Case Title: Amendments To Rules Regulating the Florida Bar And Family Law Rules, Etc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC02-2035

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
1. We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, §§ 2(a), 15, Fla. Const.
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
____________
No. SC02-2035
____________
AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR
AND THE FLORIDA FAMILY LAW RULES OF PROCEDURE
(UNBUNDLED LEGAL SERVICES).
[November 13, 2003]
PARIENTE, J.
The Unbundled Legal Services Special Committee II of The Florida Bar has
filed a report proposing amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar and
the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure to address unbundled legal services
(also known as "limited representation" or "discrete task representation").1  We
conclude that the intent of the proposed amendments, which is to increase
effective, efficient, and meaningful access to justice for otherwise unrepresented
litigants, is consistent with the Court's objectives, particularly in cases involving
-2-
children and families.  Accordingly, we adopt these amendments with modifications
and additions as indicated.  Further, on our own motion, we amend Florida Rule of
Judicial Administration 2.060, Attorneys, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.360, Parties, to reconcile those rules with the proposed amendments.
BACKGROUND
To gain perspective on these proposed amendments we review the Court's
initiatives in cases involving children and families.  In adopting the
recommendations for a model family court in 2001, this Court stated:
[O]ur goal continues to be the creation of "a fully integrated,
comprehensive approach to handling all cases involving children and
families," while at the same time resolving family disputes in a fair,
timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner.  We also stress the
importance of embracing methods of resolving disputes that do not
cause additional emotional harm to the children and families who are
required to interact with the judicial system.  As the number of family
court filings and post-judgment matters continues to skyrocket, we
also must seek to enhance judicial productivity and conserve judicial
resources.   
In re Report of Family Court Steering Committee, 794 So. 2d 518, 519-20 (Fla.
2001) (citations omitted).  At that time, we noted that "an overwhelmingly large
percentage of litigants in family law matters are unrepresented."  See id. at 527.  We
explained that "[a]pproximately 65% of initial filings in domestic relations cases
involve self-represented litigants and 80% of post-judgment proceedings in
2.  The FCSC, created in 1994, see In re Report of the Commission on
Family Courts, 633 So. 2d 14, 18 (Fla. 1994), was comprised of judges and
lawyers with knowledge of family law matters.  In 2002, the FCSC was merged
with the Children's Court Improvement Committee to form the Steering Committee
on Families and Children in the Court.  See In re Steering Committee on Families
and Children in the Court, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC02-31 (Sept. 27, 2002) (on
file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).
-3-
domestic relations cases involve at least one unrepresented litigant." Id.  Further,
according to a study of domestic relations cases conducted in Dade County,
although 65% of initial filings began with at least one party unrepresented, by the
time of the final judgment, that percentage had risen to 85%.  Id. n.11. 
The history of these particular amendments began approximately four years
ago.  In November 1999, the Family Court Steering Committee (FCSC), as part of
its ongoing efforts to address the needs of pro se litigants, studied the subject of
unbundled legal services both in Florida and nationwide.2  The successor
committee to the FCSC, the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the
Court, explained the results of this review:
During its work on th[is] issue, the FCSC discovered that some
attorneys were already experimenting with the provision of unbundled
legal services, although others, and some judges, were unfamiliar with
the concept or thought it was impermissible.  Judges, lawyers and
litigants were sometimes uncertain of how to respond when a party
received limited, unbundled, legal representation in a case. There was
consensus on the FCSC that a rule was necessary to define the
parameters of unbundled legal services and to give guidance on ethical
questions.
-4-
The FCSC concluded that a rule was needed to provide structure.  By setting forth
the permissible parameters of unbundled legal services, the FCSC hoped to
encourage lawyers to offer these services to the large number of litigants who
would otherwise be unrepresented in family law matters.
In tandem with the efforts of the FCSC, former-Chief Justice Harding
created the Access to Justice Task Force.  The Task Force was a collaborative
effort with membership from the judiciary, The Florida Bar and, in particular, the
Family Law Section of the Bar.   Part of the charge to the Task Force was to
"[d]evelop plans to facilitate local collaborative efforts to ensure that legal services
are available and affordable [and to] make recommendations to the Supreme Court
on how to build a system of services that improves access to a fair, timely, and
meaningful resolution by informed family litigants."  In re Access to Justice Task
Force, Fla. Admin. Order (Jan. 7, 2000) (on file with Clerk, Fla. Sup. Ct.).  
As part of its recommendations to the Court, the Task Force concluded that
the Bar should undertake a review of unbundled legal services.  The Bar thereafter
appointed a special committee to study the issue and report back to the Court. 
After receiving the report that made favorable recommendations regarding
unbundled legal services, the Court determined that it would be preferable for the
Bar to propose amendments to the rules for the Court's consideration.  Our charge
3.  The committee sent the proposed amendments to the following groups:
the Family Law Rules Committee, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Small
Claims Rules Committee, the Professional Ethics Committee, the Family Law
Section of The Florida Bar, the Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar, the
Young Lawyers Division of The Florida Bar, the FCSC, the Conference of Circuit
Court Judges, the Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial
Lawyers, and the Probate Rules Committee.  The Family Law Rules Committee,
the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, the FCSC, and the Conference of
Circuit Court Judges supported the proposals.  The Probate Rules Committee
voted to not oppose the proposals.  Three groups either were opposed to or voted
not to support the proposals: the Small Claims Rules Committee, the Executive
Council of The Florida Bar Trial Lawyers Section, and the Young Lawyers
Division of The Florida Bar.  The Civil Procedure Rules Committee and the Florida
Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers did not make any
comments regarding the proposals, and the Professional Ethics Committee took no
formal action.  None of the groups that opposed the proposals filed comments with
this Court.  
-5-
to the Bar specifically included the caveat that the Court has made "no prejudgment
as to whether it will approve such rules" but that it was preferable to have "concrete
rules before us to review in making any final decision."
