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

Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar


MARSHAL: HEAR YE. HEAR YE.HEAR YE.OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION. ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO P LEA , DRAW NEAR , AND G IVE ATTENTION . GOD SAVE TH ESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS HONORA BLE COUR T. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FLORIDA SUPRE ME COURT. PLEASE BE SEATED.

CHIEF JUSTICE: GOOD MORNING , LA DIES ANDGENTLEMEN, AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. THE FIRST C ASE ON THIS MORNING'S DOCK ET , IS THE AMENDMENTS TO THE RULE S REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR . AND I SEE THAT W E HAVE SEVERAL PARTIES, AND YOUHAVE ALL FIGURE D O UT Y OUR TIME. I KNOW THAT , WHEN WE GO THROUGH THESE KINDS OF CA SES , SOMETIMES WE FEEL LIKE PEOPLE ARE POPPING UP AND DOWN, SO WE W IL L TRY OUR BEST TO STAY WI THIN YOUR RESPECTED TIME AND YOU LOOK AT EA CH OTHE R'S AND M AKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TIME CREEP AS YOU GO THROUGH. SO WHO IS GOING FIRST ?

I WILL, YOUR HONO R. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. MARK ROMANCE ON BEHALF O F THE FLORIDA BAR. I AM HERE TO DAY , W ITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE F LORIDA BAR , KELLY OVERSTREET JOHN SO N A NDTHE PRESIDENT OF THE YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION , MICHAEL FEINOR. THE FLORIDA BAR SEEKS T O AMEND THE R ULES REGULA TING THE FLORIDA BAR CONCERNING THE BASIC SKILLS COURSE REQUIREMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE BAR SEEKS TO AM END RULE 6-12.3 AND 6-12.4.

WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT IS AT IS SUE , AND IT LO OKS LIKE THERE ARE SE VERAL ASPECTS THAT ARE NONCONTROVERSIAL. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO AD DRESS THE ONES WH ERE THE PUBLIC DEFENDER STATE ATTORNEYSHAVE SOME SPECIF IC CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THEY SHOULD HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE COURSE, BECAUSE TH EY HAVE GOT WHAT THEY THINK IS A BETTER COURSE? ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT, OR IS --

I AM GOIN G TO BE MA KING THE E NTIRE AR GUMENT O N BEHALF THE BAR.

OK AY.

I BELI EVE THE OT HERS WHO FOLLOW THE COMMENTS ARE GOING TO MAKE THEIR OWN ARGUMENT.

WOULD YOU ADDRE SS AS TO THOSE CO MMENTS , THA T IS THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND S TATEATTORNEYS.I K NOW THEY HAVE DEVELOPEDAN EXCE LLENT COURSE ON CLOSING ARG UMENT A NDPROBLEMS WITH THAT, AND THEY FEEL THAT THEIR COURSE IS , REALLY, I GU ESS, SUPERI OR TO WHAT THE BAR WOUL D BE DEVELOPING, SO WHAT IS Y OUR RESPONSE TO THAT ?

WELL , MY SPECIFIC RESPONSE TO THAT IS , YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL , THERE CAN NEVER BE EN OUGH PROFESSIONISM. NUMBER ONE , THE PWP COURSE IS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PROVIDE AN INTRODUCTORY LEVEL COURSE ON PROFESSIONISM ETHI CS. THE RULES THAT APPLY UN DER THE RULES REGULATING T HEFLORIDA BAR , APPLY TO ALL , AND THE BAR HAS THE GOAL O F PROVIDING A UNIF ORM AND UNIVERSAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPTS OF PROFESSIONALISM AND ET HICS , RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF A MEMBER'S ADMISSION TO THE FLORIDA BAR. THE COURSES OFFERED BY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS ORGANIZATION AND OTHERS , ARE INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC FOR LACKOF A BE TTER TERM, PRO VIDING AN ADDITIONAL , AL MOST INTERMEDIATE L EVEL PROFESSIONISM , BUT ALMOS T ETHICS IN PROFESSIONISM INFORMATION TO TH OSE MEMBERSOF THE BAR.

THEIR ARGUMENT SEEM S TO BE THAT A LOT OF WHAT IS OFFERED IN THE YOUNG LAWYERS PROFESSIONISM COURSE , R E ALLY , ISN'T RELEVANT TO THEM , THINGS LIKE KEEP ING , HO W TO KEEP YOUR OFFICE GOING , A NDHOW TO KEEP TRUST ACCOUNTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT , YET THE COURSE THEY OFFER, REALLY, IS SPECIFIC TO WHAT A PROSEC UTOR OR A PUBLIC DEFENDER, REALLY, HAS TO DO.

I UNDERSTAND THOSE ARGUMENTS, YOUR HONOR, ANDIN ORDER T O FULLY ANSWER THAT, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT ARGUMENT IS FLAWED, IN THAT IT IS N OTBASED ON THE CUR RENT PROGRAM. GOING BACK TO 19 97 AND 1988, WHEN THE RULE WAS EN ACTED AND MOD IFIED , THERE WERE ASPECTS AND COMPONENTS O F THE PROGRAM , FOR TRUST ACCOUNTING, FOR ADVERTISING , CLIENT REL ATIONS , THI NGS LIKE THAT, BUT IN 1999 , WHEN THE BAR SOUGHT TO AMEND THE RULES TO ELIMINATE THE GOVERNMENT LAW O R TO AFFIRM IT, ONE O F THE COMPLAINTS WAS THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY TO EVERYONE. IT IS NOT UNIVERSAL, SO SINCE THAT TIME THE FL ORIDA BAR, PARTICULARLY THE YOUNG LAWYERS DIVI SION, HAS SPENT CONSIDERABLE TWIRJING TO MAKE THE COURSE UNIVERSAL , REDUCING THE NUMBER OF COMPONENTS OF THE PROG RAM THAT DON'T APPLY TO E VERYONE , I GUESS P U TTING IT I N A DIFFERENT WAY , MAKING S URE THAT IT IS UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE TO EVER YONE.

IS N'T IT THE B AR'SPOSITION THAT THEIR COU RSE IS NOT A GOOD COURSE? NOT AN ADEQUATE COURSE? NOT MEETING THE BAR'S REQUIREMENTS?

CERTAINLY NOT , YOUR HONOR.

IT DOESN'T? IN WHAT REGARD?

IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, THE --

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE BAR'S POSITION ON THEIR COURSE.

ON THEIR COURSE.

THAT'S RIGHT.

THEIR COURSE MEETS THE CLE REQU IREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BAR , SO IT IS AN ADEQUATE COURSE FOR MEE TINGTHE MINI MUM REQUIR EMENTS FOR FLORIDA BAR , CONTINUAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS.

WHAT PART OF PROFESSIONISM DOES IT NOT INCLUDE SPECIFICALLY, T HAT THE BAR THIN KS THAT I T SHOULD INCL UDE ?

