AND THE BUSINESS LAW SECTION HAS SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED THE PRO BLEMS THATYOU ARE DISCUSSING, AND THE NEED FOR , PERHA PS , A C L EARER , BRIGHTER LI NE, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE CU RRENT RULE PROVIDES THAT AND WE ARE SATISFIED WITH STA YI NGWITH THE CURRENT RULE AS A STUDY OF THE PROBLEM IS MADE TO SEE IF THERE IS A PR OBLEM THAT SHOULD CHANGE IT , BUT AS TO ARBITRATION , THE RAPAPORT DE CISION HAS HAD A CHILLING EFFECT THROU GHOUT THE ARBITRATION AREA, AND MANY PEOPLE ARE SC ARED , IN LIGHT OF THAT DECISION, TO COME TO FLORIDA AT ALL AND PARTICIPATE AT ALL, AND I THINK THAT WE DO NEED S OME SORT OF A BR IGHT LINE OR SOME S O RT OF AN O KA Y , SO PEOPLE WILL COME INTO FLORIDA AND ARBITRATE. THE PROBLEM IN ARBITRATIONIS DIFFERENT, BECAUSE ONCE YOU HAVE YOUR THREE I N ARBITRATION, THERE IS NO JUDGE WHO HAS , AS IN A PRO HAC VICE SITUATION , CAN SAY FOUR IS OKAY , FIVE IS OKAY , AND ON CE YOU SAY THAT THE BAR IS NOT GOING TO BOTHER YOU. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT IN ARBITRATION, SO IF YOU AREGOING TO COME UP WITH A FLEXIBLE NUME RICAL APPROACH THERE, YOU MAY SAY THE BAR HAS TO ENTERTAIN SOME KIND OF PROCEEDING AND THIS COURT HAS TO HAVE AN APPEL LATE REVIEW OF THAT AND THERE IS NOT THAT KIND OF MECHANISM IN THE PROPOS ALS. WE WOULD ASK THAT , IF YOU DO STALE STAY WITH A NUME RICAL APPROACH, THAT YOU STAY - - IF YOU DO STAY WITH A NUMERICAL APPROACH , THAT YOU STAY WITHIN THAT GUIDELINE. THANK YOU VERY M UCH .

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT . CATHY KL OC ON BE HALF O F THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION ARBITRATIONCOMMITTEE.AS THIS COURT IS LIKELY AWARE, THE SI A IS A PRINCIPLE N ATIONAL TR ADE ORGANIZATION OF THE SECURITIES INDUSTRY AND IN THAT CAPA CITY REPRESENTS OVER 6 00 SECURITIES FIRMS. THE SIA IS PARTICUL ARLY IMPACTED BY THE FLORIDA BAR 'S PROPOSED RULES BECAUSE IT IMPACTS THE AB ILITY OF BROKERAGE FIRMS TO HAVE IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTTHEM IN ARBITRATIONS IN FLORIDA . SECURITIES FIRMS TYPICALLY ARBITRATE THE V AST MAJ ORITY OF THEIR LITIGATION.THEY HAVE TO A RBITRATE DISPUTES WITH CUSTOM ERS. THEY HAVE TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES WITH EMPLOY EES , AND THEY HAVE TO ARBITRATE DISPUTES BETWEEN THEMSELVES , BECAUSE THE RULES OF THE NISD , THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE AND OT HERS REQUIRE MEMBER FIRMS TO ARBITRATE WITH EACH OTHER, SO THEY DO HAVE IN -HOUSE ATTORNEYS WHO DO REPRES ENT IN ARBITRATIONS . THESE IN-HOUSE ATTO RNEYS ARE PARTICULARLY QUALIFIED TO REPRESENT THEIR EMPLOYERS I N ARBITRATIONS, BECAUSE THEYARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FIRM'S PROCEDURES. THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SRO RULES THAT GOVERN T HEIR CONDUCT. THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PRODUCTS THE FIRMS SELL , AND THEY, ALSO, CAN CARRY THAT EXPERTISE AND KNOWLEDGE FROM CASE TO CASE .

HOW MANY IN FLORIDA , HOW MANY LAWYERS SPECIA LIZE IN SECURITIES AND , BOTH FOR , DO WE KNOW, FOR PLAINTIFFS AND, ALSO, FOR DEFENDING SECURITIES FIRMS?

FLORIDA LAWYERS ? HE NUMBERAB LE.

A LOT ENU MERABLE.

A LOT.

A LO T. IT ALSO IS ECONOMIC, A NDNUMBER ONE IT A WOULD RECOGNIZE THE CLIE NT'S CHOICE OF COUNSEL AND IT IS MORE ECONOMIC FOR BROKER AGE FIRMS TO USE THEIR OWN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL .

SPEAK TO THE INDEPENDENCE ISSUE , BEC AUSE ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS, NOT PROBLEMS BUT I GUESS THERE ARE TWO-WAYS TO LOOK AT IT. IT WAS ALWAYS BENEFI CIAL TO ME, WHEN THE FIRE REALLY GOT HOT AS A TRIAL JUDGE AND THE PARTIES WERE REALLY TOE-TO-TOE, TO BE ABLE TO SAY TO THE ATTORNEY , YOU REMEMBER, F IRST, YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THE BAR AND THE PUBLIC AND NOT TO YOUR CLIENT.THAT IS EASIER TO SAY TO AN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY THAN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL , WHOSE SALARY AND JOB I S TO TALLY DEPENDENT UPON THE EMP LOYER WHO IS ALSO THE CLIENT . SPEAK TO THAT CONCERN.

AN IN-H OUSE ATTORNEY HAS THE SAME OBLIG ATIONS TO THE BAR AND THE PU BLIC , AS AN OUTSIDE COUNSEL THEY T AKE THE BAR. THEY TAKE AN OATH , AND WH ILE THEY MAY HAVE MOR E DIFFICULTY PERSO NALLY , AS THE SARBAINES ACT AND OTHERS HAVE SAID , THAT DO ESN'T MATTER. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGA TION AND OBLIGATIONS AREN'T TRU MPED BY WHO IS MA KING , PAYING YOUR PAYCHECK. ALSO ADDRESSING YOUR QUESTION, JUSTICE BELL, YOU ASKED WHAT IS GOING TO PREVENT IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FROM BEING HIRED, BUILDING A STAFF IN HOUSE AND HAND LING LITIGATION IN A FLORIDA. WELL, THE MO DEL AB A RULE DOES NOT PERMIT IN-HOUSE COUNSEL TO COME INTO COURTS T ONLY PERM ITS THEM TO COME INTO ARBITRATION, BECAUS E IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IT ONLY AUTHORIZES TEMPO RARY PRACTICE, UN LESS THE FORUM WOULD REQUIRE PRO HAC VICE, SO IT WOULDN'T I MPACT ATTORNEYS COMING INTO COURT. THEY WOULD ST ILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PRO HAC VICE PROCESS.

WH Y IS THAT? I MEAN, I GUESS, YOU KNO W, WITH OUR , THE INCREASING NUMBER OF ARBITRATIONS AND , ALTHOUGH SOME SAY T HESE ARE ALL VOLUNTARY, WE ALL KN OW THAT IT IS A MA TTER OF REALITY, THAT , YOU KNO W, IT IS PART OF THE CONTRACT THAT IS SIGNED, WHETHER, IN DIFFERENT FORUMS, NOT JUST SECURITIES BUT THROUGHOUT , AND SO WHY S HOULD THE RULE BE DIFFERENT , WHATEVER IT IS , FOR ARBITRATION , THAN FOR REPRESENTATION IN COURT? ISN'T, DOE SN'T THE PUB LIC, WHO ESPECIALLY THE PERSON WHO IS E ITHER S UING OR BEINGSUED, HAVE THAT , THE SAME INTERESTS IN , THAT THE , NO MATTER WHAT FORUM THEY ARE IN?

WELL , THE PROCED URES ARE ACTUALLY VERY DIFFERENT. IF YOU ARE IN COURT IN FLORIDA, IN A FLORIDA COURT , YOU ARE DEALING WITH FLORIDA PROCEDURES, F LORIDA LAW . IF YOU ARE IN ARBITRATION , THE SRO 'S HAVE THEIR OWN DISCOVERY RULES , THEIR OWN PLEADING RULES, THEIR O WNHEARING RULES.

NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SECURITIES ARBITRATION. YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT

AAA ALSO HAS DISC OVERY RULES AS WELL.

FLORIDA LAW APP LIES. THEY ARE APPL YING, IF IT IS ARISING OUT AFTER FLORIDA CASE, YOU ARE STILL INTERPRETING FLORIDA LAW.

IF IT AR ISES OUT OF A FLORIDA CASE.THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE , FOR EXAM PLE , I HAVE ARBITRATION RIGHT NOW , IN FLORIDA , WHERE NEITHER O F THE PARTIES ARE FLORIDA RESIDENTS. ONE IS A NATION AL, IS A CITIZEN OF I S RAEL AND ONE IS A NEW YORK C ITIZEN . RIGHT.

IN STATE COURT , WE HAVE GOT, SOMETI MES LAWYERS HAVE TO AR GUE FOR EIGN LAW , BUT, I MEAN, I STILL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, WHY , MAKING THE DISTINCTION.

LET ME ASK , IT SEEMS TO ME AND I K EEP COMING BACK T O THIS, THAT THE REAL COMPLICATION THAT WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH , IS ESPECIALLY IN SE CURITIES LITIGATION , AND THERE ARE WHOLE OTHER AREAS IN ARBITRATION, IS THAT WE HAVE A NA TIONAL ECO NOMY AND A NATIONAL SY STEM , BUT I T I S BUILT UPON A FED ERAL STRUCTURE , AS FAR A S THE ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS ARE CONCERNED , AND IF YOU HAVE GOT , IN ARBITRATION , WITH, AND THE COMPANY IS REPRES ENTED , B Y A NEW YORK LAWYER , WHO IS DOWN HERE , AND THAT LAWYER GOES OUT AND CONT ACTS MY CLIENT AND TRIES TO BUY OUT M Y CLIENT WITHOUT ME KNOWINGABOUT IT, AND THAT IS O F CONCERN TO ME , THAT THE FLORIDA COURT DOESN'T HAVE ANY REAL JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH THE DISCIPLINING OF THAT NEW YORK LAWYER , ASFAR AS SUSPENDING THAT LAWYER , OR DISBARRING THAT LAWYER .

THE SIA DOESN'T AC TUALLY OPPOSE PORTIONS OF T HEFLORIDA BAR PROPO SED RULE 1-311, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE LAWYERS WHO APPEAR IN ARBITRATIONS IN FLORIDA , TO GO THROUGH A CERTIFICATE PROCESS.IT IS ACT UALLY A VERY VALUABLE TOOL FOR THE BAR TO HAVE, AND IN THAT CONNECTION, THEY ARE SUBJECTING THEMSEL VES TO THE FLORIDA BAR'S, THE RULES REGU LATING THE FLORIDA BAR, SO THAT ISSUE IS ADDRES SED.

BUT WE STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM IS THAT, UNLESS NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK COURT IS GOING TO DISBAR OTHER SUSPEND THAT LAWYER , WE CAN DEAL WITH THEM , AS FAR AS , PERHAPS , WHAT THEY D O FURTHER IN FLORIDA , BUT WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING AS FAR AS THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW IS CONCERNED.

I THINK THE F LORIDA BAR CAN CERTAINLY MAKE A REFERRAL, BUT THE BU SINESS OF THE FLORIDA BAR IS T O PROTE CT THE CITIZENS OF THESTATE OF FLORIDA, AND INPARTICULAR AS I T APPLIES TO IN-HOUSE COUNSEL'S REPRESENTATION OF THEIR EMPLOYERS. THE CLIENT IN THAT INSTANCE , IS THEIR EMP LOYER WHO H ASSCREENED THEM, HAS HIRE D THEM, HAS DETERMINED THEIR QUALIFICATIONS AND HAS THE ABILITY TO TE FERM NATURE THEIR SERVICES IT TERMINATE THEIR SERVICES IF THEY ARE NOT COMPETENT , S O THE FLORIDA BAR 'S ROLE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC ISN'T APPLICABLE THERE , AND TH ERE IS NO RATIONAL THAT SH OULD RA TIONALE THAT SHOULD PREVENT A CLIENT FROM USING THEIR OWN IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE . CORPORATIONS OF SOPHISTICATED USERS OF CLIENT SERVICES, AND THAT IS A GOOD RATION ALE FOR PERMITTING INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.THEY ARE SOPHISTICATED CLIENTS , AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DETERM INE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THEIRATT ORNEY AND DON'T NEED THE PROTECTION OF THE BAR .

NOW, YOUR ARG UMENT TO DAY ISN'T THAT WE ARE SOME HOW PREEMPTED BY THE FE DERAL SCHEME OF THE SEC URITIES ACTS THAT

NO , YOUR HO NOR , IT I S NOT.

AND YOU, ALSO , THEN , AGREE THAT, WHEN SOMEBODY IS ENGAGED IN PROSECUTING OR DEFENDING AN ARBITRATION, THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW.

THEY ARE ENG AGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW.

SO WE ARE TA LKING ABOUT, AND YOUR PROPOSAL

YES.

WHERE YOUR PARTICULAR INTEREST LIES, I S FOR ALL ARBITRATIONS OR FOR JUST ARBITRATION THAT IS INVOLVE SECURITIES?

THE SIA SUPPORTS THE ABA MODEL RULE 5 .5 , WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE REPRESENTATION BY IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS, OF T HEIR EMPLOYERS , SEC TIONENT WHERE IT IS REQUIRED FOR EX CEPT WHERE PRO HAC VICE ADMISSIONIS REQUIRED , AND THEY, ALSO, SUPPORT THE FLORIDA BAR'S PROPOSED RULE 4- 5.5 , WHICH PRPTS LAWYERS , OUT-OF-STATE LAWYERS, TO REPRESENT OR ENGAGE IN TEMPORARY PRACTICE IN ARBITRATIONS IN FLORIDA. WHAT WE OPPO SE IS THE THREE APPEARANCE LIMITATION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A RATIONAL BASIS. NOW, AT FLORIDA BAR HAS PROPOSED A CERTIFICATE PROCEDURE.

CHIEF JUST ICE: MS. KLOCK , UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE BEENSTARTING TO GO OVER TI ME, SO I HAVE GOT T O REMIN D YOU THAT YOUR TIME HAS EXP IRED. YOU CAN FINIS H.

ON THE CERT IFICATE PROCEDURE THAT IS PROPOSEDBY THE FLORIDA BAR, G IVES THE BAR A TOOL T O MEASURE AND TO EVAL UATE WHETHER AN ATTORNEY'S PRACTICE IS TEMPORARY OR G E NERAL , AND THE FEE THAT THE LAWYERS HAVE TO PAY , GIVES THEM THEFUNDS TO ENGA GE IN THAT PROCESS. THEREFORE THE PROTECTION O F THE PUBLIC IS THERE , AND T HEBAR HAS A TOOL T O DETE RMINE WHETHER IT IS TEMPORARY OR GENERAL , RAT HE R THAN SI MPLY APPLY ING ARBITRARY LIMITATION THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN TODA Y'S BUSINESS ECONOMY.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I AM JOS EPH GIANNINI AND I AM HONOR ED TO BE H ERE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: HAVE YOU MOVED PRO HAC VICE TO BE BEFORE US? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS COU NTS OR NOT, FOR ONE OF Y OUR THREE.

I AM SO RRY .

CHIEF JUSTICE: JUST GO AHEAD .

YOUR HON OR, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS, IN RESPON SE TO T HEQUESTIONS FROM THE COURT, BEFORE I ASK THE COURT FOR WHAT IT IS THAT I WOULD LIKE THE COURT TO DO , IS THE QUESTIONS THE COURT HAS POSED WITH REFERENCE TO DISCIPLINE OF OUT- OF-STATE ATTORNEYS , FOR POTENTIAL MISCONDUCT HERE IN FLORIDA OR ELSEW HERE . THE ABA M JP COM MISSION HAS SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED T HAT CONCERN AND THEY HAVE ADOPTED A PROVISION FOR RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE, SO THAT IF AN ATTORNEY DOES SOMETHING ANYWHERE IN ANY FORUM, HE CAN BE DISCIPLINED IN THAT FORUM FOR THAT MISCONDUCT, AND THAT DISCIPLINE WILL BE IMPOSED IN HIS HOME STATE, B Y WAY OF RECIPROCITY, SO ONE OF T HECONCERNS FOR THE ABA, WHEN THEY LOOKED A T THESE R ULESTHAT ARE GOVERNING THE INTERSTATE PRACTICE OF LAW , IS HOW D O WE DISCIPLINE THESE LAWYERS AND HOW DO WE GET THEM ADM ITTED

HOW MANY STATES HAVE ADOPTED RECIPROCAL ?