The Bar thereafter appointed a second special committee, the Unbundled
Legal Services Special Committee II.  Once the committee drafted and approved
the rules, a copy of the rules was provided to a large number of interested groups.3 
The committee studied the recommendations of the groups and made some
additional changes to the rules based on this input. The committee noted that the
Conference of Circuit Court Judges, which includes the judges who preside over
family law matters, supported the committee's proposals, including the rule
-6-
authorizing limited in-court representation in family law matters. 
The committee published the proposed rules in the July 15, 2002, issue of
The Florida Bar News.  The committee amended the rules and submitted its report
to this Court.  This Court published the proposals twice for comment, in the
September 1, 2002, and the November 1, 2002, issues of The Florida Bar News.
The Court received only two comments: one in support of the rule filed on behalf
of the Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court, and a second by
Circuit Judge Linda Vitale, Administrative Judge of the Family Division of the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, who had specific suggestions regarding changes
in the "notice" provisions.  
Although only two comments were filed, the Court, through its scheduling
order setting oral argument, requested that the parties be prepared at oral argument
to address specific concerns regarding how the amendments would operate in
practice and whether amendments to other rules were necessary.  The areas of
concern addressed in the scheduling order included: (1) when an attorney is
retained to represent a pro se litigant in a limited matter, whether the court must hear
from both the pro se litigant and the attorney on the limited matter; and (2) whether
amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060 and Florida Rule of
Appellate Procedure 9.360 would also be necessary.
-7-
In order to ensure that the proposed rules received the broadest possible
consideration, the Court also served numerous entities and individuals with the
scheduling order, including the Bar, the Chief Judges of the Circuit Courts and the
District Courts of Appeal, the Clerks of the Circuit Courts and the District Courts
of Appeal, the Judicial Management Council and the Chair of the Family Law Rules
Committee.  The scheduling order also afforded the opportunity for supplemental
comment.  The Court received only one supplemental comment, filed by the
Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court, which was in favor of
the rule and addressed each of the Court's stated areas of concern. 
AMENDMENTS
The committee proposes amending Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.2,
Scope of Representation, to clarify when limited representation is permitted and to
provide a procedure through which an attorney may limit the scope of the
representation.  The proposed amendment specifically requires that the client
consent to the limited representation in writing.  The committee proposes amending
Rules Regulating the Florida Bar 4-4.2, Communication with Persons Represented
by Counsel, and 4-4.3, Dealing with Unrepresented Persons, to specify when a
person is considered to be unrepresented in the context of limited representation
and clarify when the opposing lawyer may and may not communicate with the
-8-
person directly. 
In addition to the committee's proposed amendments to the Rules Regulating
the Florida Bar, which address the ethical obligations of attorneys in general
regarding limited representation, the committee also proposes new Family Law Rule
of Procedure 12.040, Attorneys, for use in family law cases only.  In brief, this
proposed rule provides:  (1) how an attorney may be the attorney of record for
only part of a proceeding; (2) when an attorney must obtain permission from the
court to withdraw from or limit the scope of representation; (3) how an attorney of
record in a limited proceeding or matter ends the representation when the purpose
of the limited representation is fulfilled (i.e., by filing a notice of completion titled
"Termination of Limited Appearance"); (4) what information the pro se litigant must
provide when an attorney assists the litigant in the preparation of pleadings or other
documents only; and (5) what information a limited appearance attorney must
provide on the signature page of a pleading or other document.  Finally, the
proposed new rule requires that during the time the attorney is making a limited
appearance, pleadings or documents related to the limited representation must be
served on both the attorney and the party. 
ANALYSIS
-9-
Our goal in adopting rules to address unbundled legal services is to enhance
access to justice by allowing individuals to contract to receive legal assistance or
limited in-court representation on specific portions of their cases.  Through the
years, in keeping with the general mission of the judicial branch, this Court has
strived to implement changes that improve access to justice for all of our citizens. 
As early as 1990, this Court noted:
This Court and The Florida Bar have regularly adopted programs to
improve the accessibility of our judicial system. These include
simplified proceedings in small claims court, probate, and dissolution
of marriage matters; the development of simplified forms for a litigant's
pro se use; the establishment of citizen dispute settlement centers; and
the recent implementation of mediation and arbitration programs
designed to resolve disputes in an efficient and economical manner.
This Court has repeatedly recognized its responsibility to assure
access to the courts. 
In re Amendments to Rules Regulating the Fla. Bar--1-3.1(a) & Rules of Judicial
Admin.--2.065 (Legal Aid), 573 So. 2d 800, 806 (Fla. 1990).  We have continued
to seek new ways to facilitate access to justice for moderate- to low-income
Floridians.  
In 1998, this Court adopted a rule governing self-help services and court-
approved forms in the family law arena.  We noted the observations of the Family
Court Steering Committee at that time: 
[T]he rule is needed to encourage self-represented litigants to obtain
-10-
legal advice; to provide information concerning pro bono legal
services, low cost legal services, and lawyer referral services; to
provide forms, general information about the judicial process, and
other information necessary to assist those who represent themselves;
to clearly define the services provided to ensure that self-help
programs do not provide legal advice through nonlawyers; to facilitate
but not encourage self-representation; to assist in obtaining legislative
funding for the programs; and to establish uniformity throughout the
state to provide certain basic services in all circuits.
In re Amendments to the Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure (Self Help), 725 So.
