PLEASE R IS E . PLEASE BE S EA TE D .

THE PARTIES A RE R EADY O R THE B AR IS R EA DY. I CAL L THE C ASE OF IN R E AMENDMENT TO RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR. IF YOU WOULD ANNOUNC E Y OU R AEARANCE AND I HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE.

MAY IT P LEASE T HE COURT , MY NAME IS HENRY COX H ER E O N BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA BAR.

AND THE COMMENT WAS THAT WE W ON DERE D W HE THER T HE FLORIDA BAR WAN TED T O GO T O THE T HR EE -Y EA R RUL E C YC LE FOR ITS BAR R ULES .

YOUR HONOR, WE WERE PAYING CLO SE ATT EN TI ON . MAY IT P LEASE THE C OURT , W ITH RESPECT TO THE BAR 'S POSITION, I'M HERE BECAUSE OF THE ANNUAL FILING O F CONSOLIDATED AMENDMENTS TOTHE RULES REGULATING T HE FLORIDA BAR, WHICH W E BELIEVE ARE PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT. THERE WAS A PROPO SAL O R SET OF PROPO SALS I B ELIE VE THE COURT HAD HEARD ARGUMEN T O N YESTERDAY REFERRED TO AS THE ABA E THIC S 2 00 0 P AC KAGE F OR THE C OURT'S B EN EF IT , T HESE PROPOSALS ARE I NDEPENDENT OF AND DO NOT CONFLICT WITH ANY OF THOSE P RO POSALS . WE BEL IE VE , AND I T HINK WE'RE CORRECT, THAT THESE PROPOSALS T HIS MOR NI NG ARE EDITORIAL AND ADM INIS TR ATIVE AND SEE MINGLY NON CONTROVERSIAL. THEY HAVE BEE N DEVELOPED FROM A PERIOD OF APRIL O F 200 3 T HROUGH JAN UARY OF 2005. WE HAVE NOT E LE CT ED T O A LL OT TIM E FOR INDIV ID UALS WIT H RESPECT TO SUBJECT MATTER TO COME BEFORE THE C OURT AND MAKE THOSE ARG UM ENTS. THERE WAS O NE COM ME NT O R ONE COMMENT R EPRESENTED HERE TODAY , M R. WEI SS W HICH I WILL COME T O I N A M OMEN T BUT THE SUBJECT MATTERS OF THE SE PROPOSALS BREAK DOWN INT O ESSENTIALLY A HAN DFUL OF CATEGORIES. THE FLORIDA BAR M EMBE RS HI P CLASSIFICATIONS, INVENTORY ATT ORNEYS , DISCI PL IN ARY PROCEDURES OF THE BAR , R ULES OF P RO FE SSIONAL CON DU CT , L EGAL SPECI AL IZ AT ION A ND EDUCATION, AND THE UNLICENSED PRACTICE OF LAW. ALL OF W HICH ARE L AI D O UT IN DETAIL IN THE B AR 'S PETITION. WITH ME TODAY, S EATED TO MY IMMEDIATE LEFT, IS MR. GREGORY PARKER WHO IS O N THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR THE FLORIDA BAR AND CHA IRMA N OF THE D ISCI PL INARY PROCEDURES COMMITTEE WHO IS PREPARED TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF THE FIRST TWO C AT EGOR IES I MENTI ON ED O R T HE T HIRD A ND FOURTH, THE D IS CIPL IN AR Y PROCEDURE S AND PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND ALSO MR. TON Y BOGGS, DIREC TOR O F LAW YER REGULATION FOR THE FLORIDABAR AND SEATED BEH IND T HE M IS THE HON ORABLE RAL PH ART IGLIERE , CIR CU IT J UD GE O F THE 10TH CIRCUIT WHO C HAIR S A P ROGRAM FOR THE F LO RIDA BAR. LORI HOL CO MB , E LI ZABE TH TARBERT AND PAUL HILL W HO I S GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE FLORIDA BAR. MR. WEISS HAD FILED C OMMENT S WIT H R ES PECT T O TWO I SS UE S. O NE WAS T HE R EC OM MEND ED CHANGE BY THE B AR O F T HE LANGUAGE, D IS CI PLIN AR Y RESIGNATION T O D ISBA RMEN T O N CON SENT AND ALSO WIT H RESPECT TO NOTICES OF DETERMINATION OF GUILT. THAT LATTER ISSUE IS ONE THAT'S BEEN UNDER C LOSE SCRUTINY BY THE SPE CI AL C OMMISSION ON LAWYER REGULATION, IN PAR T B ECAU SE WHAT THE COMMISSION UNDERTOOK AND IN PAR T BECAUSE OF WHAT THIS COURT SENT BACK TO THE BAR TO UNDERTAKE FURTHER STUDY OF. FOR EXAMPLE, THE REFERENCE TO HOW OR WHA T ACT ION SHOUL D TAKE PLACE IMM EDIATE LY U PO N DETERMINATION OF G UILT Y PLEAS , T RIAL VER DI CTS O F GUILT OF LAWYERS, ET C ET ER A . WE HAD PUT I N OUR R ES PONS E , A RECOMME NDATION OR A SUGGESTION TO THE C OURT THAT BECAUSE OF THAT PROCESS , AND BECAUSE OF THE I NTENT T O FILE SEP ARATE P ACKAGE O F PROPOSALS PRIOR TO JULY 1ST THAT THAT I SS UE B E DEF ER ED. MR. WEISS INFORME D M E T HIS MORNING THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE BAR'S RESPONSE AND WAS NOT AWARE T HA T THAT SECOND ISSUE WE HAD RECOMMENDED BE DEFERED.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT , 3 -7.2 ?

Y ES, Y OU R H ONOR.

SO THAT'S BEING DEF ERED?

