Title: In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.010, and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.440

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

Supreme Court of Florida 
 
 
____________ 
 
No. SC16-1062 
____________ 
 
 
IN RE:  AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL 
ADMINISTRATION, FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 
3.010, AND FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.440. 
 
[September 7, 2017] 
 
PER CURIAM. 
 
The Court has for consideration proposed amendments to the Florida Rules 
of Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida 
Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.1  For 
the reasons explained below, we decline to adopt the proposed amendments, 
without prejudice to the filing of more individualized and refined proposals. 
BACKGROUND 
The Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Criminal 
Procedure Rules Committee, and Appellate Court Rules Committee (Rules 
Committees) have filed a joint out-of-cycle report proposing amendments to 
                                          
 
 
1. We have jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. 
 
 
- 2 - 
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.120 (Definitions), 2.505 (Attorneys), 
2.515 (Signature and Certificates of Attorneys and Parties), and 2.516 (Service of 
Pleadings and Documents); Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.010 (Scope); and 
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.440 (Attorneys).  See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 
2.140(a)(7) & (e).  The Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee 
and the Bar’s Vision 2016 Commission developed the proposed amendments to the 
Rules of Judicial Administration that modify how counsel appear in a case.  The 
amendments recognize three types of representation by creating the designations of 
lead counsel (the attorney principally responsible for the representation of a party); 
additional counsel (coverage and attorneys in a law firm or governmental agency); 
and limited representation counsel (an attorney for a party or nonparty who 
provides limited representation).  Each type of representation has its own rules for 
appearance and termination of appearance in a case.  A definition of an attorney of 
record also is proposed, which, according to the joint report, will assist the Florida 
Courts Technology Commission with the access to court records security matrix.  
The amendments to the criminal and appellate rules are proposed by the Criminal 
Procedure and Appellate Court Rules Committees to address any conflicts between 
the proposed amendments to the Rules of Judicial Administration and those bodies 
of rules and to provide needed exceptions to the general-application judicial 
administration rules.   
 
 
- 3 - 
The Rules Committees published their proposals for comment before filing 
them with the Court and made revisions to the proposals in response to the 
comments they received.  The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar approved all 
the proposed amendments.  After the joint report was filed, the Court published the 
proposals for comment.  The Juvenile Court Rules Committee, the Florida 
Guardian Ad Litem Program, and the Orange County Clerk of Courts filed 
comments.  The Rules Committees filed a joint response to the comments that 
offers revisions to the amendments to rule 2.505 (Attorneys) in response to 
suggestions by the Juvenile Court Rules Committee and concerns raised by the 
Guardian Ad Litem Program about the use of the proposed counsel designations in 
delinquency and dependency cases.  After being granted leave to do so, the 
Juvenile Court Rules Committee filed a second comment, in which it proposes an 
amendment to Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.000 (Scope and Purpose), which the 
Board of Governors approved, but which has not been published for comment.  
The Rules Committees filed a joint response to the second comment stating that the 
committees have no objection to the proposed amendment to rule 8.000.    
DISCUSSION 
 
After considering the proposed amendments, the comments filed, and the 
Rules Committees’ response and hearing oral argument, we decline to adopt any of 
the proposed amendments, without prejudice to the filing of more individualized 
 
 
- 4 - 
and refined proposals that accomplish the goals stated in the joint report.  As is 
evident from the comments filed, views expressed at oral argument, and the 
exceptions to the proposed counsel classifications and attendant procedures that 
had to be included in the various bodies of rules, how counsel appear in a case and 
different attorneys’ level of involvement in a case vary among practice areas and 
the different courts throughout this state.  While the attempt to develop one body of 
comprehensive rules that classifies different types of representation and governs 
how attorneys appear and terminate an appearance in a case is laudable, we believe 
more refined rules that address these matters for each of the various practice areas 
should be considered; and there should be more active involvement of and 
communication between all the affected rules committees before new proposals are 
finalized.     
We also are concerned that the attempt to merge the work of the Vision 2016 
Commission concerning limited representation counsel for pro se litigants with the 
work of the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee in developing 
classifications and procedures for the lead and additional counsel designations and 
a definition of attorney of record resulted in confusing procedures when there is 
both a lead and a limited representation counsel in a case, a situation contemplated 
by the proposed Committee Note to rule 2.505.  See, e.g., proposed new Rules Jud. 
Admin. 2.505(g)(3)(C) (providing that, during a limited representation, all filed 
 
