Proposed revisions set to transform Florida Bar rules committees’ efficiency and consistency
The recommendations included limiting the size of the committees, establishing time frames to complete rule proposals, more frequent committee meetings, and eliminating a one-year term limit for committee chairs
Florida Bar rules committees are revising their internal operating procedures, part of a larger effort to make the rule development process more efficient.
In July, the Program Evaluation Committee reviewed scores of proposed “IOP” revisions for several rules committees. The Board of Governors could review them on first reading at a September 18 meeting.
Many of the revisions would simply make the IOP wording consistent with the latest Supreme Court style guidelines.
Others are more substantial and prompted by recommendations in a 2022 Bar study by consultant Lisa Kiel, a former Florida State Courts Administrator.
“The Kiel report suggested that the committees’ IOPs should be more consistent instead of having significantly different IOPs between committees,” noted Heather Savage Telfer, a senior attorney with the Rules Program.
For example, proposed revisions for two rules committees would set a 50% quorum requirement, per Robert’s Rules of Order.
Others would go further. A Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee proposed IOP revision would eliminate an entire “drafting” subcommittee.
“Bar staff ensures that the amendments conform to the Supreme Court style guide in AOSC22-78, so a drafting committee is not necessary,” a Bar staff analysis notes. “Also, eliminating this additional step expedites the process.”
A Criminal Procedure Rules Committee IOP revision would limit the size of a “Fast Track Subcommittee” to 11 members.
“The change keeps the fast-track subcommittee smaller in order to ensure that they can meet quickly to accomplish time-sensitive tasks,” the analysis states.
The Kiel report was commissioned on the heels of a 2019 Supreme Court order that eliminated a three-year reporting cycle for proposed rule submissions. The order referred to a need for a “more expeditious” process.
“Still, the concerns about unnecessary delay persist,” Kiel wrote.
In addition to making the process more efficient, Kiel was also asked to recommend ways to “improve interaction with the Supreme Court before rule proposals are filed” to ensure they are “consistent with the Supreme Court’s direction, to the extent possible.”
The recommendations included limiting the size of the committees, establishing time frames to complete rule proposals, more frequent committee meetings, and eliminating a one-year term limit for committee chairs. Many of the stakeholders Kiel interviewed believed that more Bar staff were needed and that “the attorney/committee ratio was insufficient.”
A letter to the Supreme Court that accompanied the report noted that some of the recommendations would require amendments to Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.140, and others “could be made by the committees revising their own internal operating procedures.”
The Board of Governors last summer voted to accept a Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration Committee reform proposal that was prompted by the Kiel report.
Developed by a panel of rules committee chairs, the reforms included proposed amendments to Rule 2.140 that remain pending with the Supreme Court.
One of the most significant changes calls for the Board of Governors to weigh in on proposed rule amendments at the beginning of the process, when committees post them for public comment, instead of voting to “accept, reject, or amend” as a final step before filing with the Supreme Court.
That change would untie rule submissions from the Board of Governors’ bi-monthly meeting schedule and eliminate a step that can delay proposals for months, sponsors said.
Another pending reform would eliminate a requirement that proposed amendments appear in the monthly print editions of the Bar News before they are filed with the Supreme Court.
Sponsors stress that the proposed amendments would still be noticed online and in print, but not as a requirement before filing with the Supreme Court. Missing a print deadline can also cause significant delays, the sponsors said. Both reforms were recommended in the Kiel report.
Some rules committee veterans, and at least one board member, disagreed that reforms are necessary.
“Efficiency is a wonderful thing, but we still should not be driven by the fastest means available,” said board member Michael Gelfand.
Kiel saw no need for a major overhaul of Florida’s rule development process, which relies on Bar member volunteers, supported by Bar staff. She noted that rule changes required by legislation “move relatively quickly through the process.”
But she noted that there was room for improvement and pointed to “different operating procedures for each committee,” including methods for voting approval.
Rules committee chairs, at the beginning of their terms, should meet with a Supreme Court justice liaison in the “pre-filing” rule development process to discuss work that is underway or being contemplated, Kiel suggested.
“While individual justices cannot speak for the entire Court under such circumstances, they might still offer helpful insights into the Court’s direction or intent on a matter,” Kiel wrote.