2d 365, 366 (Fla.1998) (footnote omitted).  We have since reiterated that our goal
remains to "provide families and children with an accessible and coordinated means
of resolving legal matters in a fair, efficient, and effective manner."  In re Report of
Family Court Steering Committee, 794 So. 2d at 523.  Thus, we have not only
encouraged access, but have been guided by the principle that access to justice
must be meaningful by being fair, efficient, and effective.  As a former president of
the American Bar Association has observed, "the failure of our justice system to
provide meaningful access falls hardest on those least able to afford a lack of
access."  Robert Hirshon, Providing All Americans with a Key to the Courthouse,
Judges' J. 5 Winter 2001 at 5,5.  Further, without some form of legal advice or
representation, pro se litigants uneducated in the law are frequently denied access to
justice:
Self-represented litigants encounter resistance from many judges when
-11-
they seek their assistance regarding the proper procedures by which to
prosecute their claims or defenses.  An individual judge is unable to
devote the necessary time to a full explanation of the litigation process
for the self-represented litigant, and feels constrained from
advising—or lending any other form of assistance in the trial
process—by virtue of the rule requiring that judicial impartiality in
appearance and in fact be maintained.  Therefore, basic information,
such as the necessary elements of the cause of action or defense
raised, remains a secret of the law, judges, and attorneys.  
Jona Goldschmidt, et al., Meeting the Challenge of Pro Se Litigation: A Report and
Guidebook for Judges and Court Managers, 3-4 (1998).  As the aforementioned
report notes, "family law appears to be the most impacted by the growing trend to
'go it alone.'" Id. at 15.   
The availability of unbundled legal services has been viewed as being
beneficial to both courts and litigants, especially in family law matters.  For
example, the administrator of the Self-Service Center in Maricopa, Arizona
described the benefits of unbundled services as follows:  
Clients who may have been fearful of attorneys or afraid that they
could not afford a retainer for a divorce (in the nature of $1,200 to
$2,000) were often interested in meeting with an attorney for a few
hours, as needed, and thus getting a basic education and assistance as
the divorce unfolded. For the most part these litigants continued to
work their way through the system themselves. Once in operation,
court personnel reported they were less often "buttonholed" by
confused self-help litigants, and self-help litigants often reduced the
total number of hearings, trips, and/or appearances they made to the
courthouse to conclude their matter.
-12-
Bradley A. Vauter, Unbundling:  Filling the Gap, 79 Mich. B. J. 1688, 1689 (2000).  
To date, at least five other states, Colorado, Wyoming, Maine, Washington,
and New Mexico, have adopted rules governing unbundled legal services.  See,
e.g., Colo. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Colo. R. Prof. Cond. 1.2; Wyo. R. Prof. Cond. 1.2,
App. 1; Me. C. Prof. Resp. R. 3.4(i); Wash. R. Prof. Cond. 1.2(c); N.M. R. Prof.
Cond. 16-102C, 16-303E.  Earlier this year, the Judicial Council of California
adopted, in addition to other forms, a Notice of Limited Scope Representation
form for use in family law proceedings.  See Cal. Jud. Council Form FL-950. 
California also has adopted a rule of court that sets forth the procedure for a limited
representation attorney to follow to be relieved as counsel.  See Cal. Fam. L. R.
5.171.   Further, the American Bar Association has endorsed this concept by
adopting Model Rules of Professional Conduct that address unbundled legal
services.  See, e.g., Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 1.2 (2003) (allowing the
lawyer to limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under
the circumstances and the client gives informed consent); Model Rules of Prof'l
Conduct R. 6.5 (2003) (discussing the provision of short-term limited legal services
under the auspices of a program sponsored by a nonprofit organization or court
without expectation by either the lawyer or the client that the lawyer will provide
continuing representation in the matter).   
-13-
In sum, unbundled legal services should enable pro se litigants to be better
prepared when they appear in court, which should lead to less court time to
process their cases.  Thus, the litigants are likely to resolve their matters more
expeditiously than if they had not received any legal guidance at all.  Further, under
new rule 12.040, a litigant in a family law case will be able to retain an attorney for
limited in-court representation.  
We emphasize that the goal of rule 12.040 is to increase access to justice for
those litigants unable to afford full representation on all portions of their case.  Our
intent in adopting the rule is to allow an attorney to engage in limited representation
on a discrete substantive task, such as child custody, child support, alimony, or
equitable distribution, or to appear for a specific hearing, such as a hearing on a
motion for attorneys' fees.  If the rule functions as we envision by allowing limited
representation on portions of a case in which a litigant would otherwise be
unrepresented, we are cautiously optimistic that justice will be facilitated and not
frustrated.  This is especially so if the discrete substantive task for which the
representation is undertaken involves a particularly intricate or complex family law
issue. 
To ensure that rule 12.040 will not be utilized in a manner detrimental to the
ends of justice, we explain the boundaries within which we expect the rule to
-14-
operate.  We agree with the view of the Steering Committee on Families and
Children in the Court that when an attorney is retained to represent a pro se litigant
on a limited matter in a family law case, the court should not be required to hear
from both the attorney and the self-represented litigant on the same limited matter. 
When a party is represented by multiple attorneys, only one attorney speaks on an
issue so that the other side is not "double-teamed."  We conclude that in fairness to
the opposing party, the attorney and the pro se litigant should not both be allowed
to argue on the same legal issue.
In addition, we do not envision that the rule would permit an attorney to
appear solely for the purpose of making evidentiary objections on behalf of the
family law litigant who is representing himself or herself on all matters.  We are
concerned that if the rule were construed to permit such a scenario, there would be
no clear division between those portions of the case for which the attorney is
responsible and those for which the pro se litigant is responsible.  This could cause
a great deal of confusion for both the court and opposing counsel and could
actually frustrate the administration of justice.  Although the trial judge has the
ultimate discretion to decide what types of limited representation to allow in his or
her courtroom, we emphasize that in adopting new rule 12.040, we do not envision
that the rule would authorize the aforementioned type of "evidentiary objection"
-15-
limited representation.