ALMOST ALL OF THEM, YOUR HONOR. ALMOST ALL OF THEM . I DON'T KNOW PRECISELY HOW MANY HAVE AD OPTED THAT RULE , BUT I HAVE A HA RD TIME BELIEVING THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE NOT ADOPTED THAT RULE , BECAUSE IT BENE FITS THEM TO ADOPT THAT R ULE.

HOW DOES THAT WORK IN PRACTICAL ITS , IF A LAWYER FROM AN OTHER IN PRACTICALITY, IF A LAWYER FROM ANOTHER STATE COMES T O FLORIDA, I MEAN THERE, IS ONLY SO MUCH YOU CAN DO IN THE WAY OF DISCIPLINE SINCE THEY ARE NOT A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR, SO WHEN THEY G O BACK TO THEIR HOME STA TE, WHAT CAN THE HOME STATE DO?

RECIPR OCAL DISCIPLI NE.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE? IN OTHER WORDS YOU SAY YOU CAN'T COME HERE AND PRACTICE, SAY, ARBITRATION ANY MORE? AS A DISCIPLINE ? WHAT DO THEY SAY IN THE HOME STATE?I AM TRYING TO GET SOME IDEA OF WHAT YOU MEAN BY RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE.

IN OTHER WORDS , IF AN ATTORNEY COMM ITS AN OFF ENSETHAT IS DISBAR ABLE IN FLORIDA AND THE FLORIDA COURT SAYS YOU HAVE COMMITTED AN OFFENSE THAT IS DISBARABLE. WE ARE GOING TO DISBAR YOU , THEN THAT ATTORNEY'S HOME STATE GETS NOTICE OF THAT DISBARMENT AND RECI PROCITY

THE FLORIDA LAW COULDN'T SAY OR THE FLORIDA SUPR EME COURT COUL DN'T SAY WE ARE GOING TO DISBAR YOU , B ECAUSE YOU ARE NOT A ME MBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR , SO THAT IS WHAT I AM HAVING A PROBLEM WITH , IS IF WE CAN NOT SAY THAT YOU ARE DISBARRED , THEN WHAT COULD YOUR HOME STATE SAY ?

WELL , FLORIDA BAR HAS ASKED THIS COURT TO ADOPT RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE, SO I ASSUME THIS COURT WILL BE ADOPTING RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE, AND IF , IN FACT, THIS COURT ADOPTS IT AND AN ATTORNEY DOES SOME THING WRONG, THEN THIS COURT WILL NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY'S HOME STATE AND RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE WILL BE IMPOSED .

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE WOULD SAY , IF IT IS CALIFORNIA, THAT THE ATTORNEY IS NOT ONLY BARRED FROM THIS STATE FROM EVER PRACTICING BUT SHALL B E DISBARRED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA?

EXACTLY.

THAT WOULD BE

EXACTLY. EXACTLY. EXACTLY. RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE. THIS IS ONE OF THE PROVISIONS.

AND CALIFORNIA WOULD HAVE TO DO IT.

YES.

HOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY, IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE BAR HERE , AND IT IS DISP UTED , REFEREE IS APPOINTED, YOU HAVE WITNESSES, ET CE TERA, A NDTHE REFEREE MA KES FINDINGS OF FACT , ET CETERA , HOW WOULD THAT HAPPEN TO A NONMEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR , THAT THERE IS AN ACCU SATION OF IMPROPER CONDUC T?

THE SAME WAY THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN TO A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR. A COMPLA INT WOULD BE MADE , AN INVESTIGATION WOULD BE CONDUCTED, A HEARING WOULD BE MADE , AN OPPORT UNITY FOR DEFENSE WOULD BE PROVIDED , A DECISION WOULD BE REND ERED , APPEAL RIGHTS WOULD BE PROVIDED, AND THEN THE SAME PROCESS WOULD BE APP LIED FOR OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS AS IN-STATE ATTORNEYS. IT IS JUST LIKE IF SOMEONE CAME INTO THIS STATE A NDCOMMITTED A CRI MINAL OFFENSE , THIS STATE HAS JURISDICTION OVER THEM.

IT IS A DIFF ERENT STRUCTURE.WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE SAME STRUCTURE HERE , REFEREE WOULD BE APPOINTED.

EXA CTLY .

TRIAL, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD HERE.

EXACTLY. EXACTLY.AND THIS IS WHAT THE ABA HAS PROPOSED . AND THIS IS WHAT THE FLOR IDA BAR HAS, ALSO , PROPOSED THAT THIS COURT ADOPT , SO THE CONCERNS ABOUT DISCIPLINE OF OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS, I S GOING TO BE ADEQUATELY M ETBY THE PROPOS ALS BE FORE THIS COURT .

I GUESS PART O F THAT RECIPROCITY RULE IS THAT W E WOULD ACCEPT THE SUSPENSION OR DISBAR MENT OF FLORIDA ATTORNEYS IN OTHER STATE S.

YES.

DON'T WE HAVE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT OTHER STATES HAVE SIMILAR DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS , BEFORE SUSPENSION OR DISBARMENT, BEFORE WE CAN DO THAT?

YES. I AM V ERY COM FORTABLE WITH THAT.

I AM SURE YOU ARE COMFORTABLE. DON'T WE HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE?

WELL, I THI NK DUE PRO CESS IS CONSTITUTION ALLY REQUIRED IN BAR ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE PROCEEDINGS, SO I THINK

MAYBE, PER HAPS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS TRUE AT ALL, BUT MA YBE WE GIVE MORE PROCESS THAN S OME STATES DO. MAYBE SOME STATES DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A TRIAL BEFORE A REFEREE WH O IS A JUDGE IN THE STATE. MAYBE IT IS A TWO- YEAR LAWYER. I DON'T KNOW. I AM JUST NOT SU RE. DON'T WE HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE THAT THEY HAVE SIMILAR KINDS OF DUE PROCESS RIGHTS IN THOSE STATES , AND IT HAS TO BE EVERY STATE .

WELL , YOUR HON OR

THE FLORIDA BAR ALRE ADY HAS A RULE THAT SAYS, IF SOMEBODY IS DISBARRED , DISCIPLINED IN ANOTHER STA TE, THAT THAT WILL BE A PR IMA FACIE CASE FOR DISBARMENT OR DISCIPLINE IN THE STATE. IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

YES. YES. BUT TO ANSWER Y OUR QUESTION,YOUR HONOR , EVERY STATE THAT I HAVE BEEN IN , HAS THE SAME DUE PROCESS RIGHTS FOR ATTORNEYS, AND I HAVE BEEN IN SE VERAL STATES . THIS COURT, TO DAY , I N DECIDING THE IS SUES BEFORE IT, IS ESSENTIALLY DE CIDING A QUESTION OF LAW THAT AFFECTS NOT ONLY FLORIDA CITIZENS BUT CITI ZENS IN ALL OF THE OTHER STATES, AND INDEED , PEOPLE IN THE EN TIRE HEMISPHERE, THIS IS A WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITY. I AM HERE TODAY , TO ASK THIS COURT TO ADOPT THE ABA MJP'S CONCLUSION, THAT OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE GRADUATED FROM AN ABA ACCREDITED LAW SCHO OL AND HAVE PRACTICED LAW SUCCESSFULLY SOME WHERE E LSE FOR FOUR YE ARS WITH OUT BLEMISH TO THEIR REC ORD , BE GRANTED A WA IVER FROM TAKING THE FLORIDA BAR EXAMINATION. I AM NOT ASKING THIS C OURTTO NOT HAVE THE ATTORNEY SUBMIT THE GOLD STANDARD MORAL CHARACTER APPL ICATION .