YES, YOUR HONOR. SO I JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE I WANT TO EXTEND BOTH M Y PERSONAL APOLOGIES TO MR. WEISS AND ALSO APOLOGIES TO THE FLORIDA B AR T HA T H E DIDN'T RE CEIVE THAT, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND FROM M R. WEI SS THAT THAT WAS THE MAI N THRUST OF HIS REASON FOR BEING HERE THIS M ORNI NG . IN ANY EVENT I DEF ER T O WHATEVER THE COURT WOULD PREFER ON THE ONE R EM AINI NG C OMMENT THAT'S BEEN F ILED ON THE CONVERSION OF DISCIPLINARY RES IGNA TI ON T O D ISBARMENT UPON CONSENT . MR. PARKER IS HERE TO ADDRESS IT OR IF THE COURT WOULD PREFER TO HEAR FRO M MR. WEISS.

OTHER THAN THAT ISSUE, WHETHER THE J US TICE S HAV E QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE OTHER R UL ES A ND THE N W E C AN HEA R FROM MR. WEISS A ND T HEN HEAR THE RESPONSE. ANYBODY - - A NY Q UE STIO NS ?

I HAVE O NE O N T HE 3 .3 - - 3-7.4 REGARDING DEL ETIN G THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GRI EVAN CE COMMITTEE ACTUALLY SIGN T HE D OCUMENT.

I CAN D EFER - - I COU LD ANSWER THAT M YS ELF. THIS I S M R. - - M R. P ARKE R TRAVELED ALL OF THE WAY HERE.

GREETINGS FROM THE 3RD J UDICIAL CIRCUIT.

ALL OF THE WAY F RO M PERRY.

ALL OF THE WAY F ROM PERRY.

DID YOU FLY O R D RIVE ?

I DRO VE. ACTUALLY I CAME F RO M JACKSONVILLE, SO T HI S MORNING . YOU HAD A Q UE STION?

I THINK THE CONCERN IS WHETHER THA T T HE - - W HE THER ELIMINATE !!ING T HE R EQ UI RE MENTOF IT BEING S IG NE D B Y T HE AUTHORIZING PERSON.

I THINK A NY C ON CE RNS WOULD BE ELIMINATE D B Y T HE FACT THAT THERE WOULD B E PROPER DOCUMENTATION THR OUGH EITHER C OR RESPONDENCE , F AX , EMA ILS. I K NOW I N THE THI RD J UDIC IA L CIRCUIT WE ARE THE LARGEST AND WITH A GRIEVAN CE COMMITTEE MEETING AND ONCE THERE IS THE D EC ISIO N B Y THE LOCAL COMMITTEE TO ISSUE A COMPLAINT, THERE MIGHT BE SOME D IF FICULTIES IN ACTUALLY TRACKING D OW N SOMEONE, THE PONY E XP RESS MIGHT NOT RUN T HAT DAY AND IT WOULD BE , I T HI NK , CERTAINLY AROPRIATE TO ALLOW FOR A FAX O R A N E MAIL CON FIRMATION BY THE CHAIR O F THE COMMITTEE TO A RO VE T HE C OMPLAINT, RATHER THAN REQUIRING A SIGNATURE.

LET ME A SK , I W OU LD STA RT WITH 3 -5.1 , A ND O N T HE R UL E HAVING TO DO W IT H DISCIPLINARY DIS BARM ENT O N CONSENT AS O OSED T O RESIGNATION . NOW , P RE SE NTLY ALL RES IGNATIONS D O N OT P REVE NT THE PERSON FROM R EA LY IN G FOR F IV E Y EARS W HERE D ISBA R MEA NT DOES. IS THA T INT ENDE D T O B E A CHANGE HERE?

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE I S ANY CHANGE .

IF I T IS A D IS BARM EN T O N C ONSENT?

THAT'S C ORRECT.

THA T W OU LD B E A F IV E YEARS BEFORE THE PER SO N COULD REALY , COR RE CT?

THAT'S CORRECT. THE RULES, W HICH R EFER T O DIS CIPLINARY RES IG NATION ALL MAKE C OMMENT AS WELL AS THE COURT'S RULINGS I N CASES WHERE THERE IS AN A CC EP TA NC E OF A D ISCI PL IN ARY RESIGNATION , ALWAYS QUO TE AND POINT OUT THAT IT IS T HE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A DISBARMENT OR T AN TAMOUN T TO A D IS BA RM EN T.

WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEA RS, I UNDERSTAND, BUT WE'VE N EV ER CROSSED THI S BRI DG E A S T O W HETHER IN E VERY I NS TANC E OF A D IS CI PLIN AR Y R ESIG NA TION WE ARE G OI NG T O N OT A LL OW THE PER SON T O R EA LY FOR FIVE YEARS, B UT I S I T THE BAR 'S U NDERSTANDING THAT THIS WOULD CROSS T HA T BRIDGE?

THAT'S C ORRECT.

IS THAT COR RE CT , M R. COX ? OKAY. LET M E ASK I N R ES PECT T O 3 -7.6.

JUST SO I JUST WANT T O MAKE SURE B ECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW IF JUSTICE B ELL W AS JUST DEALING WITH THAT ONE RULE AND THEN I THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE MR. WEI SS AND THEN HAVE HIM COME BACK U P. DID YOU WANT T O FOL LO W UP JUST ON THIS ISSUE? WHAT HIS RESPONS E W AS A BO UT THE S IGNATU RE T HA T T HE RE WOULD BE SOME WRITTEN CONFIRMATION?

MY ONL Y C ONCERN IS T HA T THE COM MI SS IO NS O R COMMITTEES HAVE COCHAIRS. IT JUST SEE MS UNUSU AL I N EVERY PROCESS OR PROCEDURE I'VE EVER BEEN I N I N A P ROFIT CORPORATION OR WHATEVER, AND E XC US E MY RE AL ESTATE LAWYER BACKGROUND BUT I LIKE STUFF IN W RI TING O R WHEN PETITIONS A RE F ILED , ANYTHING WE FILE IN COU RT I S ALWAYS TYPIC ALLY S IG NED O R VERIFIED BY S OMEONE IN AUTHORITY . AND THA T J UST S EEMS I N THI S DAY AND AGE I JUST D ON 'T S EE WHY THAT IS SUC H O F A PROBLEM AND IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A PRO TECTION TO M AKE SURE THAT IT I S , I ND EE D , T HE - - SO WHO IS GOI NG TO BE DRAFTING THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU ARE G OING TO BE RECEIVING BUT NOT SIGNE D BY THE CHAIRMAN?