Further, to ensure the efficient administration of justice, all interested parties
involved in a case in which limited representation is authorized must receive proper
notice of hearings.  Obviously, if an attorney is engaged in limited representation, it
is critical that he or she receive notice of any court proceeding during which the
subject of the limited representation will be heard.  Judge Vitale noted in her
comment that if attorneys are involved in a case for a short duration it may be
difficult under the proposed new family law rule to properly serve notices of
hearings on the appropriate individuals.  Judge Vitale suggests that we amend the
proposed rule to require that the address and telephone number of both the litigant
and the attorney be on all pleadings, hearing notices, and notices of limited
appearance.  We agree and adopt Judge Vitale's suggestion.  Should an attorney
receive a notice of a hearing that is not within the scope of the limited
representation, it will be the attorney's responsibility to notify the court and the
opposing party that the attorney will not attend a court proceeding or hearing
because it is outside the scope of the representation. 
We also conclude that both the attorney and the litigant should be served
with all pleadings that are filed during the duration of the limited representation.  We
anticipate that adding these additional safeguards to rule 12.040 will ensure that the
-16-
appropriate person, whether it is the litigant or the attorney, receives all relevant
notices, documents, and pleadings in the family law matter.
We firmly believe that the adoption of the proposed rules will increase
access to justice for pro se litigants.  Therefore, we encourage attorneys to offer
discrete legal services as an element of their practices.  In furtherance of this goal,
we request that The Florida Bar, in conjunction with the Family Law Section of the
Bar, develop informational brochures available to attorneys and the public that
clarify the concept and the scope of limited representation.  We request that these
brochures be developed and made available within six months of the date of this
opinion.  
The litigant's understanding of the scope of the limited representation is
important in preventing unrealistic expectations on the part of the litigant, especially
in connection with the extent of the attorney's role during in-court proceedings.  An
attorney who decides to offer limited in-court representation in a family law
matter must ensure that the pro se litigant understands the attorney's obligations to
the litigant.  For example, prior to contracting for limited representation, the
attorney should advise the litigant that the attorney's ethical obligations only extend
to the representation for which the attorney was retained.  The attorney does not
have an ethical obligation to the client on other discrete portions of the litigant's
-17-
case.  Thus, if a litigant retains an attorney for one issue to be addressed at a
hearing and the litigant plans to argue on a different issue at the hearing, the attorney
should explain to the litigant at the time of retention that the attorney will not
interject himself or herself into the litigant’s argument even if the attorney feels that
there is a better way to argue the issue.  Further, the attorney should inform the
client that if during the proceedings the litigant decides he or she would like the
attorney to take over another portion of the litigant's case for which the attorney
was not initially retained, the client will need to execute a second consent form that
encompasses the new portion of the case, and that such a broadening of the
representation may increase the attorney's fee.  
We cannot detail every nuance of limited representation that the attorney
must explain to the client.  We offer these examples to demonstrate that when the
client consents in writing to limited in-court representation, that consent must be
informed.  We amend the comment to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.2 to
emphasize this point.  We further request that the Bar develop a standard informed
consent form that may be used in limited in-court representation in family law
proceedings.  The Maine Supreme Court has adopted a detailed consent form
under Rule 3.4 of the Maine Code of Professional Responsibility, Commencement
and Continuation of Representation, and we direct the Bar to this form for
-18-
guidance.  As with the informational brochures, we request that a standard consent
form be developed for use within six months of the date of this opinion.  
OTHER RULE AMENDMENTS
In its report, the committee noted that if the proposed rules are adopted,
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.060, Attorneys, must be amended to
eliminate any conflicts between that rule and the instant rules.  We agree. 
Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.010, Effective Date and Scope,
provides that the Rules of Judicial Administration "shall supersede all conflicting
rules and statutes."  This Court recently amended Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.060(i) to provide:
Termination of Appearance of Attorney.  The appearance of
an attorney for a party in a proceeding shall terminate only in one of
the following ways:
(1) 
Withdrawal of Attorney.  By order of court, where the
proceeding is continuing, upon motion and hearing, on notice to all
parties and the client, such motion setting forth the reasons for
withdrawal and the client’s last known address.
(2)  
Substitution of Attorney.  By order of court, under the
procedure set forth in subdivision (h)(2) of this rule.
(3)  
Termination of Proceeding.  Automatically, without
order of court, upon the termination of a proceeding, whether by final
order of dismissal, by final adjudication, or otherwise, and following
the expiration of any applicable time for appeal, where no appeal is
taken.
-19-
Amendments to the Fla. Rules of Judicial Admin. (2-Year Cycle), 851 So. 2d 698,
710-11 (Fla. 2003).  Under proposed rule 12.040(c), however, the attorney who
appears of record in a limited proceeding or matter does not require the permission
of the court to end the representation when the limited representation is over.  The
rule requires only that the attorney file a notice of completion titled "Termination of
Limited Appearance."  Further, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.360(b),
Attorneys, Representatives, and Guardians, provides that "[a]ttorneys . . . shall
retain their status in the court unless others are duly appointed or substituted."  
To avoid any inconsistency with the amendments we adopt today, we must
also amend rules 2.060 and 9.360.  Thus, on our own motion, we amend rule
2.060(i) to add new subdivision (4): 
(4)       Filing of Notice of Completion.  For limited
representation proceedings under Florida Family Law Rule of
Procedure 12.040, automatically, by the filing of a notice of
completion titled "Termination of Limited Appearance" pursuant to
rule 12.040(c).
Further, we amend Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.360(b) to include
language stating that for limited representation proceedings under rule 12.040,
representation terminates upon the filing of the notice of completion pursuant to
rule 12.040(c).  We conclude that the aforementioned amendments will resolve any
4.  As noted in one law review article, it is better to have one oar than to be
without a boat.  See Mary Helen McNeal, Having One Oar or Being Without a
Boat: Reflections on the Fordham Recommendations on Limited Legal Assistance,
67 Fordham L. Rev. 2617 (1999).
-20-
inconsistency between these rules.
