Board to review proposal to streamline the civil litigation system
When it meets January 19 in Tallahassee, the Board of Governors will review the first phase of a proposal to streamline Florida’s civil litigation system, consider another proposal to award CLE credit for pro bono service, and receive an update from the Special Committee on AI Tools & Resources.
Topping the agenda are scheduled remarks by Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz.
The board has been asked to review a final set of proposed amendments by the Civil Procedure Rules Committee that are part of a Supreme Court effort to improve “the timely resolution of civil cases through effective case management.”
In a January 2023 order, justices declined to adopt a sweeping proposal by the Judicial Management Council’s Workgroup on the Improved Resolution of Civil Cases that implicated more than 30 rules.
“Instead, the Court will make a series of phased referrals for the refinement and study of the Workgroup’s proposals, beginning with the attached referrals to the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee, the Florida Courts Technology Commission, and the Trial Court Budget Commission,” the order states.
More specifically, the Supreme Court asked the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to craft revisions to Rules 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure), 1.201 (Complex Litigation), 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery), 1.440 (Setting Action for Trial), and 1.460 (Continuances).
After asking the Supreme Court for further instructions, the CPRC filed the proposed revisions in two tracks, “A” and “B,” in a July petition, SC2023-0962, that remains pending.
“Track A is more simplistic, that was the goal, shorter, simpler rules. Track B is more detailed,” mostly to aid pro se litigants, Civil Procedure Rules Committee member Megan Peek Luka explained in a video presentation she prepared for lawyers and judges.
Among other things, the revisions call for a differentiated case management system that is based on case complexity and required judicial involvement. Other revisions would “disfavor” and “highly disfavor” continuances and require initial disclosure.
“One way or another, change is coming,” Peek Luka warns in the video.
Justices published both tracks for public comment this summer and received more than 50 responses. Many of the commentors favored Track B, but the Civil Procedure Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly to recommend Track A.
In a separate comment, Peek Luka recommends combining elements of both. Peek Luka and other commentors recently requested oral argument.
In other business, the board is expected to consider, on first-reading only, proposed amendments to Bar Rule 6-10.3 (Minimum Continuing Legal Education Standards).
The proposed amendment would add a new subdivision (h) that would allow a Florida Bar member to receive one hour of general continuing legal education credit for every four hours of pro bono service, not to exceed five hours of continuing legal education credit in a three-year cycle.
In an August 1, 2023, letter, the Supreme Court asked the Bar to consider “authorizing continuing legal education credit or professionalism credit for pro bono participation. The Bar should consider whether there should be a maximum of credit hours that can be earned under this authority.”
Justices issued the letter after reviewing a March 22, 2023, report from the Bar’s Special Committee on Greater Public Access to Legal Services.
Justices asked for the recommendations after declining, at the Bar’s urging, to adopt most of the recommendations of a Supreme Court panel. The recommendations included such things as testing the non-lawyer ownership of law firms.
The board could give final approval to the proposed amendments to Rule 6-10.3 when it meets in March. The Supreme Court would have the final say.
The board is also expected to consider a Program Evaluation Committee proposal to amend Rule 6-3.5 (Standards for Certification).
The proposed amendment would add a new subdivision (f) that would define a good cause waiver for “any portion of the applicable certification standards,” according to a staff analysis.
The subdivision would read, “in determining a good cause waiver under this chapter, the Board of Legal Specialization and Education and applicable certification committee must consider the applicant’s supervisory responsibility in the certification area; the applicant’s special knowledge, skills, and proficiency in the certification area; the nature and complexity of matters in the certification area handled by the applicant; the number of matters in the certification area handled by the applicant over the course of the applicant’s career; and any career or other factors relevant to the applicant’s request for a waiver of compliance.”
Lawyers in various certification areas have argued that meeting certain minimum requirements for board certification has grown more challenging as court practices change to meet the needs of a growing state. Appellate practitioners argue that district courts of appeal tend to schedule fewer oral arguments.
Family law practitioners point to a five-trial requirement. They argue that the Family Law Section’s Bounds of Advocacy instructs lawyers to resolve cases “without court intervention if possible” and the goal of the collaborative law process is to avoid litigation.
In other business, the board is expected to:
- Vote to accept an annual audit of The Florida Bar for FY 2022-23 by the firm Mauldin and Jenkins. “The statements have been reviewed by staff, reconciled to information received from the actuarial and investment providers and no concerns were detected,” according to a staff analysis.
- Consider appointments to the governing boards of Florida Rural Legal Services and FFLA (formerly known as The Florida Bar Foundation).