WELL, THE BAR COUNS EL WOULD BE DRAFT IN G THOSE. THE BAR C OU NS EL S REPRESENTING THE V ARIOUS CIRCUIT GRIEVANCE COMMITTEES.

WHEN YOU MENTIONED FACTS, I MEAN IF SOMEONE S IG NS I T AND FAXES I T , T HE Y CAN FOLLOW UP BY S EN DING - - S O I MEAN COULDN'T THAT BE DONE UNDER THE CURRENT RULE ?

THAT'S T RU E . IT IS NOT ANT ICIP ATED T HA T THE PROCESS IS SEEKING T O AVOID SIGNATURES AT THIS POINT IN TIME. IT IS JUST SETTING UP FOR THOSE O CCASIONS WHE N THE RE MAY BE SOMEONE TRAVE LI NG OUT OF COUNTRY OR SOMETHING, THEY CAN EMAIL G IV E S OM E KIND OF A RO VA L T HA T I S S HORT O F A N ACT UA L P HYSI CA L SIGNATURE.

I GUESS MY CONCERN I S THAT CHECK AND BAL AN CE BETWEEN THE IND EPENDENT GRIEVANCE C OMMITTEE AND B AR COUNSEL THAT THERE B E A CTUALLY THE BAR C OU NS EL'S PREPARING IT ON BEHALF O F T HE COMMITTEE, YOU WOULD THINK SOME MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE W OULD A CK NO WL EDGE IN WRITING, AND IT SEE MS B Y THE B Y T HI S D EL ET IO N Y OU MAY SAY THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO BUT I T IS N OT NECESSARILY REQUIRED, IS IT?

I WOULD A GREE , B UT THE I N P RACTICE I WOULD - - H AVIN G BEEN ON A G RIEVANCE COMMITTEE AND VIC E CHAIRED ONE THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE WHAT EVERYONE WOULD T RY T O DO BUT THIS ALLOWS F OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE THAT MIGHT OCC UR FOR T HERE T O B E A W AY T O COM MENC E T HE PROCESS, THE C OM PL AI NT PROCESS WITHOUT SEEKING THE ACTUAL SIGNATURE.

OKAY. WHAT I WANT TO D O HER E I S LET ME JUST SO W E H AV E THIS. LET'S JUST SO W E K NO W AND THE BAR KNOWS , JUST I DIDN' T WANT TO STO P J US TICE W ELLS , JUST IF YOU COULD JUST TELL US AND THEN THE BAR THE OTHER R ULES THAT YOU HAVE A CONCERN WITH AND J US TI CE QUINCE.

WHAT I WANTED TO F OLLOW UP ON , ON THE PRE VI OU S RUL E , 3-5.1, S INCE W E A RE C HA NG IN G IT T O FIV E- YEAR B EF OR E YOU CAN REA LY AS O OSED T O THE THREE YEA RS THAT WAS I N THE PREVIOUS RULE, WAS THAT REALLY DISCUSSED? BECAUSE I ALWAYS A SS UMED THAT IT HAD T HE T HREE -Y EA R PROVISION BECAUSE IT M IG HT FAC ILITATE PEOPLE A CTUA LL Y AGREEING TO T HE D IS CIPL INAR Y R ESIGNATION AS O OSED TO THE BAR HAVING TO GO T HROUGH THE WHOLE P RO CE DURE O F A DISBARMENT. SO WAS T HA T C ONSI DE RE D WHETHER YOU D EC ID ED T O CHANGE THE RUL E T O DIS B ARRMENT ON CON SE NT A ND M AKE IT A FIVE-YEAR P ERIO D?

WHY DON'T WE JUS T LET MR. BOGGS , W HY D ON 'T YOU JUST COME UP A ND R ESPO ND T O IT?

WE DID, IN FACT , D ISCUSS THAT AND WE DIRECTLY CON SIDERED IT. WE WERE MAKING THIS MORE THAN TANTAMOUNT T O DIS BARMENT BUT THE SAME A S DISBAR MEPT BUT ALLOWING IT TO BE B Y CON SENT SO I T WOU LD RELATE TO SOMEONE WHO W ANTE D TO BE ABLE TO SAY I Q UI T O N MY OWN OR OF M Y O WN V OLITION.

SO THE DECISION WAS T HA T THE B AR WAS NOT - - B ECAU SE THESE A RE USU AL LY THE MOR E EGREGIOUS SITUATIONS , THE BAR WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THERE T HE Y C OULD VOLUNTARILY DO A THR EE -Y EA R SUSPENSION BUT THEREWOULDN'T BE SOMET HING WHE RE YOU COULD B E DIS BA RRED A ND COULD REALY I N T HR EE YEARS?

OUR INTENT WAS TO MAKE THIS MORE THAN TANTAMOUNT T O BUT TO MIRRO R D IS BA RMEN T.

IS I T IMP OS SI BLE UNDER YOUR EXISTING S YSTE M A S W E DO NOW, THA T I N A P AR TI CU LA R CASE IT COULD BE NEGOT IA TED FOR LESS THA N T HE FIV E YEARS? WOULD THAT NOW B E IMPOSSIBLE?

D IS BARM EN T WO UL D N OT B E ABLE TO B E FOR LES S T HA N FIVE YEARS BECAUSE THE RULE SAYS IT IS FOR A MIN IM UM O F FIVE YEARS OR A LONGE R PERIOD OF TIME.

WE SEE THA T T IM E G OING UP TO SEVEN AND LONGER.

YES, SIR.