CONCLUSION
The concept of unbundled legal services is not new; it is well accepted in the
context of business law, estate planning and mediation.  Our goal in adopting rules
governing unbundled legal services is to encourage attorneys to offer limited
representation so that individuals who either cannot afford or do not desire full
representation can obtain legal advice or representation on a discrete legal matter.  It
is our hope that such services will increase the public's understanding of the legal
process, thereby improving access to justice.  Further, a better-educated pro se
litigant will be able to present his or her case more effectively to the court, thereby
facilitating an expeditious resolution of his or her legal matter.  Finally, the limited
representation in family law matters permitted under new rule 12.040 will assist pro
se litigants in Florida's court system by allowing them to have representation for at
least part of their family law matter.4 
Although we anticipate that our adoption of these amendments will increase
access to justice for low- to moderate-income Floridians and recognize that
-21-
providing affordable legal services is a laudable goal, we do have concerns that
difficulties may arise in practice once rule 12.040 is enacted.  Thus, we must remain
vigilant to make sure that the rule operates as envisioned, in the courtroom, so that
the judicial process is enhanced and not frustrated.  It remains to be seen how a
rule authorizing an attorney and a litigant to argue different portions of a case will
operate in the courtroom.  Further, the rule does not encompass all the possible
scenarios of limited representation.  In light of these concerns regarding the
operation of rule 12.040 in practice, we direct the committee to monitor the
implementation of the rule and any difficulties that arise, and report back to this
Court within two years from the effective date of these amendments with
recommendations for improvements or changes, if any.
The Court wishes to express its sincerest gratitude to the members of the
committee for their efforts in seeking to improve pro se litigants' access to courts. 
Further, we thank all individuals who filed comments with this Court, especially
those who participated in oral argument.  
Accordingly, we amend the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, the Florida
Family Law Rules of Procedure, the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, and
the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure as reflected in the appendix to this
opinion.  New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by
-22-
struck-through type. The comment is offered for explanation only and is not
adopted as an official part of the rules.  The amendments shall become effective
January 1, 2004, at 12:02 a.m.
It is so ordered.
ANSTEAD, C.J., and WELLS, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ.,
concur.
THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE RULES.
Original Proceeding - Amendment to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar; 
The Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure; Florida Rules of Judicial
Administration; and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
Tod Aronovitz, Former President, The Florida Bar, Miami, Florida; Miles A.
McGrane III, President, The Florida Bar, Coral Gables, Florida; Kelly Overstreet
Johnson, President-elect, Tallahassee, Florida; John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive
Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida; Honorable Linda Vitale,
Administrative Judge, Family Division, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Fort
Lauderdale, Florida; Michael Walsh, Immediate Past Chair, Family Law Rules
Committee, West Palm Beach, Florida; Adele I. Stone, Chair, Unbundled Legal
Services Special Committee II, Hollywood, Florida; Honorable Raymond T.
McNeal, Circuit Judge, Member, Steering Committee on Family & Children in the
Court, 2000-2002 Chair, Family Court Steering Committee, Ocala, Florida; Jeffrey
P. Wasserman of Shapiro, Blasi & Wasserman, Member, Unbundled Legal
Services Special Committee II, Hollywood, Florida; and Honorable Hugh Starnes,
Circuit Judge, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Fort Myers, Florida, on behalf of the
Steering Committee on Families and Children in the Court,
-23-
Responding 
-24-
APPENDIX
RULE 2.060.
ATTORNEYS
(a)
Generally. All persons in good standing as members of The Florida
Bar shall be permitted to practice in Florida. Attorneys of other states who are not
members of The Florida Bar in good standing shall not engage in the practice of
law in Florida except to the extent permitted by rule 2.061.
(b)
Staff Attorneys, Law Clerks, and Judicial Assistants Not to
Practice. Except as provided in this subdivision, no one serving as a staff
attorney, law clerk, or judicial assistant to a justice or judge of any court shall
practice as an attorney in any court or before any agency of government while
continuing in that position. Any attorney designated by the court may represent the
court, or any judge in the judge’s official capacity, in any proceeding in which the
court or judge is an interested party.  An attorney formerly employed by a court
shall not represent anyone in connection with a matter in which the attorney
participated personally and substantially as a judicial staff attorney, law clerk, or
judicial assistant.
(c)
Pleadings to Be Signed. Every pleading and other paper of a party
represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least 1 attorney of record in that
attorney’s individual name whose address, telephone number, including area code,
and Florida Bar number shall be stated, and who shall be duly licensed to practice
law in Florida or who shall have received permission to appear in the particular case
as provided in rule 2.061. The attorney may be required by the court to give the
address of, and to vouch for the attorney’s authority to represent, the party. Except
when otherwise specifically provided by an applicable rule or statute, pleadings
need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The signature of an attorney shall
constitute a certificate by the attorney that the attorney has read the pleading or
other paper; that to the best of the attorney’s knowledge, information, and belief
there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. If a
pleading is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it
may be stricken and the action may proceed as though the pleading or other paper
had not been served.
(d)
Party Not Represented by Attorney to Sign. A party who is not
represented by an attorney shall sign any pleading or other paper and state the
-25-
party’s address and telephone number, including area code.
(e)
Form of Signature of Attorney, Party, or Other Person.
(1)
The signatures required on pleadings and papers by
subdivisions (c) and (d) of this rule may be:
(A)
original signatures;
(B)
original signatures that have been reproduced by
electronic means, such as on electronically transmitted documents or
photocopied documents; or
(C)
any other signature format authorized by general law, so
long as the clerk where the proceeding is pending has the capability of
receiving and has obtained approval from the Supreme Court of
Florida to accept pleadings and papers with that signature format.
(2)
An attorney, party, or other person who files a pleading or
paper by electronic transmission that does not contain the original signature
of that attorney, party, or other person shall file that identical pleading or
paper in paper form containing an original signature of that attorney, party, or
other person (hereinafter called the follow-up filing) immediately thereafter.
The follow-up filing is not required if the Supreme Court of Florida has
entered an order directing the clerk of court to discontinue accepting the
follow-up filing.