 
- 5 - 
documents be served on the limited representation counsel and the party, with no 
mention of serving lead counsel should there be one); 2.516(b)(1)(F) (same); and 
2.515(a) (providing an exception to the requirement of having an attorney’s 
signature and certificate for documents filed outside the scope of limited 
representation counsel’s representation, without taking into account a case with 
both lead and limited representation counsel).   
Finally, we also believe that the concerns identified in the joint report about 
attorneys appearing in a case being recognized as attorney of record for purposes 
of the clerk’s office case maintenance system and remote access to case records as 
allowed under the Standards for Access to Electronic Court Records and Access 
Security Matrix can be addressed in a more focused manner with input from the 
Florida Courts Technology Commission and Florida Association of Court Clerks 
and Comptrollers.  In the meantime, attorneys who wish to have remote access to 
court records in a given case and to ensure proper e-mail service should file a 
notice of appearance in any case in which they provide representation.     
 
Accordingly, we decline to adopt the proposed amendments, without 
prejudice to future proposals in accordance with this opinion. 
 
It is so ordered.  
LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, and 
POLSTON, JJ., concur. 
LAWSON, J., concurs specially with an opinion.  
 
 
 
- 6 - 
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND 
IF FILED, DETERMINED. 
 
LAWSON, J., specially concurring. 
 
I write separately to note this Court’s appreciation for the many hours of 
hard work volunteered by members of these committees, as reflected in the rule 
proposals, and to suggest a refinement that would address my primary concern.  
That concern, also alluded to in the majority opinion, is potential confusion 
stemming from use of the “limited representation counsel” designation, with its 
special rules, in a case where the litigant is represented by other counsel of record.  
The concerns raised by appellate practitioners, which prompted this change to the 
original Vision 2016 Commission’s proposal, could instead be addressed by adding 
another designation for “additional special counsel.”  That designation would apply 
only when there is already counsel of record and could have its own separate rules 
that allow the appearance with consent of a sponsoring lead or additional counsel 
(without the need for a signature by the client).  Additional special counsel could 
then be allowed to withdraw, without leave of court, by filing his or her own notice 
of withdrawal, or upon notice filed by the sponsoring lead or additional counsel.  
The additional special counsel designation could also be used to address the 
practice of “coverage counsel” in criminal cases.  The committees may have 
considered something like this and rejected it for reasons not readily apparent to 
me.  But, this approach would appear to address the valid points made by appellate 
 
 
- 7 - 
specialists retained to provide litigation assistance, and by criminal practitioners, 
while still implementing the good work of the Vision 2016 Commission aimed at 
assisting unrepresented litigants. 
Original Proceeding – Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, Florida Rules of 
Criminal Procedure and Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 
 
Judson Lee Cohen, Chair, Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Weinstein 
& Cohen, P.A., Miami Lakes, Florida, Judge Steven Scott Stephens, Past Chair, 
Rules of Judicial Administration Committee, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court, 
Tampa, Florida, and Amy Singer Borman, Past Chair, Rules of Judicial 
Administration Committee, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court, West Palm Beach, 
Florida; Landis Vernon Curry III, Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, Hill, 
Ward & Henderson, Tampa, Florida, Kristin A. Norse, Past Chair, Appellate Court 
Rules Committee, Kynes, Markman & Felman, P.A., Tampa, Florida, and Judge T. 
Kent Wetherell, II, Past Chair, Appellate Court Rules Committee, First District 
Court of Appeal, