June 1, 2022 Letters
Judges
Every licensed lawyer in the United States of America has the absolute constitutional and legal right to be considered for any judgeship in his or her state or on the federal bench, including the United States Supreme Court. Any other condition is impermissible. Yet neither law schools nor bar associations seem to care one way or the other.
Equal opportunity under the law should matter and matter a lot if we are to maintain a sense of law and order in the country and as well the diversity that is central to America’s famous experiment in democracy and governance.
I wonder respectfully in writing this letter whether The Florida Bar has the moral courage and professional responsibility to publish it.
Westfield, NJ
Lawyer Regulation
As an attorney practicing in the area of lawyer regulation (ethics/disciplinary matters), I see a big disconnect between The Florida Bar’s initiatives/campaigns promoting mental-health awareness and the manner Bar offices across the state are prosecuting disciplinary cases against attorneys suffering from mental illness.
If The Florida Bar is serious about the mental health of its members, then it should have a robust and consistent policy to handle disciplinary cases involving mental illness. For example, The Florida Bar should assign a disciplinary Bar counsel (with proper education on mental-health matters) to handle these cases to ensure an expeditious and fair resolution of these cases.
It’s time for The Florida Bar to talk the talk and walk the walk.
Chair, Broward Mental Health Summit
Spam Emails
I have an issue with the Bar bulk selling our email addresses. I am bombarded with spam emails which I know came by way of the Bar. From colleagues or others running for judge or public office to professional liability insurance providers and website builders.
Why does this have to be done? The Bar membership is already public record on the website. If the Bar must provide a bulk list, why can’t the Bar implement an “opt-out” policy that allows a member to remove their email address from these bulk requests? The Bar can still provide the list, but next to our name and address the email would indicate “on website.” Of course, if they still want to spam me, they will just have to go to the trouble of looking it up.
The last thing I want to do is file a complaint at www.ftc.gov/complaint.
Aventura
(Editor’s Note: The Florida Bar does not sell its members’ email addresses. As an official arm of the Supreme Court, the Bar is subject to Florida’s public records law in Art I, Sec. 24, Fla. Const. Under Bar Rule 1-3.3, the court requires members to provide the Bar with their name, business phone number, business email, and mailing address. This information is published on the Bar’s website, is public record, and must be produced on request, unless it is subject to a recognized exemption under Florida law.)
Kudos
I should like to applaud the Business Law Section of The Florida Bar and everyone else who was instrumental in getting the Financial Literacy Act passed.
It is so obviously important for young people to learn about subjects relating to money that one can only wonder why it was not adopted years ago.
Florida should lead the way in educating our youth in subjects to help make them more responsible and smarter adults.
This new law should help achieve that goal.
Beverly Hills, CA
Spousal Support
Contempt/imprisonment to enforce spousal support in dissolution of marriage is a judicially created remedy. Fla. Stats. Chapter 61 does not grant authority for that remedy.
You have heard it a thousand times. Payers say spousal support is a debt. No, family courts say, it is a duty of a husband to support his wife (Phelan v. Phelan, 12 Fla. 449 (1868)). Since 1995-96 the judiciary has been wrong in caselaw and public policy.
In 1995, caselaw was changed to eliminate the duty of spousal support. The Florida Supreme Court in Connor v. Southwest Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc., 668 So. 2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1995) in a broad, non-restrictive, non-contextual holding, abrogated the doctrine of necessaries. Justices Overton and Wells, in a broad, non-restrictive, non-contextual dissent said the effect of the majority opinion was to eliminate the duty of a spouse to care for one another. The effect, concluded by two Supreme Court justices, “…appears to shift the policy of this state by, in effect, requiring each spouse to take care of himself or herself. It also reduces the legal obligations of the marriage contract.” and “…eliminating the spousal duty to care for one another.”
In 1996, public policy was changed to eliminate the duty of spousal support. The Legislature in HB 1211 and SB 906 twice failed to reinstate the doctrine of necessaries thus eliminating the duty of a husband to support his wife as the new public policy.
For over 25 years the judiciary has been holding Floridians in contempt and imprisoning them for a debt.This loss of liberty is contrary to the Florida Constitution amendment (now Art I §11) bar against imprisonment for debt enacted in 1868.
For over 25 years those who have said spousal support is a debt … have been correct.
Austin, TX