(f)
Attorney Not to Be Surety. No attorneys or other officers of court
shall enter themselves or be taken as bail or surety in any proceeding in court.
(g)
Stipulations. No private agreement or consent between parties or their
attorneys concerning the practice or procedure in an action shall be of any force
unless the evidence of it is in writing, subscribed by the party or the party’s
attorney against whom it is alleged. Parol agreements may be made before the court
if promptly made a part of the record or incorporated in the stenographic notes of
the proceedings, and agreements made at depositions that are incorporated in the
transcript need not be signed when signing of the deposition is waived. This rule
-26-
shall not apply to settlements or other substantive agreements.
(h)
Appearance of Attorney. An attorney may appear in a proceeding in
any of the following ways:
(1) 
By serving and filing, on behalf of a party, the party’s first 
pleading or paper in the proceeding. 
(2) 
By substitution of counsel, but only by order of court
and with written consent of the client, filed with the court. The court
may condition substitution upon payment of, or security for, the
substituted attorney’s fees and expenses, or upon such other terms as
may be just.
(3) 
By filing with the court and serving upon all parties a
notice of appearance as counsel for a party that has already appeared
in a proceeding pro se or as co-counsel for a party that has already
appeared in a proceeding by non-withdrawing counsel.
(i)
Termination of Appearance of Attorney. The appearance of an
attorney for a party in a proceeding shall terminate only in one of the following
ways:
(1) 
Withdrawal of Attorney. By order of court, where the
proceeding is continuing, upon motion and hearing, on notice to all
parties and the client, such motion setting forth the reasons for
withdrawal and the client’s last known address.
(2)  
Substitution of Attorney. By order of court, under the
procedure set forth in subdivision (h)(2) of this rule.
(3)  
Termination of Proceeding. Automatically, without
order of court, upon the termination of a proceeding, whether by final
order of dismissal, by final adjudication, or otherwise, and following
the expiration of any applicable time for appeal, where no appeal is
taken.
-27-
(4)       Filing of Notice of Completion.  For limited representation 
proceedings under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.040, 
automatically, by the filing of a notice of completion titled "Termination of 
Limited Appearance" pursuant to rule 12.040(c).
(j)
Law Student Participation. Eligible law students shall be permitted
to participate as provided under the conditions of chapter 11 of the Rules Regu-
lating The Florida Bar as amended from time to time.
(k)  Attorney as Agent of Client. In all matters concerning the prosecution
or defense of any proceeding in the court, the attorney of record shall be the agent
of the client, and any notice by or to the attorney or act by the attorney in the
proceeding shall be accepted as the act of or notice to the client.
Commentary
1997 Amendment. Originally, the rule provided that the follow-up filing had
to occur within ten days. In the 1997 amendment to the rule, that requirement was
modified to provide that the follow-up filing must occur “immediately” after a
document is electronically filed. The “immediately thereafter” language is consistent
with language used in the rules of procedure where, in a somewhat analogous
situation, the filing of a document may occur after service. See, e.g., Florida Rule
of Civil Procedure 1.080(d) (“All original papers shall be filed with the court either
before service or immediately thereafter.”) (emphasis added). “Immediately
thereafter” has been interpreted to mean “filed with reasonable promptness.” Miami
Transit Co. v. Ford, 155 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1963).
The use of the words “other person” in this rule is not meant to allow a
nonlawyer to sign and file pleadings or other papers on behalf of another. Such
conduct would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
2003 Amendment.   Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-1.12(c), which
addresses the imputed disqualification of a law firm, should be looked to in
conjunction with the rule 2.060(b) restriction on representation by a former judicial
staff attorney or law clerk.
-28-
RULE 9.360. 
PARTIES
(a) 
Joinder. A party to the cause in the lower tribunal who desires to join
in a proceeding as a petitioner or appellant shall file a notice to that effect within 10
days of service of the petition or notice or within the time prescribed by rule
9.110(b), whichever is later.
(b) 
Attorneys, Representatives, and Guardians Ad Litem. Attorneys,
representatives, and guardians ad litem in the lower tribunal shall retain their status
in the court unless others are duly appointed or substituted; however, for limited
representation proceedings under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.040,
representation terminates upon the filing of a notice of completion titled
"Termination of Limited Appearance" pursuant to rule 12.040(c).
(c) 
Substitution of Parties.
(1) If substitution of a party is necessary for any reason, the court may
so order on its own motion or that of a party.
(2) Public officers as parties in their official capacities may be
described by their official titles rather than by name. Their successors in
office shall be automatically substituted as parties.
(3) If a party dies while a proceeding is pending and that party's rights
survive, the court may order the substitution of the proper party on its own
motion or that of any interested person.
(4) If a person entitled to file a notice dies before filing and that
person's rights survive, the notice may be filed by the personal
representative, attorney of record, or, if none, by any interested person.
Following filing, the proper party shall be substituted.
Committee Notes
1977 Amendment. This rule is intended as a simplification of the former
rules with no substantial change in practice.
-29-
Subdivision (a) is a simplification of the provisions of former rule 3.11(b),
with modifications recognizing the elimination of assignments of error.
Subdivision (b) retains the substance of former rule 3.11(d).
Subdivision (c)(1) substantially simplifies the procedure for substituting
parties. This change is in keeping with the overall concept of this revision that these
rules should identify material events that may or should occur in appellate
proceedings and specify in general terms how that event should be brought to the
attention of the court and how the parties should proceed. The manner in which
these events shall be resolved is left to the courts, the parties, the substantive law,
and the circumstances of the particular case.
Subdivision (c)(2) is new and is intended to avoid the necessity of motions
for substitution if the person holding a public office is changed during the course of
proceedings. It should be noted that the style of the case does not necessarily
change.
Subdivision (c)(4) is new, and is intended to simplify the procedure and
avoid confusion if a party dies before an appellate proceeding is instituted.
Substitutions in such cases are to be made according to subdivision (c)(1).
-30-
RULE 12.040.       ATTORNEYS
(a)
Limited Appearance.  An attorney of record for a party, in a family
law matter governed by these rules, shall be the attorney of record throughout the
same family law matter, unless at the time of appearance the attorney files a notice,
signed by the party, specifically limiting the attorney’s appearance only to the
particular proceeding or matter in which the attorney appears.
(b)
Withdrawal or Limiting Appearance.  
(1)
Prior to the completion of a family law matter or prior to the 
completion of a limited appearance, an attorney of record, with approval of 
the court, may withdraw or partially withdraw, thereby limiting the scope of 
the attorney’s original appearance to a particular proceeding or matter.  A 
motion setting forth the reasons must be filed with the court and served 
upon the client and interested persons.
(2)
The attorney shall remain attorney of record until such time as 
the court enters an order, except as set forth in subdivision (c) below. 
(c)
Scope of Representation.   If an attorney appears of record for a
particular limited proceeding or matter, as provided by this rule, that attorney shall
be deemed “of record” for only that particular proceeding or matter.  Any notice of
limited appearance filed shall include the name, address and telephone number of
the attorney and the name, address and telephone number of the party.  At the
conclusion of such proceeding or matter, the attorney’s role terminates without the
necessity of leave of court, upon the attorney filing notice of completion of limited
appearance.  The notice, which shall be titled “Termination of Limited
Appearance,” shall include the names and last known addresses of the person(s)
represented by the withdrawing attorney.
(d)
Preparation of Pleadings or Other Documents.  A party who files
a pleading or other document of record pro se with the assistance of an attorney
shall certify that the party has received assistance from an attorney in the
preparation of the pleading or other document.  The name, address and telephone
number of the party shall appear on all pleadings or other documents filed with the
court.
-31-
(e)
Notice of Limited Appearance.  Any pleading or other document
filed by a limited appearance attorney shall state in bold type on the signature page
of that pleading or other document: “Attorney for [Petitioner][Respondent]
[attorney's address and telephone number] for the limited purpose of [matter or
proceeding]” to be followed by the name of the petitioner or respondent
represented and the current address and telephone number of that party.
(f)
Service.  During the attorney’s limited appearance, all pleadings or
other documents and all notices of hearing shall be served upon both the attorney
and the party.  If the attorney receives notice of a hearing that is not within the
scope of the limited representation, the attorney shall notify the court and the
opposing party that the attorney will not attend the court proceeding or hearing
because it is outside the scope of the representation.
-32-
RULE 4-1.2.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION
(a)  
Lawyer to Abide by Client's Decisions.  A lawyer shall abide by a
client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to
subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by
which they are to be pursued.  A lawyer shall abide by a client's decision whether to
make or accept an offer of settlement of a matter.  In a criminal case, the lawyer
shall abide by the client's decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to
be entered, whether to waive jury trial, and whether the client will testify.
(b)  
No Endorsement of Client's Views or Activities.  A lawyer's
representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not
constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social, or moral views
or activities.
(c)  
Limitation of Objectives and Scope of Representation.  AIf not
prohibited by law or rule, a lawyer and client may agree to limit the objectives or
scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances
and the client consents in writing after consultation.  If the attorney and client agree
to limit the scope of the representation, the lawyer shall advise the client regarding
applicability of the rule prohibiting communication with a represented person.
(d)  
Criminal or Fraudulent Conduct.  A lawyer shall not counsel a
client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably
should know is criminal or fraudulent.  However, a lawyer may discuss the legal
consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or
assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning,
or application of the law.
(e)  
Limitation on Lawyer's Conduct.  When a lawyer knows or
reasonably should know that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules
of Professional Conduct or by law, the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding
the relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct.
Comment
-33-
ScopeObjectives of representation
Both lawyer and client have authority and responsibility in the objectives and
means of representation.  The client has ultimate authority to determine the
purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law and
the lawyer's professional obligations.  Within those limits, a client also has a right to
consult with the lawyer about the means to be used in pursuing those objectives. 
At the same time, a lawyer is not required to pursue objectives or employ means
simply because a client may wish that the lawyer do so.  A clear distinction between
objectives and means sometimes cannot be drawn, and in many cases the client-
lawyer relationship partakes of a joint undertaking.  In questions of means, the
lawyer should assume responsibility for technical and legal tactical issues but
should defer to the client regarding such questions as the expense to be incurred
and concern for third persons who might be adversely affected.  Law defining the
lawyer's scope of authority in litigation varies among jurisdictions.
In a case in which the client appears to be suffering mental disability, the
lawyer's duty to abide by the client's decisions is to be guided by reference to rule
4-1.14.
Independence from client's views or activities
Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford
legal services or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular
disapproval.  By the same token representing a client does not constitute approval
of the client's views or activities.
Services limited in objectives, scope or means
The objectives or scope of services provided by a lawyer may be limited by
agreement with the client or by the terms under which the lawyer's services are
made available to the client.  For example, a retainer may be for a specifically
defined purpose.  Representation provided through a legal aid agency may be
subject to limitations on the types of cases the agency handles.  When a lawyer has
been retained by an insurer to represent an insured, the representation may be
limited to matters related to the insurance coverage.  The terms upon which
-34-
representation is undertaken may exclude specific objectives or means.  Such
limitations may exclude objectives or means that the lawyer regards as repugnant or
imprudent, or which the client regards as financially impractical.