IS THAT AN AUTHORITY OF A WE ARE DO ING?

YOU JUST SAID , I DI DN'T KNOW THIS WAS WITHIN THESCOPE OF WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING TODAY. I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS ANY ALTERNATIVE RULE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS OPEN UP THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN FLORIDA TO EVERYBODY . IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING TODA Y?

NO. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT , YOUR HONOR. FIRST OF ALL, IT IS BEFORE THIS COURT TODAY , SKARL LY IN THE AMERICAN COURT B OOK COUNSELS ASSOCIATION. IT IS IN THE P LEAD INGS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT FOR THE COURT TO ADOPT THE ABA MJP CONCLUSIONS , AND IT IS AN IMPORTANT I SSUETHAT WAS ADDRESS ED.

WHIC H WOULD ALLOW ANY LAWYER WHO HAS PRACTICING IN A STATE AFTER FOUR YEARS OF PRACTICE IN THAT STATE , TO PRACTICE WITHOUT RES TRICTION IN EVERY OTHER STATE IN THE COUNTRY . NOW, I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT , IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING?

NOT QUITE , YOUR HONOR.

O KAY .

WHAT I AM SAYING AND WHAT THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION HAS SAID, FOR EXAMPLE , IF WE HAVE AN IN-HOUSE COUNSEL THAT MAY GET TRANSFERRED FROM NEW YORK TO FLORIDA TO NEW MEXICO T O O HIO , WE CAN 'T HAVE THAT LAWYER TAKING A YEAR OFF , TO T AKE A BAR EXAM , EVERY TIME HE GETS TRANSFERRED.THIS LAWYER MAY BE THE BEST PERSON TO REPRESENT THIS COMPANY . RATHER THAN C REATE A BOTTLENECK IN THE ADMISSION PROCESS , ABA MJP CAME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT EXPERIENCE PRACTICING AS AN ATTORNEY , IS A SUBSTITUTE EQUIVALENT TO TAKING A BAR EXAM INATION. THE SECOND PART OF Y OUR QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, IS THAT WE ARE NOT HERE , ASKING ALL THE COURTS T O ADMIT ALL THE ATTORNEYS. WE ARE ONLY ASKING ATTORNEYS THAT COME INTO THE STATE ONA REGULAR BASIS, THAT HAVE ANEED TO BE HERE O N A REGULAR BASIS, TO BE ADMITTED , B ASED ON FULL FAITH AND CR EDIT ADMISSION IN ANOTHER STATE . I CAN GIVE THIS COURT

AGAIN, I GUES S YOU ARE SAYING THAT, IF A , YOU A REASKING FOR A WAIVER OF T HEFLORIDA BAR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENT FOR LAWYERS . I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

RIGHT.

NOT THAT WE SHOULD BE TWEAKING THE ARBITRATION RULE, AND THAT IS YOUR POSITION.

YES, YOUR HONOR . THIS WAS WHAT - -

YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR N INE MINUTES OF TI ME.

I AM ALREADY .

IT TOOK , IT SEEMS SHORT. JUSTICE LEWIS , DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION YOU WAN TED TO ASK?

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

MR . KROSSCHELL , ALWAYS WITH INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ST EVE KROSSCHELL , AND I REPR ESENT M Y LAW F IRM GODDMAN AND NCKVASIL. WE DO ARBITRATION ANSWER SECURITIES ISSUES NATIONWIDE. I HAVE DONE THIS FOR TEN YEARS AND I WOULD SAY WE REPRESENT PEOPLE IN CLOSE TO ALL 50 STATES , AND SO THE RULE THAT IS PROPOSED HERE DOESN'T DIRECTLY AF FECT US, BECAUSE WE ARE FLORIDA ATTORNEYS. BUT THE NATURE OF THE BEAST IS THAT, WHEN ONE STATE ERECTS BARRIERS TO ENTRY , THEN OTHER STATES RETA LIATE , AND SO T HAT WOULD BE BAD FROM OUR POSITION , IF EVERY STATE HA A "TH REE STRIKES" AND YOU ARE OUTRULE, WHICH IS IF EVERY STATE HAD ATHREE STR IKES AND YOU ARE OUT, RULE , W HICH IS MY POSITION HERE.

YOU PROPOSE TO US E A DIFFERENT TRIGGER PO INT?

PARDON ME?

WAS ONE O F YOUR PROPOSALS TO USE A DIFFERENT TRIGGER POINT?

YES.

BUT WHAT ABOUT JU STICE LEWIS 'S OBSERVATION THAT YOU COULD STILL BE HAVING EVERYTHING UP U NTIL THE ARBITRATION AND IT WOULD BE A SUBSTA NTIAL PR ESENCE IN THE STATE. HOW WOULD YOU ADD RESS THAT?

WELL , I AM NOT QUITE SURE , TO ME, ONE OF THE POINT THAT, WE REPRESENT PEOPLE IN OTHER STATES BUT WE DON'T HA RDLY EVER GO THERE . WE MIGHT HAVE SOME CA SES IN MICHIGAN, BUT WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO THE ARBITRATION. I SAT IN MY OFFICE IN CLEARWATER AND NEVER LEFT THE STATE , AND WH Y IS THAT A BAD THING ?

LET ME ASK JUST THIS QUESTION. AFTER BEING PAR T OF THIS ORGANIZATION, THIS LE GAL PROFESSION FOR OVER 35 YEARS , THE ONE THIN G THAT I SEE HAPPENING, IS THAT BUSINESS CHANGES START DEMA NDING PROFESSIONAL AND ETHI CAL CHANGES.WHY IS IT THAT BUSINESS , BUSINESS CONC ERNS , S HOULD OVERSHADOW FUNDAMENTAL COMPETENCE, FUNDAMENTAL ETHICS THAT A GRO UP THAT JOINS TOGETHER AND IN G OOD FAITH BELIEVES THIS IS NEEDED, TO PROTE CT THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE , THAT THAT SHOULD BE DISREG ARDED , BECAUSE WE HAVE A BUSI NESS THAT APPROACHES IT DIFFERENTLY? H ELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT .

WELL , YOU KNOW , IT I S,MAYBE I CAN ANSWER B Y GIVING AN EXAMPLE. WE IN CLEARW ATER, THERE WAS A SC UM BAG OFFERING WHICH WAS RUN ONLY A FEW MI LES FROM OUR OFFICE, BUT THE OFFICE WAS THE, THE SCAM WAS RUN NATIONWIDE, AND SO WE KNEW A LOT ABOUT THAT SCAM BECAUSE IT WAS BASI CALLY LOCAL FOR US, BUT WE HAD A LOT OF , REPRESENTED A LOT OF PEOPLE NATIONWIDE , BE CAUSE WE WERE THE EXPERTS , AND I N FACT WE WERE THE ONLY ONES THAT DID THOSE CASES. IN SOME WAY S THEY ARE DIFFICULT CASES, AND I THIN K IT IS FAIR TO SAY IF W E DIDN'T DO THEM, NOBO DY WOULD HAVE DONE THEM, AND SO T HEPURPOSE OF THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW RULES , IS T O PROTECT THE PUBLIC.WELL, IN THESE KINDS OF CASES, HOW IS IT PROT ECTING THE PU BLIC , WHEN WE REPRESENT LOTS OF 80-YEAR-OLD PEOPLE ? I HAVE A DIFFICULTY THEY HAVE A DIFFICULTY FI NDING A ATTORNEY. WE ARE WILL ING TO REPRESENT THEM.

WE ARE TOLD ALL THE TIME WE HAVE TOO MANY LAWYERS AND ALL OF THEM RUN NING FOR THE SAME CASES, SO IT IS AN INTERESTING COMMENT.

I UNDE RSTAND THAT BUT I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE , THESE PEOPLE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN ANY LAWYER. THIS IS NOT THE MA TTER OF GETTING THE BE ST LAWYER. THIS IS THE ISSUE OF GETTING A LAWYER.

SO IS THE NE XUS , YOU THINK THAT, IN THAT SITUATION, IF YOU WERE, IF THE SAME THING HAD OCC URRED AND, SAY, IT WAS CALIFORNIA THAT HAD THE OFFE RING , CALIFORNIA LAWYER, THEREWOULD BE, DO YOU AGREE WITH THE NEXUS REQUIR EMENT THAT HAS BEEN PLACED ?

