Full agenda awaits the Board of Governors in March
The Board of Governors will weigh a handful of issues when it meets next month including a proposed “limited appearance attorney” court rule and a new member benefit.
At the March 3 meeting in St. Louis, the board will consider a Civil Procedure Rules Committee proposed new Rule 1.041 (Limited Appearance Attorneys).
Among other things, the proposed rule includes a subdivision (a) that addresses the scope of representation; a subdivision (b) that addresses notice requirements; and a subdivision (e) that addresses termination.
The Bar’s Vision 2016 commission recommended a similar rule, but “the thought at the time was that first there should be a rule in the Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration,” according to a staff analysis.
The analysis then points to Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.505 (e)(5), which authorizes limited appearance, but only “as permitted by another rule of court.”
The board can recommend only “acceptance,” “rejection,” or “amendment.” The Supreme Court would have the final say.
The board will also be asked to weigh a Family Law Rules Committee proposal to amend Rule 12.140 (Responses) and to delete Rule 12.150 (Sham Pleadings) in its entirety.
The proposal is the committee’s response to a final report and recommendations by the Supreme Court’s Workgroup on Sanctions for Vexatious and Sham Litigation.
In addition to the Family Law Rules Committee, the Supreme Court referred the workgroup recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rules and Probate Rules committees — and set a March 31 deadline for responses.
The Family Law Rules Committee proposed amendments to Rule 12.140 would add a subdivision (g) (Motion to Strike Sham or Frivolous Pleadings).
The subdivision would state that “[a] party may move to strike, or the court on its own initiative may strike, all or a portion of a pleading containing sham or frivolous grounds if, based on the totality of the circumstances, including the law and fact known at the time of the filing, the pleading . . . lacks any basis, either in law or material fact,” or “is being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.”
Like the Civil Procedure Rules Committee proposal, the board will only have the option to “accept,” “reject,” or “amend” the Family Law Rules Committee proposal. The Supreme Court will make the final determination.
In other business, the board will be asked to sign off on an Alternative Dispute Resolution Section legislative position request to advocate for removing a provision in F.S. §44.103(3).
The provision caps arbitrator compensation in certain arbitration proceedings at $1,500 per diem unless the parties agree otherwise.
“The statutory per diem cap was first introduced in the legislation in 2005 and no longer reflects current, reasonable market rates in several circuits and counties for arbitration services, which may discourage some arbitrators from making themselves available for court referral,” the ADR Section wrote in its legislative position request.
The proposal would allow courts to better maintain an adequate pool of arbitrators willing to accept court referrals and give chief judges the ability to “establish arbitrator compensation rates that are more reflective of the local market,” the request states.
Also on the consent agenda is a Member Benefits Committee recommendation to add “eNotaryLog” remote notarization services to The Florida Bar Member Benefits Program.
The company “provides nationwide remote online notarization (RON) and electronic signature solutions through its cloud-based digital services platform,” a staff analysis states.
The “affinity partnership” would make Florida Bar members eligible for a 50% discount on the initial setup fee of $499, as well as 10% off the monthly invoice for the length of their contract.
The Florida Bar would benefit from a promotion allowance of $49 “for each new organization account obtained through the Florida Bar Member Benefits Program,” according to the analysis.
The Member Benefits Committee approved the proposal last month during the Winter Meeting in Orlando.
In other business, the board will also consider proposed amendments to Standing Board Policy 1.20 (Board Meetings).
The proposed changes would add procedures for consent agendas.
“Roberts’ Rules of Order indicates that organizations that use a consent calendar should have a provision in their bylaws or policies to use a consent agenda,” a staff analysis states.
