January 1, 2015 Letters
Letters
Pro Se
I am glad that I am retired from the practice of law because I see the handwriting on the wall. Or, literally, the handwriting on the electronic forms that the Florida Court Clerks and Comptrollers are busy preparing. Work that should, that must, be going to lawyers shall now be done by nonlawyers who wish to represent themselves pro se.
The FCCC may argue that it will only be dispensing forms, but it will be dispensing legal advice because the requests made for them are requests for legal information. And forms are as much legal information as is a memorandum of law or a judicial decision.
With all due respect, Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and Bar President Greg Coleman may argue that using technology will help people who cannot afford lawyers and are not being helped by existing legal aid or pro bono programs. But the fact remains that there are lawyers who wish to provide help to these people (that is what I did when I practiced law so many years ago), but who will now be denied having them as clients, and with that the hope that in time these individuals might be able to afford to pay regular attorneys’ fees.
What next? More and more forms that further infringe upon the practice of law by licensed lawyers? Antitrust lawsuits, incorporations, bankruptcy, trusts and estates, real property closings, commercial litigation, class actions, defamation, copyright, environmental litigation?
The intent of the judiciary and the Bar should be to inform the public that the law is not so simple. That it is no wonder that students grind away at their studies in law school to develop the skills, the knowledge, and the ability to “think like a lawyer.”
What medical association would invite patients to practice medicine? What engineering association would tolerate non-engineers developing engineering projects?
But, it would seem, the law is something very different. Anyone with form in hand may practice law whether or not the person graduated from law school, passed the bar, and was admitted to practice law, having first taken an oath or affirmed to support the federal and state constitutions and being subject to rigorous discipline for failure properly to carry out their duties.
Oh, how happy I am not to be practicing law in this strange new world where people who are not lawyers can get the legal forms from wherever and, in effect, practice law.
Stephen Schoeman
Westfield, NJ
Disciplinary Actions
The Florida Bar apparently is creating a cottage industry as it goes about its business of imposing costs starting at $1,250 a pop on the solo practitioners, members of small law firms, and perhaps a few foolish others who fall prey to the disciplinary process.
On December 1, 31 disciplinary actions were published. It is hard to believe that the Supreme Court justices could and did give full attention to each one. The Bar, it seems, just puts down an amount to be paid by the alleged offenders, runs it by the clerk of the court, and gets an immediate judgment.
With little seeming regard for due process, the Bar places pressure on each of the alleged wrongdoers by announcing punishments on its website, while they are said to be in good standing. In most — but not all — instances the costs are imposed from the original determinations because timely motions for rehearing will not delay the date of the discipline and the cost judgments.
In fact, the kind clerk of the court determines that a rehearing motion is enough to halt the imposition of costs. Several examples may be found among the holiday case disposition orders listed under the Clerk’s Office on the Florida Supreme Court website. Those subjected to public reprimands seem to be the primary beneficiaries, but eventually they may have to ante up the $1,250 minimum, unless the punishment is reversed and they triumph over a seemingly infallible system.
The clerk apparently has been granted such discretion because it seems likely that the justices do not have time to scrutinize and make a reasoned judgment about disciplinary action, and whether the cost demands are reasonable, especially if a referee has approved them. In this state, the Bar is an arm of the Supreme Court so apparently it can be a complainant that is trusted to do the right thing almost every time.
Because of those tight relations, those charged by the Bar with violations should be forewarned that those foolhardy enough to defend themselves likely will trip over other expenses along the way. For instance, they will be required to pay for and circulate the transcripts of any hearing, or they cannot expect to have a review of the Bar’s allegations.
Perhaps, if the miscreants are money conscious, they may want to hire a professional if only to barter with the Bar about the costs involved. Where would an attorney find such experts? On more than a half a page of listings for Attorneys Exchange in the News, 14 attorneys offer their skills. Several boast of their years working to represent the Bar before they went to the dark side.
In this light, have disciplinary actions become little more than “big business” for this integrated Bar? Is it possible that these costs subsidize the Bar operation in the same way that a local speed trap might be used to fund a police department? The City of Waldo had such an operation until the public learned this year that the arresting officers had quotas. The police department was shut down.
In future reports of disciplinary actions, the News should reveal the costs being demanded by the Bar to administer and process this system imposed without apparent checks or balances. Some of us then might begin to wonder whether in some instances the disciplinary proceedings are initiated as a sure money-maker for the organization.
Finally, who knows what is done with the judgment collections? Perhaps the Bar uses the money to hire more attorneys to investigate more allegations of wrongdoing. No wonder three U.S. Supreme Court justices in Bush v. Gore warned that the majority decision giving the election to George W. Bush only made sense if they accepted the argument that the Florida state courts were not to be trusted.
Gabe Kaimowitz
Gainesville