WELL , I V IEW THE, I AGREEWITH THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT , BUT I VIEW THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT SOMEWHAT MORE BROADLY THAN HAS BEEN SAID HERE. HERE AGAIN, I THINK IT I S FAIR THAT WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT SECURI TIES ARBITRATION . FOR ME, AS I READ THE ABA MODEL RULE AND THE COMMENT OF THE MODEL RULE , IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO HAVE AN EXPERT IES IN SECURITIESARBITRATION.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT

FOR THE NEXUS REQUIREMENT.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE COMPRO MISE APPROACH, WHERE WE HAVE A NUM ERICAL LIMITATION, BUT THAT LIMITATION CAN BE EXCEED, I F ONE APP LIES TO THE FLORIDA BAR AND SUBMITS REAS ONS WHY THIS LAWYER NE EDS TO REPRESENT THE CL IENT IN ALL THESE CASES, AS IN YOUR EXAMPLE.IF IT WERE A N OUT-OF-STATE LAWYER COMING INTO FLORIDASAYING WE ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT DO THESE C ASESACROSS THE COUNTRY, WE CURRENTLY HAVE TEN CLIENTS IN FLORIDA AND TEN COUNTIES , AND WE NEED TO REPRESENT THESE PEOPLE. THEY WANT US TO REPRESENT THEM. THERE IS NOBODY ELSE THAT DOES THIS . AND THE FLORIDA BAR TO GRANT YOU PER MISSION IN THAT CASE.

WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A COMPROMISE. MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE ANDMY PO SITION IS ON THAT, IS THAT THAT COMPROMISE IS NOT NECESSARY.

HOW IS IT DIFFERENT WOULD YOU SAY OR IS IT DIFFERENT , IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW I N THE COURTR OOM , THE PRO HAC VICE SITU ATION? YOU KNOW, YOU ST ILL, AGAI N, THIS COULD HAVE BEEN THE FORUM O F CHOICE MIGHT HAVE NOT BEEN ARBITRATION BUT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN

I THINK IT IS F AIR TO SAY ARBITRATION IS A LOT DIFFERENT FROM COURT CASES , AND AT LE AST HA LF OF THE REASON WHY YOU WANT A FLORIDA LAWYER IN A FLORIDA COURT CASE IS THE FLORIDA PROCEDURES AND THAT THICK BOOK OF RULES OF PROCEDURES THAT WE HAVE, BUT YOU KNOW , NONE OF THOSE RULES APPL Y IN AN ARBITRATION.

BUT IF THEY ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THREE CASES, THEY HAVE TO KNOW THEM FOR THREE CASES .

IF YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN AN ARBITRATION, IN THREE CASES, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW THEM IN ANY OF THOSE RULES , ONLY IN ONE CASE. WHAT COUNTS IS THE ARBITRATION RULES , AND I THINK SUBSTANTIVELY, T HESAME THING APPLIES , AT LEAST IN WHAT I DO STRICTLY IS ARBITRATION.THE BASIC THING IN SECURITIES ARBITRATION CASE IS IN A TYPICAL SEC URITIES ARBITRATION CASE, IS W ASTHERE A MISREPRESENTATION OR NOT, AND I KNOW OF NO SITUATION WHERE ONE STATE SAYS SOME THING IS A LIE IS NOT A LI E, A LIE IS A LIE AND OTHER STATES SAY A LIE IS A LIE. THE LAW IS THE SAME IN ALL THE STATES. THERE ARE SOME VARIATIONS. I THINK THE BIG VA RIATION I S PROBABLY STAT UTE OF LIMITATIONS , BUT OTHER THAN THAT IN MY EXPERIENCE , IT IS THE SAME AND WAY MORE IMPORTANT TO BE WAY MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE ARBITRATION RULES THAN FAMILIAR WITH THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAW AND F A MILIAR WITH THE SECU RITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION PRONOUNCEMENTS, THAN IT IS TO KNOW THE INDIVI DUAL STATE'S LAWS, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE SAME EVERYWHERE, SO MY RESPO NSE TO THAT IS THAT ARBITRATION IS A LOT DIFFERENT FROM COURT CASES, AND THAT I S WHY EVERY WOULD WHAT ARE THE FEDERAL COURTS DOING IN FLORIDA , IF , D O YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DO WITH PRO HAC VICE ADMI SSION ?

WHAT DO THEY DO? I MEAN, THEY HAVE A PRO HAC VICE PROCEDURE , AND THEY BASICALLY GRANT IT ALL THE TIME. WE DO A LOT OF FE DERAL COURT CASES.

SO T HEY DON'T LIMIT T HE

WELL, THEY C A N'T, BE CAUSE THE FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS HAVE SAID THAT THE ARBITRARY LIMITATION TO THREE IS NOT PROPER. CERTAINLY IN A CRIMINAL CASE, YOU HAVE GOT DE LETING DNA - - YOU HAVE GOT THE LEADING DNA EXPERT IN THE F I ELD , AND THIS COURT DOES A LOT OF DEATH ROW CASES. ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO SAY THAT LEADING DNA PERSON CAN'T COME HERE A NDREPRESENT THAT PERSON ONDEATH ROW BECAUSE HE HAS ALREADY BEEN HERE T HREETIMES?YOU DON'T HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DO THAT? I MEAN THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY BAD , A SERI OUS SIXTH AMENDMENT ISSUE THERE. SO THAT , GE TTING , TALKING ALITTLE BIT ABOUT JUSTICE CANTERO 'S POINT AB OUT THE VAGUENESS OF IT, YOU KNOW , HE IS RIGHT. IT IS KIND OF VA GUE . BUT YOU KNOW, LOT S OF TIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A JURY THAT PRESENTS FACTS TO A JURY, THE JURY SOMETIMES SAYS GUILTY AND SOMETIMES THEY SAYING IN, BASED ON THE SAME FACTS SAY NOT GUILTY,BASED ON THE SAME FAC TS. WHAT WE SAY IS IT IS BETTERTO HAVE SOME VAGUENESS AND UNCERTAINTY, BECAUSE PEOPLE VIEW FACTS SOME WHAT DIFFERENTLY , THAN IT IS TO HAVE SOME ARBITRARY RULE WHICH OPER ATES UNJUSTLY. SO I MEAN , SOMETIMES YOU KIND OF HAVE TO ACC EPT THESE THINGS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IT IS IRONIC THAT , IN, WHEN ALL OF THIS IS SAID AND DONE, YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON HERE , THE BAR , THE ONLY PERSON OPPOSING THIS , THAT I S A REPRESENTATIVE OF SOMEBODY WHO MIGHT BE A VI CTIM OF SOMETHING , AND I SORT OF INTERESTING TO KNOW WHETHER ANY OTHER OF THE TR IAL LAWYER SECTION OR , HAVE EVER, THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE PRESENT IN THIS DISP UTE. IT IS REALLY AN OBSERVATION. I THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING THE OTHER VI EW. WITH THAT, THOUGH, YOUR TIME IS UP .

COULD I SAY JUST ONE MORE THING?

CHIEF JUSTIC E: SURE.

THAT STATUTE IS $ 100 BUCKS VERSUS 2 50 , AND THE 100 BUCKS GOES TO THE C OURTNOT TO THE BAR , AND I T DOESN'T APPLY TO ARBITRATIONS AND DOES A PPLYTO COURT CASES, I THINK THERE IS SER IOUS NONTRIVIAL SEPARATION OF P O WERS PROBLEMS THERE, SO THINK ABOUT THAT, WHEN YOU AD OPT A RULE WHERE THEY WANT , THE BAR WANTS 250 AND THE LEGISLATURE WANTS 100 , WHAT YOU ARE G OING TO DO ABOUT THAT, BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

AS A POIN T OF CORRE CTION, WE DON'T GE T THE MONE Y. IT GOES INTO GENE RAL REVENUE.

I KNOW THAT BUT IT GOES TO THE GENERAL RE VENUE FUND , AND ALL PART OF THAT ARTICLE VII , OR ART ICLE V REVISION 7 PROBLEM.THANK YOU VERY M UCH .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE HAVE GOT, THEN, REBUTTAL.