BUT BEFOR E D ID W E NOT HAVE THE OORTUNITY, T HE FLE XIBILITY FOR THAT PLEADING KIND OF PROCESS TO DO A D IS CIPL IN AR Y RESIGNATION BUT BE FOR A SHO RTER PERIOD OR WAS THA T ALWAYS AUTOMATIC THREEYEARS?

THREE YEA RS W AS T HE MINIMUM YEARS.

THERE IS STILL NOTHING T O PREVENT THE LAWYER AND T HE BAR FROM S TI PULATI NG BEF OR E A REFEREE T O A T HREE -Y EA R S USPENSION AS T HE P RI MA RY DISCIPLINE I MPOSED ; IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT I S CORRECT. I WOULD S AY TO YOU , T HOUGH , YOUR HONOR, THA T I N T HE C ASES W HERE D ISBA RMEN T W AS AROPRIATE, WE W OULD MORE THAN LIKELY NOT B E WIL LI NG TO DO THAT, BUT W E WOULD B E ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THE THREE-YEAR SUSPENSION I N AROPRIATE CASES, YES, SIR.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER R UL ES THAT .

I HAVE A QUEST IO N O N R UL E 3-7.10. WHICH IS THE R EINS TA TEMENT AND READM ISSI ON P RO CE DU RES , AND THE N EW S UB DI VI SION 5 E VIDENCE OF TREATMENT OR COUNSELING FOR D EPENDE NC Y FOR OTHER MEDICAL REASONS . ARE YOU PREPARED T O A DDRESS THAT?

YES.

MY Q UESTION IS : I T SEE MS LIKE THE RULE I S DESIG NE D S O THAT WHEN S OM EONE I S SUSPENDED AND AS PART O F T HE REHABILITATION NEEDS T O UNDERGO MEDICAL OR P SYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT, THAT THAT P ER SO N W AI VE S ANY CONFIDENTIALITY IN T HA T T REATMENT, BUT THERE MAY B E C IRCUMSTANCES WHERE A L AW YE R WHO IS S US PE NDED FOR A NOTH ER REASON AND HAS N O PAR T O F THE R EHABILITATION REQ UIREMENT TO ATT EN D COU NSELING OR S OM ET HI NG E LS E , DOES, INDEED , HAVE A PROBLEM IN THAT R EGARD AND WAN TS T O OBTAIN COUNSELING AND I T SEEMS THAT IT W OU LD C HI LL LAWYERS FROM OBTAINING COUNSELING IN THA T CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE THE N H E WAI VES ANY CON FIDE NTIA LI TY IN THOSE REC OR DS .

RECOGNIZING THAT MAY B E THE CASE, I THI NK T HE P OL IC Y ARGUMENT ON THE PART O F THE BAR IS THAT IF I T IS PER TINENT TO ADM ISSION IT IS PERTINENT TO READMISSION , AND THAT T HE RE - - W E WO ULD NOT WANT TO BE FOR EC LO SE D I N THAT SITUA TI ON W HERE THE INDIV IDUAL SEEKING READMISSION DEV ELOP ED - - DEVELOPED THAT CAUSED THE CONCERNS IN REGARD T O THE IR MENTAL HEALTH OR ALCOHOL IS M O R DRUG D EP ENDENC Y , THA T W E WOULD BE F OR EC LOSE D FRO M OBTAINING INFORMATION INTHAT REGARD WHICH WE T HINK WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO F OR THE GOOD OF THE PUBLIC.

IS T HA T I NFORMA TI ON REQUIRED ON I NITI AL ADMISSION OR THAT WAIVER?

I BELIEVE SO.

ARE T HERE O TH ER MED IC AL REASONS? IS THAT PAR T? I MEA N , IS THA T N EW LAN GU AG E OR IS THAT PART OF T HE EXISTING LANGUAGE W HEN YOU A DMIT? IT SEEMS TO ME THA T'S PRE TT Y BROAD .

M R. BOGGS I S WHISP ER IN G THAT IT IS CONSISTENT W IT H THE ADMIS SIONS S TA NDARDS .

S O A NY M EDIC AL R EASO N I S HAS TO B E - -

A LW AY S H AS T O B E R ELEV AN T TO THE PRACTICE. IT CAN'T J UST B E F OR A NY MEDICAL REASON. IT HAS TO TIE INT O THO SE FACTORS THAT ARE RELEVANT AND AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO PRACTICE.

IF I U NDERSTAND WHAT YOUARE SAYING , SOMEONE WHO IS SEEKING TO BE ADMITTED TO THE PRACTICE OF L AW H AS T O WAIVE CONFIDENTIA LITY AND A NY MEDICAL RECORDS T HA T M AY H AVE A N A FF EC T ON THE ABILITY TO PRACTICE L AW ?

THAT'S MY UNDERST ANDING, THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THAT'S WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE MAY BE ANY A CC USAT ION F IL ED ?

MR. B OG GS?

MR. BOGGS, AGAIN , I W IL L TAG TEAM WITH HIM ON THAT.

THAT'S FINE , Y ES .

OR IS T HA T THR OU GH THE BAR KPA - - E XAMI NE R P ROCE SS .

IF THERE ARE I SS UES T HA T ARISE THAT GIVE INFORMATION TO THE B OA RD OF BAR EXAMINERS THAT T HERE MAY B E A F ITNESS TO P RA CT IC E I SSUE THEY DO ENGAG E I N S OM E KIN D OF DISCOVERY ON THAT L IM IT ED BASIS. THAT'S WHE RE CON DI TIONAL ADMISSION COMES FROM. IF IT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF REINSTATEME NT AND REHABILITATION IT SHOULD BE ALLOWABLE, BUT IT SHOULD BE RESERVED, C ON FIDENT IALITY SHOULD BE RESERVED AND THA T PART OF THE RECORD BE SEALED AND THAT'S THE R EFERENCE TO THE OTHER PROVISION IN THE RULE. IT IS NOT THAT WE W OULD PUBLIC SOMEONE'S MED ICAL HISTORY, BUT IF IT W AS RELEVANT THIS C OURT S HA LL CONSIDER IT AND THE MED IC AL TESTI MONY SHALL BE PRE SE RV ED FROM A P RI VA CY PER SPEC TI VE .