I DON'T THINK THAT THE BAR HAS ANALYZED IT F ROM THAT PERS PECTIVE. THE BAR HAS DETERM INED , CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF THIS COURT AND RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, TO COME UP WITH A PROGRAM O F INTRODUCTION T O PROFESSIONALISM THAT APPL IES TO ALL YOUNG LAWYERS. THE COURSES OFFERED B Y THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND THE STATE ATTORNEYS, THEY O FFERSPECIFIC INFORMATION ATION ON, THAT IS APPLICABLE TO STATE ATTORNEYS OR PUBLIC DEFENDERS, WHO EVER ATTE NDS THOSE COURSES. THE BAR'S POSI TION IS THAT ALL NEW LAWYERS OUGHT TO HAVE A BASIC FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONCEPTS OF PROFESSIONISM, FROM DAY ONE , WHEN YOU BECOME A NEW MEMBER OF THE BAR.

LET ME APPRO ACH THIS F ROM A DIFFERENT STANDPOINT, IF I MAY. THAT IS, COULD YOU TAKE A MINUTE OR TWO , ANYWAY, TO G O BACK TO THE ORIG INS OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE THIS BRIDGE THE GAP , IS THE WAY THAT IT STA RTED OUT SOME YEARS AGO , AND HOW THE EVOLUTION , THAT HAS COME ABOUT , WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS WHET HER OR NOT WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE THERE , REALLY, IS A CHALLENGE TO EVEN HAVING THIS FOUNDATIONAL COURSE IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PR ACTICE OF ALL LAWYERS , OR WHETH ER OR NOT THE O BORS HERE ARE REALLY SAY -- THE OBJECTORS HERE ARE REALLY SA YING W E DON'T THINK THAT OUG HT TO B E THAT ANYMORE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION? BECAUSE IF WE END UP , WE EITHER HAVE A FOUNDA TIONAL GENERAL COURSE LIKE THIS , OR WE SAY , WELL , WELL JUST LET EVERYBODY DO THEIR OWN THING , AND WE WON'T REQUIRE THIS ANYMORE. SO I AM VERY CONC ERNED AS T O WHETHER OR NOT THE OBJECTIONS TO THIS , REALLY, ARE FO CUSED MORE ON THE EFFICACY OF EVEN HAVING, Y OUKNOW, THIS FOUNDA TIONAL PROGRAM, YOU KNOW , TO BEGIN WITH. SO CAN YOU HE LP ME WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT.

YES. ORIGINALLY IN 1988 , THIS COURT ENACTED THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA BAR, REQUIRING WHAT WAS THEN CALLED THE BR IDGE THE GAP COURSE. IT WAS A MULTIDAY COURSE THAT CO VERED 13 SUBSTANTIVE AREAS OF PRACTICE , AND THE CONCEPT WAS TO I MPART UPON NEW MEMBERS OF THE BAR , A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF THE LAW , AND AM ONG THE 13 SUBSTANTIVE AREAS, THAT INCLUDED PROFESSIONISM AND ETHICS. FAST FORWAR DING TO 1997 , THE COURT, IN I DID OP INION IN 1997 - - IN ITS OP INION IN 1997 MODIFYING THE RULES , DETERMINED THAT THE PERSON ATTENDING THE COURSES OUGHTTO HAVE SOME LEVEL O F AUTONOMY IN SELE CTING THE SUBSTANTIVE AREAS THAT THE COURSES REQUIRE , AND THAT ATTHAT TIME THE COURSE WAS BROKEN UP FROM A MULTIDAY COURSE, TO A PRACTICING WITH PROFESSIONISM COMPONENT, WHICH COVERED PROFES SIONISM AND ET HICS AND SOME ADDITIONAL AREAS, S UCH AS TRUST ACCOUNTING ANIMATERSOF THAT NATURE , AND, ALSO , THE MEMBERS ARE REQUI RED TO TAKE TWO ADDITIONAL BASIC LEVEL COURSES OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING, AND THE BAR OF FERS THE YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION , OFFERS A NUMBER OF COURSES IN DIFFERENT AREA S OF T HELAW.

SO THEY HAVE TO TAKE YOUNG LAWYERS APPROVED COURSES?

YES. THAT IS THE RULE, YES. WELL, THE RULE IS DESIGNED TO REQUIRE NEW MEMBERS OF THE BAR TO TAKE BASIC LEVEL COURSES . AND THE COURT CHAR GED THE YOUNG LAWYERS DIVI SION WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ADMINISTERING THOSE COURSES.THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN SINCE 198 8. SO IN 1997 , WHEN THE PROGRAM WAS SPLIT INTO TWO , WITH PROFESSIONISM ON THE ONE HAND AND SUBSTANTIVE L EVELON THE OTHER HAND , IT ALLOWED, I T ST ILL ACCOMPLISHED THE SAME THING , WHICH IS TO IM PART A BROAD RANGE OF SUBJECT MA TTER , TO MEMBERS OF THE BAR . THE COURT AT THAT TIME , TOOK A SPECIFIC APPROACH , AND THAT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT NEW MEMBERS OF THE BAR HAVE A GENERAL UNDERSTANDIN G OF VARIOUS AREAS OF THE LAW, AND SO IF YOU TAKE THAT MOTIVATION, AND YOU APPLY IT TO WHAT WE ARE TR YING TO DO HERE OR WHAT SOME OF THE OPPONENTS ARE TRYING TO DO, THEY ARE TRYI NG TO SAY , WELL , WE ARE DIFFERENT. WE OUGHT TO NOT HAVE TO HAVE THIS GE NERAL UNDERS TANDING THAT IS APPLIED TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR. WE OUGHT TO HAVE ONLY OUR OWN PROGRAM , SPECIFIC ONLY TO THE NEEDS OF OUR MEM BERS. WELL, THAT IS PROBABLY HELPFUL TO THE EMPL OYER , THE STATE ATTORNEY OR THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE NEW MEMBER OF T HEFLORIDA BAR.

WELL , IN THIS BASIC COURSE, IS THERE , I K NOW FOR A TIME THERE WAS DIVERSITY WAS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WAS TREATED , THAT IS , IS THAT STILL WITHIN THIS , OR IS THAT NOW IN SOME O THERPLACE?

WELL , OVER TIME , WE HAVE HAD COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM THAT HAVE F ALLEN , FALL WITHIN PROFESSIONALISM, SUCH AS SUBS TANCE AB USE, SUCH AS DIVE RSITY . THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT COME IN AND OUT OF THEPROGRAM.THE PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN S ETIN 1997 AND UNCHANGED. TIME JUST ASK ING NOW , IS THAT A COMPONENT O F IT , SUBSTANTIVE?

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A SPECIFIC SE GMENT ON THE AGENDA, BUT IT IS COVERED AS PART OF THE PROGRAM.

YOU CAN LO OK AT THE NOTE. DON'T WORRY ABOUT. THAT.

I DID. IT IS COVERED.

HELP US WITH , ARE YOU REPRESENTING TO THE C OURTTHAT YOUR GOAL HAS BEEN TO SEE THAT THERE IS A PROGRAM THERE, THAT SHOULD APPLY TO ALL NEW LAWYERS? THAT IS THAT THESE ARE FOUNDATIONAL SUBJ ECTS THAT SHOULD APPLY T O ALL NEW LAWYERS, AND THAT THAT , REALLY, IS WHAT YOU ARE STRIFEING TO AC HIEVE HERE , THAT THERE ARE SOME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IN THESE SUBJECT AREAS , THAT EVERYBODY, REGARD LESS OF WHETHER THEY END UP BEING A CORPORATE LAWYER, TRANSACTIONAL LAWYER, TRIAL LAWYER, CRIMINAL LAWYER , WHATEVER, THAT THEY REQUIRE AN INTRODUCTION TO THESE SUBJECTS?

ABSOLUTELY, YOUR HONO R, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT , IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE BAR IS SAYING THAT WE WA NT TO MAKE EQUAL, WHATEVER YOU HAVE BROUGHT TO YOUR MEMBERSHIP OF THE BAR, REGARD LESS O F YOUR BACK GROUND OR --

I AM SORRY , BU T I WAN T TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFICS , NOT GENERAL ITS, NOT GENERAL PRINCIPLES, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SPECIFICS THAT THE BAR'S POSITION IS , THAT THE PD'S AND THE STATES ATTORNEYS , THE GOVERNMENT EXEMPTION, IS KEEPING THESE LAWYERS FROM GETT ING. WHAT SPECIFICS ?

YOUR HONOR , I DON'T THINK THAT THE BAR HAS LO OKED AT THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS PROGRAMS, WHICH , NUMBER ONE SPECIFICALLY APPLY TO ALL GOVERNMENT LAWYERS. WE HAVE GOT SOME MATERIALS FROM SOME SE MINARS THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFER , SOME SEMINARS THAT THE STATE ATTORNEYS OFFER, BUT THEREIS NO UNIF ORM PROGRAM THAT THE STATE ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION --

WHAT CONCERNS ME IS , THIS IS, IT SEEMS TO ME, TO BE THE TYPE OF THING THAT PEOPLE, THAT THE BAR AND THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SE CTION AND PD'S AND STATES ATTORNEYS, OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO WORK OUT ON SOME SORT OF SPECIFIC BASIS. THEY HAVE GOT A FINANCIAL INTEREST THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND THE BAR OUGHT TO BE WORKING WITH THAT . WE HAVE GOT FINANC IAL CONCERNS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, BE CAUSE EVERYBODY IS BEST INTEREST IN TRA INING THE LAWYERS.

YOUR HONOR, I SEE THAT I AM IN MY REBUTTAL.

THE BAR IS NOT SAY IN G THAT THIS PROGRAM THAT THE STATE ATTORNEYS IS SUGGESTING THAT THEY OFFER TO THEIR MEMBERS, IS A PROBLEM.WHAT THE BAR IS SAYING IS, BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT POINT , TO YOUR SPECIFIC GOVE RNMENT OR STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE PROGRAM , YOU OUGHT TO HAVE , ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR OUGHT TO HAVE A GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE CONC EPTS OF PROFESSIONISM THAT IS PROVIDED IN A GENERAL WAY , TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE BAR, AND THERE IS NOTHING, WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT THEY OUGHT TO STOP OFFERING THOSE SPECIFIC COURSES THAT THEY HAVE --

ARE YOU SAYING , THEN , THAT AS A PART OF THEIR SPECIFIC COURSE , THEY DO NOT INCLUDE SOME OF THE M ORE GENERAL AS PECTS OF PROFESSIONISM AND E T HICS .

THEIR COURSES ARE DESIGNED WITH SPECIFICS IN MIND, SPECIFICS TO THE S TATEATTORNEYS, FOR EXAM PLE.

I GUESS , IN ANSWER TO JUSTICE WELL S'S Q U ESTION, YOU SAID YOU HAVEN'T REVIEWED T I GUESS MY QUESTION HERE, IS THAT , HAD THE BAR CONSIDERED , BEC AUSE I KNOW YOU WORK ED FOR YEARSWITH THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS, TO TRY TO WORK THIS OUT, THAT BECAUSE IT DOES SE EM THAT THE STATE ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS HAVE A SPECIFIC CONCERN. THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC COURSE. AND THERE IS A H UGE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE $135 PER PERSON. HAS THE BAR TRIED TO WORK OUT THIS IS SUE , TO, MAYBE , EXEMPT AT LE AST THE STATE ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS, IF THERE IS SOME , LOOKING AT THEIR COURSE A NDSEEING THAT THEIR COURSE ACTUALLY DOES MEET THE NE EDS OF THE BAR , AND JUST SO LVE IT THAT WA Y?

LE T'S MAKE SU RE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. OKAY. FOR NONGOVERNMENT LAWYERS, THE NEW MEMBERS OF THE BAR MUST TAKE , NOW UNDER THIS RULE, A ONE- DAY PROFESSIONISM COURSE.

I KNOW WHAT -- RIG HT. AND THEY ARE EX EMPTED FROM THE TWO OR TH REE SUBS TANTIVE COURSES.WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ONE-DAY COURSE.

RI GHT. THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ARE REALLY NO DIFF ERENT FROM FAMILIAL LAWYER OR A TRUST AND ESTATE LAWYER.

IF THERE WAS A SPECIFIC COURSE THE FAMILY LAW SECTION OFFERED, MAYBE WE WOULD BE HAVING THE M THERE , BUT RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS AND STATE ATTORNEYS.

BUT THOSE PROGRAMS, BUT THE FAMILY LAW SECTION AND THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE BAR AND PRIVATE ENTI TIES, DO OFFER THOSE N E XT LEVEL COURSES , WHICH INCL UDE SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MATERIALS THAT THE STATE ATTORNEYS PROVIDED, THERE IS A LOT OF SUBSTANTIVE MATERIAL IN THERE THAT INCLUDES ETHICS. IT IS NOT AN ETHI CS COURSE. IT IS A CLOSING ARGUMENT. IT IS A , CERTAIN ASPECTS O F THEIR PRACTICE OF THE T HAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FAMIL Y LAW SECTION DOES WITH THEIR COURSES.THAT IS WHAT THE Y OUNGLAWYERS DOES WITH THEIR BASIC FAMILY LAW COURSE. THEY OFFER A SPECIFIC SUBSTANTIVE INFORMATION, WHICH IS ALSO GOING TO INCLUDE SOME PROFESSIONISM COMPONENTS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU A REVERY MUCH INTO YOUR REBUTTAL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAVE A FEW MINUTES.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAVE THE REST FOR REBU TTAL .

THANK YOU , YOUR HONOR. MAY IT PLEASE THE COUR T. KEITH RIZZARDI O N BEHA LF OF THE GOVERNMENT LAW SE CTION. I WOULD LI KE TO ADD RESS T HEQUESTIONS THAT YOU , JUS TICEQUINCE, AND THE REST OF THE COURT IS GRAP PLING WITH. THE SUGGESTION THAT MATERIAL THAT IS NOT RELE VANT TO THE PRACTICE OF GOVERNMENT LAWYERS , THAT WAS PRECISELY THE ISSUE THAT T HEGOVERNMENT LAW SECTION WAS WRESTLING WITH AND THAT WAS PRECISELY IN THE EN D THE REASON WE COMPROMISE D. AFTER SE NDING OUR MEMBERS TO THE PROGRAM AND LOOKING AT THE PROGRAM AND EVALUATING THE PROGRAM, WE REA LIZED THAT WHAT WAS AT ISSUE HERE WAS WHETHER OR NOT THEFLORIDA BAR S HOULD ALLO W A SHARED COMMON EXPERI ENCE FOR ALL NEW LAWYERS. SHOULD LAWYERS COME OUT OF LAW SCHOOL AND GO TO A COMMON PROGRAM, PRACTICING WITH PROFESSIONISM, AND FOR Y EARS THE GOVERNMENT LAWYER SECTION HAD MAINTAINED WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO A PROGRAM THAT IS DESIGNED TO ADDRESS TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ING AND ISSUES THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO OUR PRACTICE. THE YOUNG LAWYER DIVISION TO THEIR CREDIT, ADDRESSED OUR CONCERNS. WE ALSO COMPLA INED A BO UTSOME OF THE FU NDING ISS UES AND THE YOUNG LAWYERS IN RESPONSE, HAVE NOW COME UP WITH A PROGRAM WHERE THEY SAID $ 75 T UITION REDUCTION FOR PEOPLE ON A NEED-BASED APPROACH. WE SAID WHAT ABOUT A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE FOR MEMBERS WHO MA NY YEA RS HAVE PRACTICED, DO THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND TAKE THIS P WP PROGRAM?THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION SAID, NO, WE WILL GIVE THEM A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE AND WE SAID WHAT ABOUT THOSE FOLKS AND WHOLE ISSUE OF BASIC LAWYER COURSES AND WHY DO LAWYERS WHO HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE FOR 25 YEAR S AND G O TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR AFTER THAT TIME, THEN HAVE TO GO BACK AND TAKE BASIC TO RTS 101.

SO FROM THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION POINT OF VIEW, THE YOUNG LAWYERS AND THE BAR ADDRESSED ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS. ARE YOU HERE IN SUPP OR T OF THE RULE?

Y ES.

I WANT TO MAKE SUR E.

WE ARE HERE IN SUP PORT OF THE RULE.THERE WERE TWO ISSUES THATWE WERE NOT ABLE TO WORK OUT WHICH THIS COURT CAN CLARIFY. ONE IS M ORE ADMINISTERIAL ISSUE OVER THE GRANDF ATHER CLAUSE. THIS COURT HAS PREVIOUSLY RULED THAT THE COMM ENTS O R SUBORDINATE TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE RULE. WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN EFFORT TO MAKE SOMETHING IN THE COMMENT EXP RESS THAT DOES DEVIATE FROM THE RULE. IF THIS COURT IS O KAY WIT H THAT APPROACH AND CAN ENDORSE THAT APPROACH, DESPITE SOME OF ITS PRIOR RULINGS IN THE CA SE LAW , WE ARE FINE WITH. THAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED SOME SPECIFICS, SPECIFIC CHAN GES.

YOU WOULD RATHER HAVE A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE IN THE RULE.

OF COURSE WE WOULD RATHER SEE IT IN THE RULE BUT AS A TECHNICAL MATTER THIS COURT SAYS WE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AND RECOGNIZE THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE SA FERM AND IRREVOCA BLE COMM ITMENT OF THE FLORIDA BAR, WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS WERE DEALING WITH THE BAR OV ER THE YEARS , CAN YOU GIVE US FROM PERSPE CTIVE OF OF GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION, WERE THE S TATEATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS PART OF THE CONVERSATIO N?

ABSOLUTE LY AND SOME OF OUR MEMBERS AND PAST CHAI RS ARE, IN FACT , PROSEC UTORS . ONE OF THE ISSUES WE WRESTLED WITH IS WE SAID GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ARE PERFECT LY CA PABLE OF SPON SOR ING PROFESSIONISM PROGRAMS.IN FACT THE FIRST PROFESSIONALISM PROGRAM I N THE STATE OF FLORIDA WAS SPONSORED BY THE AB A, SO WE SAID WE DO N'T NEED YOU GUYS TO TELL US HOW TO DO PROFESSIONISM TRAINING.WE CAN DO IT OURSELVES.

WHAT DO YOU DO IN THE INSTANCE OR WILL YOU AG REE THAT LAWYERS THAT ENTER INTO THE STATE ATTORNEYS OR PD , OFTEN MOVE TO PRIVATE PRACTICE OF PER SONAL IN JURY OR CRIMINAL LAW AND MOVE INTO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.DO YOU AG REE? IT HAPPENS QUITE OF TEN. A LOT OF TURN OVER IN THE PD'S STATE ATTORNEYS OFFICE. IT IS A TRA INING GROUND FOR PEOPLE LEAR NING HOW TO DO TRIAL PRACTICE. CORRECT?

CORRECT.

SO IF THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM TRUST ACCOUNTING A NDSOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES , I N YOUR PROPOSAL HOW IS THAT TAKEN UP AND SECURED T O NEW LAWYERS?

I CREATED A MISIMPRESSION . PRIVATE SECURITIES AND PRIVATE LAW ARE NOT CO VERED IN THIS PROGRAM ANYMORE. THAT IS WHY THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION SAID THAT IS FINE F YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT A GENERAL OBLIGATION F OREVERYBODY, WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT AS A COMPROMISE.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS BEING TA UGHT MANDATORILY ?

IT IS NOT RIGHT NOW. IT IS NOT A MANDAT ORY REQUIREMENT.THERE MAY BE SOME PIECES OF THAT WOVE N INTO THE BASIC COURSE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE IS NOT A PROGRAM THAT SAYS THOU SHALT LEA RN TRUST FUND ACCOUN TING , FOR THE LAWYER WHEN THEY IMMEDIATELY COME OUT UNDER PW P.

THIS IS A CHANGE AS A RESULT FROM V A RIOUS SECTIONS TALKING ABOUT THE RELEVANCY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU SAID YOU HAD T W O, THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE AND WHAT IS THE OTHER? ANOTHER OTHER CRITIQUE IS THE LACK OF VIDEOT APE , AND THAT WOULD BE ON E OF T HETHING THAT IS COULD CORRECT SOME OF CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED. THIS IS A FINANC IAL ISSUE FOR PROSEC UTORS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS. HISTORICALLY ALL BAR ACTIVITIES AND BAR CLE'S YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THEM BY VIDEOTAPE.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PWP PROGRAM, IS THAT A LOT OF IT IN THE MORN ING AND SOME OF IT IN THE AFTERN OON IS INTERACTIVE.

YES, YOUR HONO R.

AND THERE IS DISCUSSION WITH THE AUDIENCE , AND O NEOF THE , I THINK THE GOOD PARTS OF WHY IT IS HIGHLY REGARDED, IS THAT THERE IS INTERACTION WITH THE AUDIENCE.

ABSOLUTELY.

HOW ARE YOU GOING T O DO THAT WITH A VIDEOTAPE?