YOUR HONOR , , ONE OF THE THINGS - -

CHIEF JUSTICE: COULD YOU ADDRESS SOMETHING ABOUT WHERE THE FEDERALAPPEARANCES COME IN. IN OTHER WORDS, IS T HAT WITHIN THE THREE, IF SOMEBODY IS IN FEDER AL COURT IN FLORIDA?

YOUR HONOR , I THINK T HEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. EACH OF THEM HAS , AS THE COURT KNOWS, WELL , EACH OF THEM HAS THEIR OWN M ATTER OF PRACTICE, IN TERMS OF ADMISSION.

NO.I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IF YOU ARE, SO , FOR THE , B UTTHEY ARE ST ILL OUT-OF-STATE LAWYE RS. DOES THAT COUNT TO THE FLORIDA

I SE E WHAT YOU MEAN . IT WOULD COUNT.

IT WOULD BE THREE.

RIGHT. AN APPE ARANCE I N AN US DISTRICT COURT WOULD COUNT AS ONE.

BUT WE CAN 'T, IF THE DISTRICT, NO, IT DOESN'T.

MY EXPERT OR MY COUNSEL SAYS NO, IT DOESN'T.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN REGULATE WHAT OUT -OF-STATE LAWYERS DID IN FEDERALCOURTS IN FLORIDA.

I AM SORRY, YOUR HONOR. I WAS REA CTING TO MS. HOLCOMB.

IS SOMEONE GOING TO ADDRESS, I DI D HAVE A QUESTION ON THE INTERNATIONAL. IS SOMEONE ELSE GOING TO SPEAK?

M R . ASTIGRAG A .

I DIDN'T THINK WE HAD AUTHORITY TO LIMIT LAWYERS APPEARANCES IN FEDERAL COURTS.

MS. HOLCOMB CORREC TED ME. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I LEFT THE COURT WITH THE IM PRESSION OF WHERE THE FOCUS OF THE PU BLIC S JUSTICE ANSTEAD'S QUESTION AND MR . M AHER 'S ADVOCACY OR RESPONSE, WAS THAT IN A SOPHISTICATED CLIENT, THAT ONLY THEIR INT EREST IS BEING PROTECTED. THIS RULE RULED REGARDING THAT IN 1969. THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC IS ALL OF US. IT IS THE PROTECTION O F COURTS, THE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND OF ALL MEMBERSOF THE PUBLIC. IF, IN THE ONE CASE WHERE A N IN-HOUSE LAWYER IS REPRESENT AGO STOCKBROKE RAGE COMP ANY O VER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN, LET'S NOT FORGET THAT THERE ARE OPPONENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE. THERE ARE PUBLIC INVEST ORS WHO NEED PROTECTION.THEY ARE NOT BEING PROTECTEDIN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE , WHERE THERE IS AN UNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE SY STEM HERE I N THE STATE.

WHAT ABOUT MR . KROSSCHELL'S, IT IS NOT A HYPOTHETICAL BUT A REAL L IFE SITUATION?

WELL, THAT , THERE WERE N O LAWYERS WILLING TO UNDERT AKE THE LE GAL NEEDS OF CONSUMERS IN A CASE WHERE THEY GOT DEFRAUDED ? I DON'T KNOW THE SITUATION. YOUR HONOR, THERE T R A LOT OF LAWYERS OUT THERE WHO UNDERTAKE A PRO B ON O BA SIS , WHERE A CLIENT CAN'T AF FORD T THERE ARE A LOT OF LAWYERS , INCLUDING MY FIR M, THAT DOES CONTINGENT WORK, THAT TAKE A RISK OF UNDERTAKING .

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER BASIS OF HIS APPEARANCE HERE , THOUGH, WHERE HE SAID THAT HE FE LT IF HE DIDN'T S PEAK UP HERE WHERE THESE RESTRICTIONS MAY APPLY , THAT USUALLY WHAT HAPPE NS IS THAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS , THEN , ALSO, WILL ADOPT THOSE RESTRICTIONS, AND WHEN HE I S IN THAT PO SITION OF TRYING TO ADV OCATE AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ONES AVAILA BLE, A NDTHEY ARE THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE . I STILL WOULD LI KE TO Y OURESPOND TO THE BUSIN ESS LAW SECTION'S POSITION HERE , I N THAT WE ARE TAKING A ST EP BACKWARDS, WITH RE FERENCE TO THE PRO HAC VICE RULE, AND NUMBER TWO, ABOUT THIS ISSUE OF CLIENTS NOT HAVING A CCESS TO THE BEST SERVICE THEY CAN GET. IF YOU HAD A ME DICAL PRO BLEM , AND OBVIOUSLY A SER IOUS ISSUE , YOU CAN GO ANY WHERE IN THIS COUNTRY AND HAVE THE VERY BEST MED ICAL SERVICEAVAILABLE, BUT IF YOU HAVE A LEGAL PROBLEM , THAT IS N OTTRUE. THAT IS THAT THE VERY BEST LAWYER ON THAT ISSUE MAY WELL BE SOMEPLACE ELSE AND NOT ADMITTED HERE IN FLORIDA. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THE VERY BEST SERVICE. SO IS THIS BECO MING AN AND ACNISM ANACRONISM , INOTHER WORDS, AS WE ARE TAKING BABY STEPS , SHOU LD WE TAKE, PER HAPS, MORE LI BERAL STEPS NOW, AS THE AB A HAS DONE?

AN ADMISSION BY M OTION , YOUR HONOR? NO. I JUST DON'T THINK THE T IME HAS COME FO R THAT , U NTILTHERE IS A STANDARDIZATION OF THOSE THIN GS WHICH I CONTINUE TO GO BACK TO, A NDTHAT IS THE ADMI SSION PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES THE BAR AS WELL AS THE CHARACTERAND FITNESS .

LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT A COMPROMISE POSITION, AS I ASKED, I THINK , MR . MA HER. WHAT IF WE DID HAVE A RULE AS YOU PROP OSE , THAT IS A THREE OR WHATE VER IT IS, BUT THEN A LAWYER MAY PE TITION THE BAR NOT A JU DGE, T O BE ADMITTED MORE THAN THAT FOR EXTRAORDINARY REASONS?

YOU R HONOR , I AM N OTGOING TO PULL OUT A BOX O F KLEENEX IF THAT IS WHAT THE COURT DOES IN ITS OPIN ION. I THINK THERE DOES NEED TO BE SOME ULT IMATE LIMIT , HOWEVER, SO THAT , A GAIN , THE GENERAL PRACTICE AS OPPOS ED TO THE TEMPORARY PRAC TICE, ARE WEIGHT ED, SO I THINK THE COURT USED, YOUR HONOR, IN YOUR SUGGESTION , UP TO FI VE. I THINK OBVIOUSLY THAT IS A COMPROMISE, WHICH I THINK HAS SOME JUSTIF ICATION. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE.

WHAT ABOUT THE STEP B ACK THOUGH? IN OTHER WORDS WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? IN OTHER WORDS SAYI NG THAT WE ARE GOING FROM HAVING A RULE THAT ALLO WS SOME DISCRETION WITH THE JUDGE TO MAKE SOME JUDGMENT ABOUT THIS, OR EVEN THE BAR , BUT NOW IT IS A THREE STRI KES AND YOU ARE OUT , THREE APPEARANCES , YOU KNOW , WHEN THERE IS THE DEM AND FOR ARBITRATION, AND YOU ARE OUT . IS, IS IT A STEP BACKWARDS?

I DON'T THINK SO, YOUR HONOR. IN FACT, I THINK WHAT IT DOES IS IT , NOW , CREATES A SYSTEM WHERE PE OPLE K NOW THAT, IF THEY GO TO ONE COURT OR ANOTHER, IT IS THREE TIMES WITHIN A 365- DAY PERIOD. IT IS NOT A THREE STRI KE S YOU ARE OUT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT IS REALLY KIND OF A RED HERRING LABEL ON THIS. BUT

I JUST WANT, IF YOU WANT YOUR COLLEAGUE TO AD DRESS THIS OTHER ISSUE, BECAUSE WE REALLY WENT OVER TIME, AND WE HAVE ONLY ABOUT A MINUTE LEFT. I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF JUSTICE ANSTEAD, BUT I JUST WANT, WE REALLY ARE WAY OVER OUR TIME.

