Local professionalism panels offer a nonconfrontational approach to conduct problems
“Death is a trigger.”
A death in the family often leads to behavior problems that land lawyers before local professionalism panels.
The observation came from West Palm Beach attorney Kara Rockenback Link, a member of the 15th Circuit professionalism panel, as she discussed that group’s successful approach to dealing with and solving problems for local attorneys. She was speaking at the June 19 summit for the state’s local professionalism panels, or LPPs, held as part of the Bar’s Virtual Annual Convention.
The meeting was sponsored by the Standing Committee on Professionalism and the Bar’s Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism.
“The professionalism panels are a great way to help attorneys who have lost track of professionalism,” said Ita Neymotin, incoming chair of the Standing Committee on Professionalism and chair of the 20th Circuit professionalism panel.
“It’s easier and quicker to help attorneys get back on professionalism if it’s an issue from being discourteous to being late to court. For people who participate, it’s usually a very positive result.”
Link told the group, “The good news is, I don’t have just one [success story], the majority of LPP referrals are positive.”
She said a careful approach is taken for people who are subject to a complaint, with the panel emphasizing the process is confidential and the aim is to help — not stigmatize — the participating attorney.
“We have to defuse that, we say, ‘We’re so glad you’re here, we’re so grateful we get to talk about why you’re here and what you can do to move forward,’” Link said.
And panel members have learned there are sometimes heart wrenching reasons that conduct has slipped.
Link said in two cases involving veteran attorneys, one had lost a daughter and the other had lost his wife. The latter became angry with an opposing counsel, which led to the LPP referral.
“He was ashamed of the way he treated his opposing counsel, he was embarrassed, and he needed to have an outlet to talk about what was happening in his personal life without anyone judging him,” Link said.
In another case, an experienced attorney was having difficulty dealing with technology, which led to him using court personnel to help manage his cases.
In that case, after meeting with the LPP, another attorney began having a weekly coffee with that lawyer to help.
“That made a world of difference to this gentleman. He deserved our time, he deserved our help, he deserved our mentoring,” Link said. “They just needed to be heard, they needed some redirection, and they needed to know they were not alone in the challenges we all face in our profession.”
The meeting was the first gathering of the LPPs since the Supreme Court recently disbanded its Commission on Professionalism, which had spearheaded creation of the panels several years ago as a way to address — at the local level — professionalism issues that don’t rise to the level of a Bar grievance.
Information about professionalism resources and how to contact panels can be found at https://www.floridabar.org/prof/local/.
Kirsten Davis, outgoing chair of the professionalism committee, said the committee is ready to support the panels’ operations now that the commission has ceased to operate. Professionalism Center Director Rebecca Bandy said her office will continue to collect data and share information between the LPPs.
The first hour of the meeting served as a CLE on the history and current operations of LPPs.
Davis said the panels were set up and continue to operate locally under the direction of each circuit chief judge, with structures and rules designed to meet local needs. In some cases, chief judges created a new LPP and in others they assigned its duties to an existing entity, such as a local bench and bar committee.
Shanell Schuyler, director of the Bar’s Attorney-Consumer Assistance Program, said LPPs refer serious cases to ACAP that might involve a Bar rules violation instead of a professionalism issue, and likewise she refers matters to LPPs in which conduct doesn’t rise to the level of instituting a grievance proceeding.
“The role of the LPPs and ACAP are very similar on the front end,” she said. “We deal with disgruntled attorney-client relationships. I see so much overlap and what we can learn from each other.”
She said cases sent by ACAP to LPPs include rude behavior to clients and others, not cooperating with other lawyers in handling cases, and poor courtroom behavior. Beth Kirkland, a Bar program coordinator, said statistically the top cause of complaints on cases reported by LPPs to the Bar is not returning phone calls and rude behavior, particularly using bad language.
Meeting participants discussed ways various panels advertise their availability to clients, judges, and attorneys, whether they publish outcomes (with names and other identifying information redacted), and who handles a complaint about a visiting attorney, the local LPP or the attorney’s home LPP (panelists said the LPP where the conduct occurred is the preferred venue).
Neymotin said the 20th Circuit program has quarterly meetings and Chief Judge Michael McHugh closely monitors the program, including participating in the quarterly sessions.
She called the June 19 session a success.
“I think we should keep this going through the upcoming year, because we can all learn from each other and we can all share problems, and I think that will make us stronger,” Neymotin said.