WE PO SIT ED TO THE YOUNG LAWYER DIVISION THATGOVERNMENT OFFICES SHOULD B E ALLOWED TO SHOW THE VIDEOTAPE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES AND TO HAVE THAT KIND OF INTERACTIVE SECTION AND THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION AT T HEIROFF ICES. THAT WOULD HAVE ENA BLED THE OFFICES TO HAVE SAVED SUBSTANTIAL MUST NOT AND I NOT HAVE ALL OF THEIR STAF F BE SENT OFF FOR THE TRAINING .

BUT AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT STARTS OFF IN GOOD FA ITH.

EXACTLY.

BUT ENDS UP BEING AB USED . WELL, THAT IS THE IM AGE OF SOMEBODY HAVING A TRIP IN THEIR CAR FOR THREE H OURSAND THEY HAVE PUT THIS , YOU KNOW, ON THE CAR , AND LI STEN TO A TAPE , IN OR DER TO GET THEIR REQUIREMENT IN OR THAT KIND OF THING , AND THERE IS SUCH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE OF THAT, SO AS JUSTICE CAN TERO SAYS, PART OF THE WHOLE SPECIAL N ATURE OF THIS , I S THE FACT THAT YOU REQUIRE PEOPLE ACTUALLY TO BE TOGETHER, WH ILE THEY D O.THAT BUT DO I UNDERS TANDTHAT THE GOVERNMENT LAW SECTION THUS AS CALLY SUPPORTS THE COMPRO MISE -- ENTHUSIASTICLY SUP PORTS THE COMPROMISE THAT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT NOW?

YES A S A PACKAGE DEAL, THE BASIC EX EMPTION F ROM CLASSES AND CONTIN UED EFFORT TO REDUCE CO STS FOR YOUNG LAWYERS, THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE. YES, WE ENDO RSE IT OVERWHELMINGLY.

ARE THERE AGENCIES THAT THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION HAS LAWYERS IN , BOTH AT STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL ,  THAT THOSE AGE NCIES ACTUALLY PAY FOR CLE?

SOME DO AND SOME DO N OT, YOUR HONOR. SO SOME OF THEM WILL IN CUR A GREATER FINA NCIAL BURDEN HERE THAN OTH ERS , BUT , A GAIN , ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS THIS COURT SHOULD REMEMB ER IS THIS PROGRAM USED TO BE A 3-DAY PROGRAM WITH SUBSTANTIAL EXP ENSE TO YOUNG LAWYERS.THEY HAVE CHANGED IT. IT A ONE -DAY PROGRAM OFF ERED SIX TIMES A YEAR THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AT LOCATIONS THAT ARE MUCH CLOS ER TO PE OPLE. INCONVENIENCE FACTORS HAVE CHANGED.

I S THERE A PO LICY IN THE AGENCIES FOR LEAVE TIME F ORLAWYERS?

TYPICALLY THE AGEN CIES WILL ALLOW PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TIME. IT IS NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE VACATION TIME TO GO AND TAKE THE CLE 'S. THEY REALIZE THAT THE CLE'S ARE REQUIRED.

THE BOTTOM LINE FROM THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SEC TIONPOINT OF VIEW , I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, IS YOU USED TO PRO THAT THIS INTRODUCTORY PROGRAM HAD LITTLE IF ANY RELEV ANCE TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS, AND NOW IT IS RELE VANT TO GOVERNMENT LAWYERS AS IT IS TO ALL LAWYERS.

IN FACT , YES, YOUR HONOR , WHILE THE LD HAS OFFERE D TO HAVE A LIAISON TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED FOR THIS PROGRAM, AND THE BOTTOM LINE FOR THIS COURT IS YOU FOLKS HAVE B EEN ASKED TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT PUBLIC DEFE NDERS W HOHAVE SPECIAL OBLIGATIONS AND A SPECIAL SEMINAR, SHOULD THERE FOR BE EXEMPTED F ROM THE GENERAL OBLIGA TION THAT IS ARE BEING IM POSED UPON THE RE ST OF THE FLORIDA BAR COMMUNITY.FOR THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION WE SAID NO , IF YOU GUYS WA NT TO HAVE A GENERAL PROGRAM FOR EVERYBODY , YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE IT RELEVANT TO ALL OF T HEGOVERNMENT LAWYERS, FINE. WE WILL PARTICIPATE. WE MAY STIL L HAVE OUR OWN , SEPARATE, CUSTOM-TAILORED PROFESSIONISM SEMINARS WITHIN OUR AGENCIES , BUT THIS SON CLASS, ONE DAY , AND A $ 75 TU ITION REDUCTION FOR THOSE WHO NEED I T.WE WERE REA DY TO ACCE PT THE COMPROMISE.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THE BAR TO COMEUP WITH THIS. MR. JACO BS.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE HERE AS THE BAD GUY , ARE YOU?

THEY PUT ME AT THE END OF THE TA BLE, TO O. I G UESS THAT IS A SCO LDING OF SORT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU G OTTHIRD UP. THAT IS PRETTY GOOD. USUALLY YOU ARE LAST UP.

I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH, THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE STATE ATTORNEYS OF FLORIDA AND AS SISTANT STATE ATTORNEYS. THERE ARE 1700 ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEYS IN FL ORIDA AND 2000 MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION. VERY FEW OF OUR PEOPLE BELONG TO THE GOV ERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION BECAUSE YOUHAVE GOT TO PA Y TO DO IT , BUT WE ARE NOT A PART OF THAT. YOU KNOW, W E ARE NOT HERE AGAINST ETHICS. WE ARE VERY MUCH FOR IT. IT IS DISCU SSED IN THEIR PETITION. THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION'S PETITION AS BEING A NEW MOVEMENT. WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS A LONG TIME. THIS IS MY 35 th YEAR OF BEING GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE STATE ATT ORNEYS OF FLORIDA, AND WE ARE ABOUT TEACHING ETHICS. WE HAVE LO NG, I NOT ICED YOUR QUOTE IN THE DECEMBE R 1 B ARNEWS, JUSTICE CAN TERO , WHERE YOU SAID THAT WE ARE NOT TRYING TO TALK ABOUT PROFESSIONALISM.WE ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE PROFESSIONISM .

DO YOU THINK WE SHOULDN'T HAVE THIS REQUIREMENT ANYMORE , I N OTHER WORDS THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE THIS INTRODUCTORY FOUNDATIONAL COURSE REQUIRED OF ALL NEW LAWYERS ? WHERE THEY ALL COME TOGETHER. OKAY. BEFORE THEY , REALLY , ARE ADVANCED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW. WE OUGHT TO JUST SC RAPE THAT AND NOW JUST , IF YOU DEC ID E YOU ARE GOING TO GO TO W ORK FOR AN INSURA NCE DEF ENSE FIRM , WE HAVE A GENERAL REQUIREMENT THAT YOU TAKE A CERTAIN PART OF YOUR CLE AS ETHICS COURSES , AND SO YOU CAN JUST, AS LONG AS YOU FULFILL THAT REQUIREMENT , YOU CAN TAKE THAT AND INSURANCE DEFENSE WORK AND THE ISSUES THAT COME UP THERE AND SO ON AND SO ON , AND SO, BECAUSE THAT IS M Y CONCERN, IS THAT I F WE FOLLOW THESE ARGU MENTS TO THEIR LOGICAL CONCLUSION, WE ARE , R EALLY , UNDERCUTTING THE WHOLE PRI NCIPLE O F HAVING THIS REQUIREMENT THAT INITIALLY EVERYBODY OUT OF LAW SCHOOL , COME TO GETHER , AND THAT THERE ARE PRINCE PEST OF THIS THAT APPLY TO EVERYBODY, REGARD LESS OF WHAT THEIR CAR EE R TRA CKS END UP BEING , E ITHER LONG-TERM OR AS ONE OF THE JUSTICES HAS SAID , THERE IS A LOT OF TURNOVER IN THESE OFFICES, TOO, SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING , REALLY, T HAT THE TIME HAS COME THAT WE SHOULD RECONSIDER WHETHER WE HE EVEN HAVE THIS -- WHET HER WE EVEN HAVE THIS FOUNDATIONAL COURSE FOR EVERYBODY?

NO, SIR, NOT AT ALL , AND LET ME JUST SAY THAT I T HINKIT HAS BEEN AN UN FAIR CHARACTERIZATION, TO SAYTHAT OUR ETHICS AND PROFESSIONISM COURSES ARE TAILORED TO TRADE-RELATED MATTERS. YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT ETHICS AND PROFESSI ONISM , WITHOUT THAT BEING INVOLVED IN IT.

I AM AS KING YOU TO RESPOND A LI TTLE MORE THAN, NO, YOU ARE NOT SAYI NG. I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY UNDERSTANDING YOUR ARG UMENT. IF YOUR ARGUMENT IS , NO , THAT YOU, AND YOU JUST SAID THERE IS A LARGE NUMBER OF LAWYERS , OBVIOUSLY, THAT ARE PRACTICING AS PROSECUT ORS AND PUBLIC DEFEN DERS , AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS , OR SUCH , SO ARE YOU SAYING T HEY SHOULD ALL BE EXE MPTED FROM ATTENDING THIS FOUNDATIONAL COURSE?

WHAT I AM SAYING ACCORDING TO RULE 4-3.8 , YOU HAVE SAID, THIS COURT HAS SAID THAT PROSEC UTORS ARE A BIT DIFFERENT. WE ARE MINISTERS OF JUSTICE. YOU DON'T SAY THAT A BOUT A LLOF THE OTHE R LAWYERS IN FLORIDA.

YOU ARE SAYING THEYSHOULD BE EXEM PTED FROM THIS FOUNDATIONAL COURSE.

WE T EACH THAT COURSE ALREADY. WE HAVE --

SO IF OTHER SECTIONS O F THE BAR TEACH THAT COURSE ALREADY, THEN WE SHOULD EXEMPT THEM, ALSO .

MR. JUSTICE , WE HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED BY THE FLORIDA BAR TO TEACH THIS COURSE. THEY GIVE US C REDIT FOR --

WE HAVE THOSE COURSES I N EVERY AREA OF THE LAW , A S SOMEBODY POINTED OUT , SO SHOULD WE JUST GO TO THAT SYS TEM AND DO AWAY WITH THIS FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENT? I SEE AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN YOU SAYING THAT , YES , STICK WITH THE GENERAL COURSE. YOU KNOW, WHERE EVERYBODYOUGHT TO ATTEND , BUT EXEMPT US FROM IT , AND HOW , AFTER WE EXEMPT YOU , CAN WE NOT EXEMPT THE NEXT GROUP OF LAWYERS THAT PRACTICE IN THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE OR THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFI CE, AND SO ON AND SO ON AND SO ON?

AGAIN, WE DON 'T REQUIRE JUDGES TO GO TO T HIS , BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR O WN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T REQUIRE , OTHER, WE ARE , THE PROSECUTORS UNDER THE 4 -3.8 , ARE MINISTERS OF JUSTICE , AND W E - -

CHIEF JUSTICE: I KNOW YOU RESPONDED.I KNOW JUSTICE WE LLS HAS A QUESTION, TOO.

I WILL T RY.

IS YOUR , IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HERE , IS IT ONE OF THE DUPLICATION OF WHAT THE BAR'S COURSE IS PRIMARILY, OR I S IT PRIMARILY FINA NCIAL , O R WHERE DO YOU SEE THE R EAL PROBLEM?

IT IS PRIMARILY BOTH. WE DO THIS. IT WOULD BE REDU NDANT FOR US TO SEND FOLKS TO A ONE -DAY COURSE.

DOES THE LEGISLAT URE APPROPRIATE FOR THE STATES ATTORNEYS MO NEY FOR , TO PAY FOR THE BAR'S COUR SE? ZOO NO, SIR, THEY DO NOT.

DO THEY PA Y FOR LAWYERSTO ATTEND THE PUBLIC , THE PROSECUTORS COURSE?

THEY , WE HAVE IT WORKED OUT SO THAT IT IS A VERY MINIMAL COST, AND THE DUES THAT THEY PAY, EX CEPT FOR ONE , THE MAIN , ONE TIME A YEAR, THE DUES THAT THEY PAY TAKE CARE OF THOSE COURSES.

DOESN'T THE ANSWER DEPEND ON THE OFFICE ?

NO. THE, WE HAVE A VERY GOOD PARTICIPATION BY ALL OF THE OFFICES IN THIS, IN THESE MATTERS.

I ME AN, WHETHER THE PARTICULAR OFFICE PAYS FOR A FLORIDA BAR PROFESSIONISM COURSE. I CAN IMAG INE SOME OFFICES MAY AND OTHERS MAY NOT.

GENERALLY THEY DO NOT. STATEWIDE .

DI D YOU TRY TO WORK THIS OUT WITH THE FLORIDA BAR? I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT , IS THAT NOW WE HAVE GO TTEN A 3-DAY PROGRAM DOWN TO A ONE-DAY PROGRAM. IT HAS BEEN WATERED DOWN. DOESN'T HAVE TR UST ACCOUNTIN IT. SO NOW YOU MADE IT SO , GENERALLY APPLICABLE, SO A S HAS BEEN SAID, THIS CAN BE SHARED BY EVERYBODY , A ND IGUESS THE , I SEE YOUR PO INT, AND I KNOW YOU G UYS HAVE EXCELLENT COURSES , AND MAYBE THIS GENERAL COURSE IS NOT, FOR EVERYBODY, MAYBE IT IS TOO BASIC , BUT IN THE SP IRIT OF TRYING TO COMPROMISE ON THIS THIN G, WHAT , I GUESS THE DOWN SIDE OF HERE IS A ONE-DAY COURSE. WHAT IS THE REAL, YOU KNOW, WHY NOT JUST SU CCESS I T IN AND JUST TAKE IT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES? YOU KNOW, I T JUST , BECAUSE I THINK THE OTHER PART IS , WOULD BE TO SEE I F THE BAR WOULD LOOK AT YOUR COURSE AND JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW , THEY CAN EXEMPT OUT , NOT EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF PROFESSIONISM BUT LOOK AT THAT COURSE AND SAY IT REALLY IS EQUIVA LENT TO OUR ONE-DAY OURS, SO WE WILL IN THE CASE OF STATE ATT ORNEYSOR PUBLIC DEFENDERS, Y OUKNOW, WE WILL EXEMPT THEM FROM THE PRACTICING WITH PROFESSIONISM, BUT I THINKIT IS VERY HARD TO A SK THE COURT TO DO IT , WITHOUT US GETTING INTO THE MICROMANAGING O F HOW GOOD THIS COURSE IS, HOW GOOD YOUR COURSE IS. SO COULD YOU SO RT OF ADDRESS , HELP US OUT AND GIVE US ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THIS .