THAT IS YOUR CA LL.

WELL , YOUR HONOR , IN DUE DEFERENCE I AM VERY PO LITE , SO I AM REALLY IN AN OB STIN AT CH OICE HERE. AN OBSTINATE CHOICE HERE. MR. ASTIGARRAGA DID PRE PAREA LOT.

WE HAD DISC RETION AND NOW THERE IS NO DISCRETION SO I THINK THAT IS SELF-EVIDENT .

THAT IS SELF-EVIDENT.NO. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO IN RESPONSE, IS THERE HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SUR VEY OF ALL OF THE JURY DICTIONS AND HOW THEY HAVE FALLEN ON THE JURISDICTIONS AND HOW THEYHAVE FALLEN ON THE VARIOUSPERM TATIONS OF THESE VARIOUS ISSUES. PERMTATIONS OF THESE VARIOUS ISSUES.

JUST FILE A SUPPLEMENTAL , IF YOU WILL.

I WILL , YOUR HONOR .

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU MAY SEE A RED LIGHT GO ON BUT WE WILL AT LEAST LET YOU GET OUT YOUR N AME AND RE SPOND T O JUSTICE LEWIS'S QUESTION.

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE A VERY LONG TIME. MY NAME IS JOSE ASTIGRAG A : I WAS PRO MISED TEN MINUTES. I WILL BE QUICK.

JUSTICE LEWIS HAD A SPECIFIC QUESTION .

HE IS PREP ARED .

THANK YOU , YOUR HONOR RNS AND I WILL BE BRIEF , BUT PARTICULARLY I HAVE TAILORED MY COMMENTS TO FOLLOW U P O N JUSTICE CANTERO'S QUESTION ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL LAW SECTION. WE ARE SIM PLY HERE TO ADDRESS THE TREATMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. WHATEVER GOOD REASONS OR NOT TO DEAL WITH DO MESTIC ARBITRATIONS AND PRO HAC VICE, THE BAR IS NOT HERE TO ADDRESS, EXCE PT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WOULD BE PAINTED WITH THE SAME BRUSH. HAVING THEN SAID THAT , I WOULD POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS UNANIM ITY AMONG EVERYONE HERE IN THE COURTROOM INCLUD ING THE BAR THAT, THE TREATMENT GI VEN TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION I S APPROPRIATE AND PROP ER, A NDWE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO BEAR THAT IN MIND. TO ADDRESS JUSTICE CAN CAN'T'S QUESTION OF T HEEQUAL JUSTICE CAN CAN JUSTICE CANT ERO 'S QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO E QUAL REPRESENTATION, DEALING ON THE BASIS OF RESIDE NCY , THE COURT IN EFFECT TRE ATED IT AS WHAT IS CALLED A HEIGHTENED LE VEL OF SCRUTINY. HOWEVER IN THIS CASE , THE DISTINCTION THAT IS BEING MADE IS THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING. WE ARE SI MPLY TAL KING ABOUT INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION VERSUS OTHER TY PES O F PROCEEDINGS, AND I WOULD SUB MIT THAT , ACCORDING TO THE LAW , THE TREAT, THE ANALYSIS THERE IS SIMPLY A RATIONAL BASIS ANALYSIS, AN D I SUBMIT THAT , IN ADD ITION

WHAT IS THE RAGS BASIS?

I WILL DEAL WITH IT IMMEDIATELY , YOUR HONOR , AN D I WOULD SUBMIT THAT , I N ADDITION TO WHATEVER ARGUMENTS MAY BE SAID RELATIVE TO DOMESTIC ARBITRATIONS THAT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO INTE RNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS, THERE ARE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS. IN ORDER TO ADDR ESS WHAT ARE THE RATIONAL BASIS , YOUR HONORS, I WOULD ASK , POINT OUT TO THE COURT THAT WE ARE DEALING AS THE BAR F RAMED ITS O WN PETITION, WITH THE ISSUE OF BALA NCE , AND THEREFORE IN ORDER TO ADDRESS BALANCING, THE N EED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AGAINST THE NEED OF CLIENTS TO HAVE THE AB ILITY TO PICK THE RIGHT LAWYER FOR THE IR PROCEEDINGS, AND THAT IS WHAT HANGS IN THE BALANCE HERE. AND WE SUBMIT THAT THEY HAVE STRUCK THE RIGHT BALANCE IN , FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION .

MY UNDERSTANDING , A GAIN , THAT IF THIS WAS IN T HECOURTS, THAT FLOR IDA IS SEEN FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATIONS, AS A VENT PLACE TO HOLD HEARINGS.

THAT IS AS A CONVENIENT PLAC E TO HOLD HEARINGS.

THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR , AND IN F ACT I HAD SIX GROUNDS, IF YOU WOULD , AND ONE IS PRECISELY THAT. TO UNDERSTAND THE AN IMAL THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, THIS IS A REAL CASE THAT I HAVE DEALT WITH IN WHICH A SITUATION OF A SCANDANAVIAN COMPANY CONTRACTED WITH A PERUVIAN COMPANY, CONTRACTED TO DO WORK IN VENEZUELA AND THE PROCED URE IS INTERNATIONAL AND T HAT IS THE LAW THAT APPL IES. MIAMI IS A MORE CON VENIENT PLACE TO ME ET. WE HAVE GOT BE TTER CONNECTIONS.LET'S JUST HAVE THE HEARINGS THERE.

WHAT I S THE CRITERION. WOULD YOU GIVE US THE ELEMENTS TO QUALIFY AS INTERNATIONAL.

OF COUR SE.

SO THAT WE ARE ALL CL EAR EXACTLY WHAT THAT INVOL VES.

ABSOLU TELY , YOUR HO NOR. YOUR HONOR, IT IS SET FORTH IN THE COMMENT AND I WILL READ IT MOMENTARILY BUT JUST KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM . IT IS BAS ED ON THE DEFINITION THAT IS SET FORTH IN FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT AND THAT IS WHERE IT IS TAKEN FROM , AND THE DEFINI TION IS ESSENTIALLY SE VERAL CATEGORIES. ONE, WHERE THERE IS A , THE ARBITRATION SPEAKS BETWEEN TWO OR MORE PERS ONS , ONE OF WHOM IS A FOREIGNER , IN OTHER WORDS A NONRESIDENT THAT, TWO OR MORE PERSONS, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY BE RESIDENTS OF THE U .S. , HOWEVER, THAT THERE IS , INVOLVES PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE UN ITED STA TES. IT RELATES TO A CONTRACT THAT IS GOING TO BE PERFORMED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES THAT INVOLVES AN INVESTMENT OUTSIDE T HEUNITED STATES , AND THE FINAL CATEGORY, YOUR HONOR, IS WHERE WE HAVE A FOREIGNGOVERNMENT THAT IS INVOLVED IN THE ARBITRATION. AGAIN , NOT A SITU ATION, YOUR HONOR, IN WHICH WE ARE DEALING WITH FLORIDA T YPE ISSUES.

IS ANY OF THIS ENFORCEABLE IN FLORIDA? IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE I S , IF THERE IS A JUD GMENT ENTERED.

AN AWARD IS ENTERED.

WHERE DOES IT GO. WHERE DOES IT GO ?

YOUR HONOR THAT, IS THE BEAUTY OF IT, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN ARBITRATION, WE ARE IN CONVENTIONAL REGULAR RU LES OF COURT, AND A FLORIDA LAWYER WOULD HAVE TO FILE A PETITION TO CONFIR M AN AWARD OR TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT WOULD AND FLORIDA LAWYER SUBJECT TO THE COURT RULES , AND THERE IS NO CONTEMPLATION THAT SOME FOREIGN LAWYER IS GOING TO APPLY PRO HAC VICE TO TRY TO DOMEES INDICATE AN AWARD O N THEIR OWN. IT IS SIMPLY THE ARBITRATIONAL PROCESS WHICH IS COMPLE TELY ASIDE AND AS I SAID , IN A WAY THIS IS MORE DEALING WITH HOTEL RO OMS WITH, REALLY, THAN IT IS WITH THE PRACTICE OF LAW I N FLORIDA.

BUT FLORIDA WOULD GET INVOLVED, IF THE AWARD HADTO BE CONFIRMED.

IF THE AWARD HAD TO B E CONFIRMED. BUT I WILL INDICATE TO THE COURT, THAT FOR EXAM PLE , THE REASON THAT IT IS IMPORTANTTO HAVE A LAWYER , SAY , FROM THE PLACE WHERE THE OTHER PARTY IS FROM , IS BE CAUSE THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE AWARD WILL TAKE PLACE TYPICALLY , THERE, IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSETS, THIS AWARD I S SUBJECT TO ENFORCEMENT , ACCORDING TO AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY. THAT IS A SECOND OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT DISTINGUISHES THIS, AND THAT IS THAT IT IS SUBJECT T O INTERNATIONAL TREA TIES . A JUDGMENT FROM A FLORIDA COURT IS SUBJECT TO THE F ULL FAITH AND CR EDIT CLA USE AND WILL TAKE IT TO ANOTHER STATE. HOWEVER, AWARD WH ICH IS COMPLETELY OUTSIDE OUR COURT, IS SUBJECT TO AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY, THAN IS WHY THE SPECIALIZED EXPERTISE THAT OFTEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FLORIDA , IS REQU IRED .

AND IT HAS , DO THEY HAVE TO BE LAWYERS IN SOMEPLAC E? THE UNITED STATES.

ACCORDING TO THE RULE A NDI WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS JUSTICE WE LLS 'S CONCERN I N PARTICULAR, AND I WOULD L IKE TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE RULE EXPRESSLY SAYS THAT WHEN THIS ONE, IT HAS TO BE A LAWYER ADMITTED IN T HEOTHER JURISDICTION IN GO OD STANDING. NUMBER TWO, THAT IF THEY COME HERE , THEY BECOME SUB JECT TO THE RULES OF THE FLORIDA BAR. AND SUBJECT TO AN OR DER THAT SAYS WHATEVER IS THE P OWERWITHIN THE FLORIDA CO DE OF CONDUCT , THAT THEY WOULD B E SUBJECT TO THAT JURISDICTION . IT IS ALSO TEMPORARY , SO THAT THE RAPA PORT ISSUE IS NOT INVOLVED AT AL L. IN RAP APORT , SET UP AN OFFICE, THE OPI NION ITSE LF , SAYS RAPAPORT SET UP A N OFFICE, IN EFFECT WAS OPERATING THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN FLORIDA. THIS IS PU RELY TEMPORARY PRACTICE OF LAW. AS I SAID , OCCUPYING A HOTEL ROOM TO CONDUCT SOMETHING HAVING TO DO VERY LITTLE, WITH FLORIDA LAW. THERE IS NO ADVERTISING T HAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER THIS RULE AT ALL , EITHER. JUST TO PICK UP ON THE FINAL CATEGORIES THAT I WAS MENTIONING TO EXP LAIN THE DIFFERENCES, IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT , AGAIN, SI NCE WE ARE DEALING WITH A BALAN CING ISSUE, TO UNDERSTAND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MINISCULE NUMBER OF CASES. IT JUST SO HAP PENS THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF THE POLICI ESTHAT THE G O VERNOR AND LEGISLATURE HAVE FOR T HESTATE OF FLORIDA, THEY HAPPEN TO BE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.YOU HAVE THE STATISTICS IN YOUR BRIEF. THE ICC IS ONE OF THE LEADING OF THE TWO OR THREE LEADING I KNOW TUG SS. THEY WOULD SAY THEY ARE THE LEADING , AND I AM NOT G OINGTO WEIGH IN ON THAT , B UT THE POINT IS THEY HAVE 6 00 C ASESTHAT WERE FILED LAST Y EAR WORLDWIDE, SO CASES OUT OF RUSSIA, CASES OUT OF EUR OPE , CASES OUT OF LATIN AM ERICA , CASES OUT OF THE FAR E AST , IT TOOK A TOTAL OF 6 00CASES.THEY, ALONG WITH THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS A SIMILAR NUMBER OF CASES THAT QUALIFY AS, QUOTE , INTERNATIONAL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A WORLD WIDE , WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF CAS ES. NOW , THE REASON THAT THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO FLORIDA I S BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE SUBSTANTIAL CASES, SO THAT THE WORTH OF THE TO TAL, A NDIT IS IN THE BRIEFINGS, T HEWORTH OF THE TOTAL CASE LOAD IF YOU WOULD THAT THE ICC IS CARRYING, NOT JUST 600 BUT THEIR ACCUMULATED CASELOAD , IS IN EXCESS OF , LIKE , $50 BILLION, AND WHAT DOE S SDTHAT ME AN? THE REAS ON THAT I THINK IT IS RELEVANT , AGAIN COMING BACK TO JUSTICE CANTERO AND THE COMP LICATION OF RATIONAL BASIS, IS THAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CONSU MERS. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT J OE CITIZEN. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A VERY SOPHISTICATED COMPANY WITH A VERY SPECIFIC NEEDFOR COUNSELORS THAT KNOWS THE LAW OF TREATIES AND ABILITIES AND AWARDS IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND THE ABILITY TO PROTECT THE AWARDS IN FOR EIGN COUNTRIES AND SO ON , AND FRANKLY THERE ISN'T, IN CON TRAST TO OTHER TYPES OF PRACTICES THAT WE HAVE IN FLORIDA AND T HAT YOUR HONOR AS KED ABOUT , A LARGE GROUP OF LAWYE RS IN FLORIDA THAT HAVE THE EXPERTISE THAT IS REQU IRED TO DEAL WITH THIS, AND AS A RESULT, TO P AINT INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION WITH THE SAME BRUSH, IF YOU WERE, AS SUMING THAT YOU KEE P THE RULE AS IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE BAR, WOULD IN EF FECT DO A DISSER VICE TO THESE COMPANI ES THAT NEED THE SPECIALI ZED COUN SEL. IN OTHER WORDS THE BALANCE IS BEING STRU CK IN THE WRONG WAY .

CHIEF JUSTICE: I JUST WANT TO , WE REALLY HAVE L ET YOU GO AND I UNDERSTAND, A NDIT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE IN G OOD SHAPE , SIN CE AS YOU SAID, NO ONE RE ALLY OP POSES YOUR PARTICULAR PO INT OF VIEW, SO I WANT TO THA NK EVERYBO D Y.I SEE THAT MY WORDS OF WISDOM ABOUT KEEPING THIS TO UNDER THE 90 MIN UTES , REALLY , WORKED VERY WELL. WE ARE ALMOST AT ELEVEN O'CLOCK , BUT THANK EVERYBODY FOR THE CONTRI BUTION T O THIS. I THINK THAT THIS I S A VERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. WE APPREC IATE THE TREMENDOUS EFFORT PUT I N AND COUNSELTHAT CA ME HERE TO DAY AND THE PROVING AWAY IN WHICH EVERYBODY PRESENTED THEIR CASE. YOU ARE ALL A CR EDIT TO O URPROFESS ION.THANK YOU VERY MU CH.

YOUR HONOR, MAY I ADD ONE STATISTIC THE COURT ASKED ABOUT SPECIFICALLY. I WOULD LIKE TO DOWN LOAD IT , AND THAT IS IN CONNECTION WITH THE C HART THAT WAS DONE , THE STATISTICS IN OTHER STATES, ACCORDING TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE CHART PUBLISHED ON THE WE B, YOUR HONOR, 1 4 OF THE STATES HAVE ADOPTED 5.5 WITH NO LIMIT ON APPEARANCES AND NO LIMIT ON REGISTRATION. 13 STATES HAVE RECOMMENDED BY THE BAR THAT 5.5 BE ADOPTED WITH NO LIMIT AND REGISTRATIONS. MANY ARE REVIEWING . NO STATE HAS AD OPTED T O LIMIT IT AS WE INTERPRET THE CHART. THANK YOU VERY M UCH , YOUR HONOR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOUVERY MUCH.THE COURT WILL BE IN RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES.

MARSHA L: PLEASE RISE.