SOMEONE WHO IS SUS PE NDED A ND THE B AR H AD N O E VI DENC E AND DID NOT A CC US E T HE ATTORNEY OF HAVIN G ANY KIND OF SUB STANCE A BU SE PRO BLEM , BUT THERE WERE SOM E O TH ER ETHICAL ISSUES, AND I S SUSPENDED, A ND THE A TT ORNE Y THEREAFTER REALIZES HE D OE S HAVE A SUB ST ANCE A BUSE PROBL EM, T HA T H E B E ENCOURAGED TO S EE K ASSISTANCE WITHO UT T HE N OPENING UP H IS R ECOR DS T O PUBLIC VIEW.

BUT, AGAIN, I F I T I S RELEVANT TO THE ISS UE OF THAT L AW YER' S F ITNE SS T O RESUME THE PRACT ICE O F LAW IT SHOULD BE A RO PRIATE FOR THIS COURT TO ULTIMATELY CONSIDER IT WITH R EASONABLE PROTECTIONS SO IT IS NOT PUBLISHED PUBLICLY, AND THAT'S WHY, A GAIN, W E ASK THAT ANY CONFI DE NTIALITY OF THOSE RECORDS BE PRE SE RVED WHETHER IT BE PART OF THE RECORD THAT THIS COU RT C OU LD A ND SHOULD REVIEW B ECAUSE THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE REINSTATEMENT PROCEEDING IS FOR T HE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC .

I WOULD G O T O 3.3 - - 3 -7.6 AND T HA T P ROVI SION I N W HICH THE PRO POSA L I S T O DELETE THE REQUI REMENT T HA T THE REFEREE S ERVE A C OPY O F THE RECORD ON THE BAR , ALO NG WITH THE R EFER EE 'S R EP OR T , AND THE BAR COU NSEL M AK E A COPY AVAILABLE TO O THER PARTIES, THA T P RO VI SI ON , B UT WHAT'S E NV IS IONED HERE AS T O WHO IS GOING TO MAKE T HI S REC ORD AVAILABLE? OUR CLERK'S OFFICE OR WHO IS GOING TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE?

BOTH P LACES , I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND ALSO T HE B AR , B UT THI S - - T HE I NTENT O F T HIS PARTICULAR RULE IS TO JUST RELIEVE T HE RESPO NS IB ILIT Y FROM THE REFEREE . AND SO

BUT SHOULDN'T W E MAK E S URE THE N I T I S T HE B AR 'S RESPONSIBILITY AS O OSED TO OUR CLERK'S R ES PONSIB IL ITY .

YES , WE D O , A ND T HAT' S - - I AGREE THE BAR H AS T HA T RESPONSIBILITY. B UT IT I S S IM ILAR T O A N AEAL WHERE WE WOU LD S EEK TO, YOU KNOW , YOU HAV E T O MAKE DIRECTIONS AND SO FORTH TO GET T HOSE V ARIOUS DOCUMENTS, THE TRA NS CR IP TS AND SO FORTH ROU TE D ARO UND. WE JUST DON'T W AN T T O SAD DL E THE REFEREE W ITH T HI S PARTICULAR RESPONSIBILITY.

IS THE B AR RES PONSIBLE FOR AN INDEX T O T HE R EC OR D SO THAT THE R ESPO NDEN T' S COUNSEL KNOWS, C AN A SCER TAIN WHAT'S IN THE RECORD AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT SHOULD BE IN THERE IS IN THERE?

WELL, I DON'T T HI NK THAT'S THE BAR'S RESPONSIBILITY. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE COURT .

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULE CURRENTLY THAT T AL KS ABOUT RES PO NSIB IL IT Y B Y A NY PARTY, BUT THE R EF ER EE INDEXES IT TO THE EXTENT I T IS I ND EXED AND T HE C LE RK SAYS IT IS VER Y S ELDO M T HA T IT REALLY IS.

THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER STORY ABOUT THE WAY THAT B AR RECORDS COME UP , A ND O NE D AY WHE N WE - - I F W E CAN GET RID OF SOME O F THIS PAPER, YOU KNOW, THAT THIS MAY BE EXACTLY THE ARE A WHERE ELECTRONIC FILING MAY ACTUALLY BE OF ASSISTANCE T O EVERYBODY.

AS A PRACTICAL M ATTER HERE, T HE BAR A LREADY HAS A COPY OF E VERYTHING THAT'S IN THE RECORD OR SHOULD , S O THERE IS NO NEE D F OR T HE REFEREE TO M AKE A NO THER C OP Y AND WE ALSO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO R ESPOND TO PUBLIC RECORDS INQ UI RE 'S , WHICH WE WILL CONTINUE T O HAVE EVEN IF THIS RUL E I S AMENDED.

YOU WANTED TO CLARIFYTHAT IT IS AGAIN, I THINK W E WERE JUST CON CERN ED .

T HIS DOES NOT CHANGE O UR R ESPONSIBILITY TO RESPOND TO PUBLIC RECORD INQ UI RE 'S , INCLUDING INQUIRIES FROM RESPONDEN T'S COUNSEL WHEN THEY SAY CAN YOU PROVIDE ME WITH A COPY OF THE RECORD.

SO IT IS S TI LL T HE BAR RESPONSIBILITY T O M AK E A VAILABLE A COP Y T O T HE OTHER PARTY?

THAT'S CORRE CT, AND I F W E ARE THE A EA LING PARTY , A SEP ARATE RULE REQUIRES US TO SERVE COPIES OF THE TRANSCRIPTS T HAT ARE NOTPART OF THE RECOR D , O N THE OOSING PARTY.

SO WHY D O W E D ELET E T HA T LAST SENTENCE THAT SAYS BAR COUNSEL WILL MAKE A COPY OF THE RECORD AS FUR NI SH ED AVAILABLE TO OTHER PAR TI ES AVAILABLE ON REQUEST AND PAYMENT FOR ACTUAL C OSTS O R REPRODUCTION?