WELL , I THINK MON EY HAS CERTAINLY BEEN A PART OF IT, BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN A DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE STATES ATTORNEYS AND PUBLIC DEFEND ERS AND GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SECTION ABOUT THIS . IT IS NOT GOOD OR BAD, BUT IT IS ABOUT MONE Y AND T HEFACT THAT OUR COURSES , WE HAVE BEEN TEACHING FOR MA NY, MANY YEARS.

BUT IN YOUR COURSE , LE T'S GET TO THAT, DO YOU REALLY HAVE THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT THE YOUNG LAWYERS SECTION , THEY DO A WH OLE D AY ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONISM , AND MOST OF THE COURSES THAT I HAVE SEEN OF YOURS , REALLY , HAS IT AS A COMP ONENT OF OTHER ASPE CTS OF BEING A PROSECUTOR, SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT, REALLY , TWO OR THREE HOURS OF PROFESSIONISM IN YOUR C OURSE , VERSUS THE WHOLE DA Y OF IT?

BUT NOT THROUGHOUT T HEYEAR, BECA USE WE DO THESE COURSES MANY TIMES AND MANY PLACES AROUND THE STATE. SO TW O OR THREE HOUR S, WE HAVE COMPONENTS OF THAT TAUGHT SEVE RAL TIMES DURI NG THE YEAR NOT JUST ONE TIME .

BUT AREN'T YOU TA LKING ABOUT DIFF ERENT PE OPLE COMING TO THE DIFF ERENT SEMINARS, AS OPPO SED TO THE SAME ONES GE TTING THE PROFESSIONISM THREE OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR.

BUT EVERY COURSE THAT IS TAUGHT, IS CIRCULATED AMONGST ALL OF THE TW ENTY OFFICES, SO EVERYONE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY AND IS EX POSED TO THOSE COURSES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED BUT JUSTICE BE LL HAS ONE QUESTION.

JUST ONE QUESTION. PART OF MY CONCERN IS THE CULTURE OF PROFESSIONISM AMONG THE BAR AS A WHOLE, AND THEN WE HAVE PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT PRACTICES EN TER ABLINGT ACTING , AND FROM MY -- INTERA CTING , AND FROM MY EXPERIENCE, PUBLIC DEFENDERSAND PROS ECUTORS ARE NOT AS INVOLVED IN LOCAL BAR ASSOCIATIONS NECESSARILY, ASOTHER MEMBERS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE OTHERWISE, FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS , AND I T IS STRIKING TO ME THAT YOUR COMMENT IS YOUNG LAWYERS HAVE SP OKEN T O GOVERNMENT BUT YOU ALL HAVEN'T COMMUNICATED, AND THAT I S PART OF MY CONCER N HERE , IS IF WE ISOL ATED JUST AS JUSTICE ANSTEAD KIND OF HINTED AT THIS, IF WE ISOLATED TO EAC H INDIVIDUAL DIVISION DOING ITTICLIZED TO THEIR UN IQUE -- DOING IT PARTICULARLY AS THEIR UNIQUE PRACTICE OF BAR , YOUR LAWYERS WILL DEAL WITH THE PRIVATE PRACTI TIONER O R DUI OR WHATEVER COMING IN AND THAT COMMUNITY OF LAWYERS. HOW DOES YOUR APPROACH MAINTAIN THAT TRAD ITION OF MAINTAINING A COMM UNITY AMONG LAWYERS?

WE BRING IN MANY PE OPLE TO TEACH ETHICS, NOT JUST PROSECUTORS, AND A S A MATTEROF FACT I THINK YOU LECTUREURED AT ONE OF OUR SEMINARS ABOUT PROFESSIONISM AND ETHICS, SO WE BRING IN FOLKS NOT JUST TALKING PROSECUTORS TO PROSECUTORS. WE HAVE PRIVATE LAWYERS INVOLVED, CERT AINLY JUSTICES INVOLVED, JUDGES INVOLVED , AND IT IS NOT AN ISO LATED SITUATION THAT YOU M AYTHINK.WE ARE VERY INVOLVED IN THE COMMUNITY.I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE THIN G THAT IS WE HAVE IN OUR COURSES. IT IS NOT AN ISOLATED SITUATION.IT IS NOT A TRADE-ORIENTED SITUATION.YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ETHICS . ETHICS IS, YOU CAN 'T JUST , AND, AGAIN , NOBODY IS BEING SPECIFIC TODAY ABOUT WHAT IS ETHICS? ETHICS, I GUESS AS SOMEONE SAID, IS WHAT IS REQUIRED. PROFESSIONISM IS WHAT IS EXPECTED. AND THAT IS THE WAY, OUR MANTRA AS WE GO FORW ARD I N OUR COURSES .

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOUR T IME IS EXPI RED. WHATEVER HAPPENS TODAY , IT WOULD REALLY BE OF ASSISTANCE, I THINK , IF THE FLORIDA PROSEC UTING ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION AND THE FLORIDA BAR AND Y OUNGLAWYERS, ACTUALLY TALKED TO ONE ANOTHER AND YOU KNOW , MAYBE THERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS YOU WOULD HAVE FOR THEIR COURSE THAT WOULD IMPROVE THEIR COURSE , AND I CAN SEE LO TS OF WAY THAT IS THIS WHOLE THING COULD BE MEDIATED OUT, TO HAVE THE GOAL THAT WE HAVE , TO HAVE THIS COMMUNITY OF LAWYERS TOGETHER AND, ALSO, ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS , BUT THA NK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT.

WE ARE ALWAYS GLAD TO TALK. THANK YOU.

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU . I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE TOOK UP YOUR TIME OR MR . MUSTO'STIME BUT IT SON OF YOURS .

I WILL BE VERY SHORT. I AM NANCY DANI ELS . MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION. AND WITH ME S KI P B A BB , THE TRAINING DIRECTOR AND PRESIDENT FROM THE F IFTHCIRCUIT.WE HAVE EVOLVED BEFORE THIS COURT TO THE POINT THAT , WHILE NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTING THE CHANGE , WE ACCEPT IT. WE THINK ON BA LANCE OUR LAWYERS WILL BE WELL-SERVEDBY A BA SIC PROFESSIONISM ONE-DAY COURSE , AND WE ONLYHAVE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED A BOUTALREADY. ONE IS , WE REALLY W A NT TO HAVE INPUT INTO THE COURSE. WE HAVE SPO KEN WITH THE YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION. THEY HAVE AG REED TO AC CEPT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OUR ASSOCIATION IN THEDEVELOPMENT OF THE COURSE.WE WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE FORMALIZED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, PERHAPS WITH SOME COMMENTARY BY THE COURT WHEN YOU DE CIDE THIS . SECONDLY , WE ARE ALL WRESTLING AROUND WITH THIS SITUATION, BUT WE D O BE LIEVE CRIMINAL LAW IS A SEPA RATE TRACK IN SOME RESPECTS. THERE ARE UNIQUE ETHICAL ISSUES THAT RELATE T O CRIMINAL LAW, AND WE BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE A TRACK O R AT LE AST A PO RTION OF THE PROGRAM.

