Florida Supreme Court Rejects LRS Rule Changes

Last month, I did something I hadn’t done in 21 years. I put on a suit, grabbed my notes, and argued a case in court.

And not any old court: this hearing was in front of the Florida Supreme Court. The Court was hearing a petition by the Florida Bar to change its lawyer referral service rules.

In our view, the Bar’s changes were  bad for on many levels. They didn’t address the problem at hand (alleged cross-referral of legal clients for unneeded medical services). They created a cumbersome new set of compliance obligations. They watered down protections currently applicable to Florida lawyer referral services. And, by bringing virtually all forms of legal marketing within the ambit of the rule, they threatened to chill the availability of legal information and the willingness of Florida lawyers to offer innovative new services to the public.

So Avvo filed comments opposing the Bar’s rule change. We weren’t the only ones; it seemed that no one liked what the Bar was proposing. When it came down to it, Avvo was one of four parties arguing against the rules, and I was allotted all of 6 minutes with which to do so.

Appellate arguments call for a tricky balance. You’ve got to be ready to make your argument, for the allotted time, without facing a single question. But you’ve also got to be ready to abandon your prepared work and face down questions from the bench for as long as the Justices desire.

I’ve always preferred the latter, and as it turned out, the Court had lots of questions for me. The video is available here; my bit starts at 23:00. As you’ll see, the Court was far more interested in hearing about Avvo and online legal marketing than it was about my nuanced First Amendment arguments.

It was gratifying – and fun – to argue in court again after so many years. And the Florida Supreme Court’s Greek Revival courtroom in Tallahassee was an inspiring venue in which to do so.

The capper came last week when the Court rejected the Bar’s proposed rules. While I’d like to claim that result on the force of my advocacy, it was the only reasonable outcome possible. The Bar had been asked to address a specific issue, and had used that opportunity to attempt wholesales changes to the rules.

It’s a favorable outcome, and I’m happy to see it. But at the same time, the process demonstrated how far from effective Bar regulation can be. In any other agency, regulatory changes would go though an administrative law process – with workshops, open hearings, and comments – to vet issues before adopting new rules. Florida, like many states, devolves that process to the Bar. The final arbiter is then the Supreme Court, which deals with the matter in much the same way it would treat any other adversary proceeding.

It’s not that such a system is doomed to failure. It could work, given enough structure, direction, and discipline by those involved. But the odds are long. Market participants drive the process, and these lawyers often have parochial interests. They also rarely have experience with administrative rulemaking. And the Florida Supreme Court sits at a remove, only dealing with the process near its conclusion.

For the Supreme Court to actively supervise this work – work that impacts the availability of legal services to the public – it’s got to get more involved. It must oversee and direct the Bar throughout the rulemaking process. This could include hiring out neutral professionals to run rulemaking. Or having a subcommittee of Justices deeply involved throughout (and there’s some indication in the Court’s order that it plans to do something along these lines).

This problem isn’t unique to Florida. Most lawyer regulators do their rulemaking in a similar way. But in a state with a bar as large and fractious as Florida’s, the weaknesses of the process are particularly evident.

3 thoughts on “Florida Supreme Court Rejects LRS Rule Changes”

  1. Hello,

    You may be interested in a proposal I made earlier this month to amend the Florida Constitution, which would transfer the authority to define/regulate the practice of law from the state supreme court to the legislature. The legislature would be able to establish a rulemaking body to exercise this authority, but such a body would have a limited number of Florida Bar members, or their spouses or relatives. It would also prevent the state from defining the “practice of law”, allowing it only to define the “unauthorized practice of law,” in terms of actions, conduct, or speech, not (with two exceptions) **where** UPL can be found, as the current vague definition of UPL does. The proposal can be viewed here:


    Unfortunately, I rushed to submit it so the commentary is very basic. I finished and submitted late on the evening before the last public hearing (which I found out about two nights before) in hopes that it would be moderated and appear on the website early in the day of the hearing so commissioners would see it before the hearing. I was expecting that the commissioners would ask questions when I spoke, but it was just two minutes for each member of the public to speak without interaction. I am currently working on a much longer commentary on the proposal (outline is 2.5 pages) explaining why the current situation is unconstitutional, how current ethical regulations (non-lawyer & corporate ownership in particular) prevent innovation (eg. software), the need for legal services provided by individuals with less than a JD, and how these issues are unlikely to be addressed as long as active market participants (ie. the Florida Bar) play a dominant role in the process.

    I hope you will consider submitting comments on this proposal. Also, please share it with anyone you think may be interested. The CRC will begin debating proposals and finalizing the wording this fall, so any comments should be submitted by August/September. If approved, it would still need to be approved by Florida voters in November 2018 and I have no doubt the state’s attorneys will be spending big $$$ to ensure it fails.

    The submit a comment form on the website has a 4000-word limit. However, this page (PDF) has the email and mail addresses to submit comments/proposals:


      1. Unfortunately, no commissioners decided to take up this proposal or put forth a similar one. However, there is a proposal under consideration by the commission for a right to earn an honest living: “All persons possess the inalienable right to pursue an honest trade, vocation, occupation, or career. The government may not infringe on this right unless it can demonstrate that there is actual evidence that such an infringement is necessary to advance an important governmental interest and that less restrictive alternatives have been sincerely considered.”

        If that passes the commission and is approved by 60% of voters, the last clause (“that less restrictive alternatives have been sincerely considered”) may be particularly useful in challenging UPL laws, although it would only help for individuals (and perhaps sole proprietorships or similar businesses closely connected with a small group of individuals) and not large corporations. And, of course, this test is similar to the current strict scrutiny standards for speech restrictions (which only require that less restrictive means are available, not that they have been sincerely considered by the gov’t). Oh well, at least something is better than nothing and a glass 1/4 full is better than an empty glass.

Leave a Reply