IT IS REDUNDANT.

O KA Y .

A NY OTH ER - - C AN W E H EA R FROM MR. WEI SS I N A MINUTE?

ARE WE GOING TO B E O KAY IF WE DEL ET E 3-7 .1 2 B EFOR E WE GET T HE R EVISIO N O F 3 .3-7.2?

YES, SIR , BEC AUSE IN 1 2 YOU ARE JUST DELETING DISCI PLINARY RES IG NATION. IF YOU IMP OS E T HE D ISBA RM EN T ON CONSENT C HA NGE Y OU CAN DELETE THAT LANGUAGE.

SO IT DOESN'T MAKE A NY DIFFERENCE?

NO, SIR.

O 7 .2 ?

NO, SIR.

LET ME SEE IF T HERE I S ONE M ORE .

WHY DON'T WE HEA R F RO M THE OTHER SID E W HI LE I L OO K?

I'VE BEEN THI NK ING THIS WEEK ABOUT OUR WAY THAT WE , AGAIN, WE H EAR THESE C ASES AND WHETHER WE COULD D O A BETTER JOB IF WE HAD SOM ETHING A LITTLE MORE INTERACTIVE AND INF ORMA L , ESPECIALLY ON SOME OF THESE TECHNICAL CONCERNS , SO M AY BE WE CAN DISCUSS THA T. MR. WEISS?

I PREPARE D A L IS T O F QUESTIONS TO ASK M R. C OX A ND T HEY DON'T HAVE ANY THING T O DO WITH T HE RULES .

AND HE IS N OT UND ER O ATH. THAT'S THE PROBLEM .

I WAS T EL LI NG TON Y AND PAUL HILL WHEN I FIRST WALKED UP HERE A ND F EEL L IK E THE S PARTAN FRO M T HE RM OPOL I. I D ID L EA RN THIS M ORNING THAT 3-7.2 I S O FF T HE TABLE CHB LT THAT'S THE FELONY CONVICTION RULE.THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY I WAS HERE.

AND WE HOPE THAT , YOU KNOW, BEC AU SE THE C OU RT H AS B EEN C ON CE RNED A S T O HOW THE PROCESS GOES IN THESE EMERGENCY S USPENSIONS AND WHAT THE EFFEC T I S O F FIL IN G SOMETHING THAT WHEN THOSE - - THAT PACKAGE IS TOGETHER , W E , YOU KNOW , LOO K F OR WA RD T O YOUR INPUT.

WELL , T ONY A ND I WER E TALKING ABOUT THIS INFORMALLY A FEW MINUTES AGO , AND MY CON CE RN S ABO UT T HE F ELONY SUS PE NS ION R UL E B E ALLEV IATED IF THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE BAR TO FILE FORMAL P RO CEEDINGS THEREAFTER AND THAT' S M Y BIGGEST CONCERN.

I WOULD BE O NE T HA T W OU LD BE VER Y R ECEP TI VE T O T HA T IDEA, B ECAUSE I T HINK THA T'S WHERE THE PRO BLEM COMES IN. SO NOW ON THIS - - Y OU R MAI N OTHER THING THEN IS THI S DISBARMENT ON CONSENT?

YES.

OF C OU RS E Y OU R EPRESENT A LOT OF

I WILL TAKE A BO UT TEN SECONDS. I THINK T HAT T HE P UBLI C AND PRESS IS CONFUSED B Y DISCIPL INARY RESIG NA TIONTHEY ARE GOING TO BE CONFUSED BY DISBA RM EN T O N C ONSENT AND IT I S PRETTY MUCH THAT SIMPLE.

BUT LET M E - - Y OU H AV E SAI D THAT THERE I S A S TI GM A THAT Y OU R C LIEN T MIGHT A GREE TO A DISCIPLIN AR Y RESIGNATION NOT THE DISBARMENT ON CONSENT S O OBVIOUSLY IN T HEIR M IN D I T IS SAYING SOM ETHI NG MOR E THAN A D IS CI PLIN ARY RES IGNATION?

ABSOLUTELY. I COULD NOT FIND THE CAS E AND THIS COUR T HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT T HE DIFFERENCE IS THE A PROB REUM . THAT IS NOT A WOR D I U SE ALL OF THE TIME. AND I W OULD B E L ES S THA N CANDI D WITH THIS COURT IF I SAID THIS IS AN ISSUE THA T' S IN FRONT OF ME ALL OF THE TIME. WE'RE LOOKING AT ONC E EVE RY OTHER YEAR OR S O. THIS IS A P OLIC Y D ECIS IO N O N WHETHER WE E LI MI NA TE T HE THREE-YEAR OPTION . BEFORE THE LAW YERS HAV E THE OPTION FOR A DIS CI PL INAR Y RESIGNATION FOR THREE YEARSTHE D ISBA RMEN T F OR C ON SENT WILL UP T HAT T O F IV E Y EARS . THAT'S A P OLIC Y D EC ISIO N. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT ON M Y PART THERE .

BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST SAW THESE, YOU KNOW, T HE O NE S THAT USUALLY WHERE WE WERE GETTING THEM ARE REA LL Y SOMETIMES THE WORST OF T HE WORST, AND SO F OR T HE M T O S ORT OF HAVE SOM ETHING T HA T DOES, I THI NK, IN THE PUBLIC'S EYE, D OE S SOU ND D ISCIPLINARY RESIGNATI ON T O ME IS W E H AV E HAD T O S AY IT I S TAN TA MOUNT TO D IS BARM EN T.