Although this rule affords the lawyer and client substantial latitude to limit the
representation if not prohibited by law or rule, the limitation must be reasonable
under the circumstances.  If, for example, a client’s objective is limited to securing
general information about the law the client needs in order to handle a common and
typically uncomplicated legal problem, the lawyer and client may agree that the
lawyer’s services will be limited to a brief consultation.  Such a limitation, however,
would not be reasonable if the time allotted was not sufficient to yield advice upon
which the client could rely.  In addition, a lawyer and client may agree that the
representation will be limited to providing assistance out of court, including
providing advice on the operation of the court system and drafting pleadings and
responses.  If the lawyer assists a pro se litigant by drafting any document to be
submitted to a court, the lawyer is not obligated to sign the document.  However,
the lawyer must indicate “Prepared with the assistance of counsel” on the
document to avoid misleading the court, which otherwise might be under the
impression that the person, who appears to be proceeding pro se, has received no
assistance from a lawyer.  If not prohibited by law or rule, a lawyer and client may
agree that any in-court representation in a family law proceeding be limited as
provided for in Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.040.  For example, a lawyer and
client may agree that the lawyer will represent the client at a hearing regarding child
support and not at the final hearing or in any other hearings.  For limited in-court
representation in family law proceedings, the attorney shall communicate to the
client the specific boundaries and limitations of the representation so that the client
is able to give informed consent to the representation.
Regardless of the circumstances, a lawyer providing limited representation
forms an attorney-client relationship with the litigant, and owes the client all
attendant ethical obligations and duties imposed by the Rules Regulating The
Florida Bar, including, but not limited to, duties of competence, communication,
confidentiality and avoidance of conflicts of interest.  Although an agreement for 
limited representation does not exempt a lawyer from the duty to provide
competent representation, the limitation is a factor to be considered when
determining the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably
-35-
necessary for the representation.
An agreement concerning the scope of representation must accord with the
Rules of Professional Conduct and law.  Thus, the client may not be asked to agree
to representation so limited in scope as to violate rule 4-1.1 or to surrender the right
to terminate the lawyer's services or the right to settle litigation that the lawyer might
wish to continue.
Criminal, fraudulent, and prohibited transactions
A lawyer is required to give an honest opinion about the actual consequences
that appear likely to result from a client's conduct.  The fact that a client uses
advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent does not, of itself, make a
lawyer a party to the course of action.  However, a lawyer may not assist a client in
conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know to be criminal or
fraudulent.  There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of legal
aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or
fraud might be committed with impunity.
When the client's course of action has already begun and is continuing, the
lawyer's responsibility is especially delicate.  The lawyer is not permitted to reveal
the client's wrongdoing, except where permitted or required by rule 4-1.6. 
However, the lawyer is required to avoid furthering the purpose, for example, by
suggesting how it might be concealed.  A lawyer may not continue assisting a client
in conduct that the lawyer originally supposes is legally proper but then discovers is
criminal or fraudulent.  Withdrawal from the representation, therefore, may be
required.
Where the client is a fiduciary, the lawyer may be charged with special
obligations in dealings with a beneficiary.
 Subdivision (d) applies whether or not the defrauded party is a party to the
transaction.  Hence, a lawyer should not participate in a sham transaction; for
example, a transaction to effectuate criminal or fraudulent escape of tax liability. 
Subdivision (d) does not preclude undertaking a criminal defense incident to a
general retainer for legal services to a lawful enterprise.  The last sentence of
-36-
subdivision (d) recognizes that determining the validity or interpretation of a statute
or regulation may require a course of action involving disobedience of the statute or
regulation or of the interpretation placed upon it by governmental authorities.
-37-
RULE 4-4.2. 
COMMUNICATION WITH PERSON REPRESENTED
BY COUNSEL
(a)
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the
subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by
another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, an attorney may, without such prior consent,
communicate with another's client in order to meet the requirements of any court
rule, statute or contract requiring notice or service of process directly on an
adverse party, in which event the communication shall be strictly restricted to that
required by the court rule, statute or contract, and a copy shall be provided to the
adverse party's attorney.
(b)
An otherwise unrepresented person to whom limited representation is
being provided or has been provided in accordance with Rule Regulating the
Florida Bar 4-1.2 is considered to be unrepresented for purposes of this rule unless
the opposing lawyer knows of, or has been provided with, a written notice of
appearance under which, or a written notice of the time period during which, the
opposing lawyer is to communicate with the limited representation lawyer as to the
subject matter within the limited scope of the representation.
Comment
This rule does not prohibit communication with a party, or an employee or
agent of a party, concerning matters outside the representation.  For example, the
existence of a controversy between a government agency and a private party, or
between 2 organizations, does not prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating
with nonlawyer representatives of the other regarding a separate matter.  Also,
parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other and a lawyer having
independent justification for communicating with the other party is permitted to do
so.  Communications authorized by law include, for example, the right of a party to
a controversy with a government agency to speak with government officials about
the matter.
In the case of an organization, this rule prohibits communications by a lawyer
for 1 party concerning the matter in representation with persons having a managerial
-38-
responsibility on behalf of the organization and with any other person whose act or
omission in connection with that matter may be imputed to the organization for
purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an
admission on the part of the organization.  If an agent or employee of the
organization is represented in the matter by the agent's or employee's own counsel,
the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of
this rule.  Compare rule 4-3.4(f).  This rule also covers any person, whether or not
a party to a formal proceeding, who is represented by counsel concerning the
matter in question.
-39-
RULE 4-4.3. 
DEALING WITH UNREPRESENTED PERSONS
(a) 
In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented
by counsel, a lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested.  When
the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person
misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable
efforts to correct the misunderstanding.
(b)
An otherwise unrepresented person to whom limited representation is
being provided or has been provided in accordance with Rule Regulating the
Florida Bar 4-1.2 is considered to be unrepresented for purposes of this rule unless
the opposing lawyer knows of, or has been provided with, a written notice of
appearance under which, or a written notice of time period during which, the
opposing lawyer is to communicate with the limited representation lawyer as to the
subject matter within the limited scope of the representation.
Comment
An unrepresented person, particularly one not experienced in dealing with
legal matters, might assume that a lawyer is disinterested in loyalties or is a
disinterested authority on the law even when the lawyer represents a client.  During
the course of a lawyer's representation of a client, the lawyer should not give advice
to an unrepresented person other than the advice to obtain counsel.