WHAT ABOUT THE PAYMENT?

THE PAYMENT WAS OUR THIRD ISSUE . CERTAINLY A $ 75 REDU CTION IS APPRECIATED. I ST ILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST WOULD BE , AND WE DO HAVE --

ISN'T THAT $75 SORT OF LIMITED?I MEAN, IT IS LI MITED T O A CERTAIN NUM BER OF PEO PLE. I THOUGH T THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THERE ABOUT --

RI GHT. THE DETA ILS AREN'T CLEAR A T THIS POINT TO US .

DOES THE PUBLIC DEFENDERSHAVE AN APPROP RIATION TO PAY FOR IT?

WE PAY FOR OUR TRAINING OUT OF OUR EXPENSE CATEGORY OF OUR BUDGET. IT IS NOT SET AS IDE AS A SPECIAL TRAINING FUND.

WOULD THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS PAY FOR THIS?

YES, WE WOULD. THAT IS WHY WE WOULD LIKE THE COST TO BE , YOU KNOW, AS LITTLE AS IT CAN BE . YOU KNOW, JUST IN GENERAL , THE BAR'S CLE , WE DON'T GET A PRICE REDUCTIO N ON THAT . OTHER --

HAVE ANY - - I AM A LI TTLE CONFUSED THAT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER PAYS FOR THAT AND THE STATE ATTORN EYS DON'T PAY FOR THAT. DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLE DGE OF WHY THERE IS A DIFF ERENCE?

I THINK AS JUSTICE CANTERO SAID , EACH OFFICE MAKES ITS O WN DECISIONS ABOUT THAT , B ASED ON WHA T THEY HAVE.

THERE ARE STATE ATTORNEYS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THAT DO PAY FOR THIS OUT OF THEIR EXPENSE .

?

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT STATE ATTORNEYS.I KNOW THERE ARE PUBLIC DEFENDERS WHO SENT THEIR EMPLOYEES BACK TO WHEN IT WAS THE 3 -DAY BASIC TRAINING AND THEN AS IT HAS EVOLVED .

SOME DON'T?

SOME DON'T. THAT IS WHY WE THINK THE ONE-DAY PROGRAM FOR EVER YONE WILL BE OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY AND WILL ACTUALLY BENE FIT OUR LAWYERS.

BUT YOU JUST WANT IT CLEAR ABOUT WHERE THE REDUCTION IS, IF THERE SHOULD BE - -

YES.

I THOUGHT, MAYBE I DI DN'TLOOK AT IT. I THOUGHT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A SPECIFIED REDUCTION , BUT THAT IS NOT --

THAT IS A NEED-BASED REDUCTION IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD IT SAID.

YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT. WE FEEL LIKE OUR LAWYERS WILL QUALIFY BECAUSE OF THEIR SALARIES AND O URBUDGETS , BUT THAT IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE COST. O VERALL, WE THINK A LO T OF WORK HAS GONE INTO THIS COMPROMISE, AND AS EXPLAINED BY MR . RIZZARDI HERE , WE THINK WE HAVE LA NDED AT A GOOD PLACE WITH THIS AND WE DO WANT TO WORK --

HOW MANY PUBLIC DEF ENDERSTHERE ARE?

I THINK THERE IS 9 50 , MORE OR LESS AT THIS POINT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH , MS. DANIELS.MR. MUSTO.

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. GOOD MORNING, YOUR HO NORS .

ARE YOU JUST REPRESENTING YOURSELF NOW?

THERE IS A QUES TION. THE C HAIR OF THE CRIMINAL LAW SECTION AND I DIS AGREE ON. THAT I DEFER TO HIS AUTHORITY AND HIS R ULING , B UT I AM REPRESENTING AT L EAST THE PEOPLE THAT A RENAMED IN THE PLEADING. THE THING THAT IS BEING MISSED HERE , IS THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS NOT WHETHER GOVERNMENT LAWYERS SHOULD TAKE PWP BUT WHEN THEY SHOULD TAKE IT. THIS IS DEFEHRMENT NOT AN EXEMPTION. THEY PRESENTLY TAKE PWP W HEN THEY LEAVE GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND GO INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE, AND THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT GOES BACK TO WHAT JUSTICE AN STEAD WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE R OOTSOF THIS PROP OSE A. M., AND IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PIN - - PROPOSAL, AND IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR OPINION ADOP TING THE BRIDGE VERSE -- B R IDGE VERSION, THE FOOT NOTE OF MY RESPONSE THAT, IS THE PRACTICAL ASPECT OF IT. IT IS DONE FOR 15 YEARS. THAT IS WHAT GOVERNMENT LAWYERS ARE DEFERRED , AND THAT IS WHAT IS DONE NOW. DESPITE WHAT IS SAID, I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO APPEND IX C IN MY RESPONSE AND SPECIFICALLY THIS IS A PAGE FROM THE YOUNG LAWYERS WEB SITE AND YOU CAN CLICK ON EACH OF THE SE. THESE ARE THE PRESENTATIONSAT THE PWP PROGRAM , LAW PRACTICE, LAW OFFICE AND MANAGEMENT, CLIENT RE LATIONS , LAW MARKETING MATE RIAL, MAINTAINING A TRUST AC COUNT , THE MANAGEMENT SERVI CE. THINGS THEY DID NOT TE ACH ME IN LAW SCHOOL.

THAT IS NOT A PRE CISE AGENDA OF THE PRAC TICING PROFESSIONISM PROGRAM, IS IT? I HAVE A PREC ISE AGEN DA AND IT DIFFERS SUBSTANTIALLY FROM WHAT YOU ARE QUOT ING. INTERACTIVE MULTIMEDIA , PROFESSIONISM , LOCAL BAR PRESENTATION, PRO BONO DISCUSSION, CH EMICAL DEPENDENCY, ST RESS , THE FLORIDA BAR , WHAT CAN WE DO FOR YOU , PA NE L DISCUSSION ON PROFESSIONALI SM. IT IS TOTA LLY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT YOU ARE QUOTING.

THERE IS A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL THE INTERACT I EVER, I FORGOT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BUT THE MORNI NG OF THE PROGRAM IS A PROGRAM THAT CONSISTS OF CLI PS FROM MOVIES WHERE LAWYERS DISC USS THING THAT IS THEY DO.

HELP US , THOUGH, YOU J UST READ AN EXPRESS LIST H ERE AND I ASSU ME THAT YOU WANT US TO RELY ON THAT. JUSTICE CANTERO HAS REFERRED TO A TOTALLY DIFFERENT , A RE YOU REPRESENTING TO US , THAT THIS IS THE COURSE , NOW , THAT THE