I U ND ERSTAND T HA T . AND THIS IS O NC E AGA IN A POLICY DECISION.I U NDERSTAND COMPLETELY T HA T DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS ARE TO SOM E EXT EN T PUBLI C T RU ST IN THE SYSTEM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT COMPLETELY. IF YOU ALL ARE GOING T O D O THAT, DO AWAY W IT H DISCIPLINARY RESIGNATION WHY EVEN BOTHER TO HAVE DISBARMENT ON C ONSENT. JUST LEAVE IT, WE DON'T HAV E PUBLIC R EPRI MA ND O N C ON SENT , SUSPENSION ON CONSENT . WHY HAVE DISBA RM EN T ON C ONSENT. JUST MAKE IT DISBA RM EN T.

IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN WHETHER IT WILL E VEN B E U SE D IF THERE IS N O G AIN T O B E RESPONDED FROM G OING T O A H EARING, E VI DE NT IARY H EA RI NG AND P UTTING THE BAR T O I TS PROOF.

ABSOLUTELY , J US TICE CANTERO , AND I W ILL B E HONEST WITH T HIS COURT I PRORBL NEGOTIATE OUT A SETTLEMENT ON T HREE-QUARTERS OF MY CAS ES . AWHIL E AGO I W AS B EING A SK ED CAN YOU S TILL N EGOTIATE I T THREE -YEAR SUSPENSION VERSUS DISBARMENT. THE DISTINCTION THERE IS NOT A LINE IN T HE SAND. I MEAN, IT IS A M OA T O F THE COMPROMISE BETWEEN A ONE YEAR OR EVEN A 91- DA Y SUSPENSION AND THREE YEARS IS A LOT EAS IER TO REACH I N THAT COM PROMISE B ETWE EN THREE YEARS AND D ISBA RMENT. THE DISCIPLIN ARY R ES IGNATI ON IS A WAY FOR A L AW YE R T O GET OUT AND FRANKLY S AV E F AC E I N SOME INSTANCES AND IT I S THAT SIMPLE.

I JUST HAVE A REL ATED QUESTION. WE DO 90 DAYS A ND 9 1 , WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC. 91 NEVER MEANS 9 1.

ABS OLUTELY.

WHAT'S Y OUR EXP ERIENCE AS TO WHAT 9 1 U SUALLY M EA NS ?

I HAD T HA T C ON VERSAT IO N YESTERDAY WITH A CLIENT. I TELL CLI ENTS IF YOU ARE SUSPENDED FOR 90 DAY S Y OU ARE BACK IN B USINESS ON THE 91ST DAY. IF YOU ARE SUSPENDED FOR 9 1 DAYS, IT IS A M IN IM UM O F NINE MONTHS , P OSSI BL Y AS LONG AS A YEAR . SO 90 D AY S I S 9 0 DAY S. 9 1 DAYS I S NINE M ONTHS T O A YEAR. I THI NK T HE F ASTE ST REINSTATEMENT I HAVE EVER HAD IN 3 0 Y EA RS O N EIT HER SIDE OF THE FENCE WAS F IV E MONTHS .

THA T'S P RETTY MUC H WELL-KNOWN, IS IT NOT?

YES, SIR.

AND SO WE' RE S IMPL Y DEALING, THE COURT IS WEL L AWARE, OF COURSE?

C ERTAINLY.

WHEN WE MAK E THA T 9 1.

A ND F RE QU ENTL Y IN A W AY IT C AN ADV AN TAGE T O H AV E THAT LINE O F D EM ARCA TI ON THERE I S B ECAUSE , Y OU KNOW , FREQUENTLY THE BAR SAYS I DON'T REALLY CARE WHETHER IT IS 91 DAYS O R S IX M ONTH S , YOU KNOW, W E WANT THAT P RO OF OF R EHABILITATION IN THE RE. SO I UND ERST AND T HAT LIN E O F DEMAR CATION .

YOUR C LIEN T I S H AP PIER T O GET 91 THA N SIX M ONTH S E VE N THOUGH THE PRACTICAL EFF EC T?

HAY IS N EVER A W OR D THAT'S RELEVANT H ERE .

H AP PI ER ?

LESS D IS SA TISFIED IS THE WORD. THERE HAVE BEEN M AN Y A N OCCASION WHERE I HAVE URGED THE CLIENT TO TAKE 9 1 D AY S AND L ET'S START W OR KI NG ON THE POSITIVE AND GET RID OF THE N EGATIVE, BUT I N ANS WER TO Y OUR D IREC T Q UESTION , MA'AM, 9 1 DAYS S US PENS IO N , IT WILL BE A V ER Y R AR E OCCASION WHEN IT IS LESS THAN NINE MONTHS?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE AND AS A LWAY S , YOU KNOW, SOMEONE OF Y OU R STATURE TO BE I N O N B OT H SIDES I S A LWAY S V ERY HEL PFUL TO THE COURT.

THANK YOU VERY MUC H .

ALL RIGHT. I GUESS WE HAVE A FEW MINUTES FOR W HO EVER WAN TS T O MR. P AR KER , O R MR. COX , ALL RIGHT .

J USTI CE WEL LS CAN ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

I JUST WANT T O MAK E O NE O BSERVATION ABO UT T HE DISTINCTION B ETWEEN A RESIGNATION AND DISBARMENT ON CONSENT.

THERE A RE N OW O VE R 7 6, 00 0 MEMBERS OF THIS B AR AND I T DOESN'T TAKE A HANDFUL T O D O T REMENDOUS DAMAGE T O T HE REP UTATION.

YOU SAID A D IS BARMEN T O N CONSENT IS GOING TO BE USED IF THERE IS N O N ET GAIN T O THE R ES PO ND ENT F RO M H AV IN G A DISBARMENT ON C ON SENT NOW , OTHER THAN GOI NG - - OR G OI NG TO TRIAL TO THE H EARING?

WELL, TIME WILL TEL L , B UT I HAD THOUGHT THA T WHE N T HI S COURT EACH TIME S AI D WHE N I T PUBLISHED THE D ISCIPL INAR Y RES IGNATION THAT THIS WAS TANTAMOUNT TO DIS BA RM ENT THAT IT WOULD A LSO CHI LL ANYBODY'S WILLINGNESS OR INTEREST IN GOING T HROUGH THE PROCESS.

I GUESS THE D IF FE RE NC E THERE WAS IT WAS A THR EE YEAR VERSUS A F IVE Y EAR.

BUT THERE ARE A G RE AT MANY THAT ARE LONGER THAN THREE. SGLU ARE SAYING THAT THE FLORIDA BAR IS SORT OF MAKING A DECISION, THEY ARE WILLING T O GIVE U P DISCIPLINARY RESIG NATION , THAT IS D ISBARM EN T W IT H GETTING BACK IN THREE Y EARS , B ECAUSE YOU A RE S EEIN G THA T THOSE ARE THE VER Y S MALL PERCENTAGE THAT ARE THE M OS T EGREGIOUS A ND D O N OT , WOU LD JUS T AS S OON PRO SE CUTE I F THEY ARE NOT GOING TO AGREE TO IT.

YES, AND I T I S A NE CDOTAL BUT THE INS TANCES IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WHERE W E H AVE HAD LAWYERS WHO STEAL FROM A CLIENT AND THEN E XPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE LAW YER RESIGNED. Y OU D ON'T HAVE T HE OORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THIS LEN GTHY E XPLA NATION THAT IT WAS A R ES IG NA TION AND THE SUPREME C OURT T REAT S IT AS T AN TA MO UNT TO DISBARMENT. THE BAR JUS T MADE A P OL IC Y DECISION NOW , G IV EN THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES THATWE ARE WILLING TO RISK THE RESOURCES IF IT IS NECESSARY, IF PEOPLE D ON'T A CC EPT DISBARMENT UPON CON SE NT A ND DO WHAT WE HAV E T O D O WIT H THOSE LAWYE RS WHOSE C ONDU CT IS EGR EGIO US .

WHY IS M R. WEI SS , S INCE YOU CAN HAVE A STIPULATION TO ANYTHING, WHY EVEN HAV E THAT CATEGORY? MR. BOGGS WAS S EEMING TO SAY THAT'S STILL A LITTLE SAVE FACE IF I COULD S AY DISBARMENT AND I I CON SENT ED TO IT THAT THAT I S S OM EH OW BETTER THAN A S TIPULATED DISBARMEN T.

BECAUSE HIS P REDICTION MAY NOT BE TRUE. WE MAY NOT P REDI CT I T T HE SAME WAY. ONE MAY A RE B E R IGHT A ND O NE MAY BE WRONG. I S USPECT A NUMBER OF LAWYERS WILL AGREE TO DISBARMENT UPON C ON SE NT W HE N WE CAN STOLE THAT T HE Y S TOLE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF M ON EY OR COMMITTED X C RIME S AND A RE GOING TO E ND THE P ROCESS AND NOT GO THR OU GH T HE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS.

THIS WAS CLEARLY PART OF THE CONCERN OF T HE C OURT . THAT IS , TO S EE THE SE V ER Y SERIOUS CAS ES , A ND I T HINK THAT'S WHAT GAVE R ISE T O T HE LAN GUAGE THAT WE STA RT ED PROVIDING THERE. YOU N EVER KNOW E XACTLY W HO P AYS A TT ENTION AND W HE TH ER THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW , PERCEPT ION, YOU KNOW , B UT Y ET F OR T HE COU RT T O S WA LLOW ONE OF T HOSE T HI NG S SOR T O F WITH THE ANA LO GY O F THE EMPLOYEE, YOU KNO W , SOM E PLACE UND ER F IR E AND A LL ANYBO DY KNOWS IS THA T THA T PERSON R ES IG NE D A S O OSED T O W AS FIR ED , Y OU KNO W , F OR S ERIOUS, YOU K NOW , MISCONDUCT , THA T - - THE PUBLIC MAY BE REA DING O N T HE ONE HAND THERE ARE T HE SE A LLEGATIONS OF S TEALING A MILLION DOLLARS OR WHA TE VE R , AND THEN THEY SEE O N THE OTHER HAND AND T HE SIM PL E EXAMPLE, AT LEA ST , T HA T T HE P ERSON WAS SIM PL Y ALLOW ED T O RESIGN , AND N OT U NDERSTANDING THE ORI GINA L MOTIVATION THAT IN SDEED WAS TO PROTECT THE - - IND EE D W AS TO PROTECT THE PUB LI C B Y HAVING THAT LAWYER OUT OF THERE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE , INCLUDING , Y OU KNO W , T HE DISCIPLINARY R ES IG NATI ON , S O THA T C LEARLY WAS PAR T O F O UR CONCERN, TOO, A ND W E ARECIATE THE BAR P LA YING IT OUT AND W E ARE CI ATE HAVING THE INS IGHT F RO M T HE OTHER SIDE , Y OU K NO W , A S WELL.

THAT LAST POI NT AND I WILL CLOSE, GOES T O J USTICE CANTE RO'S COMMENTS T O T HE SPECIAL COMMISSION I N BOCA RATON, WHEN CERTAIN MATTERS COME TO THE COURT WHERE THEY ARE ARGUI NG F OR DISBARMENT, WHY DID T HE B AR NOT SEEK EME RGENCY SUSPENSION IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THAT IS AN I SSUE BEING UND ER TA KE N , B ECAUSE O N THE S URFACE THE T WO O UGHT T O GO HAND I N HAND. IF THAT CONDUCT W AS KNO WN BACK AT THE B EGINNING OF THE PROCESS, AND I T W AR RANTS THAT ARGUMENT TO THIS COURT AT THE END OF T HE P RO CESS W HERE WERE YOU AT THE FRONT END?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. COX. MEMBERS OF THE B AR , MR. C OX , PARKER, M RS . HILL , H OL COMB , ARTIGLIERE , M R. T AR BERT AND M R. WEISS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR A TTENTION AND I K NOW WHAT K IND O F WOR K GOES INTO T HE SE R ULES A ND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE C OURT 'S P ROBING QUESTIONS WE HAD READ EVERY SINGLE ONE O F THESE RULES A ND S O W E D O GIVE IT SERIO US A TT ENTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.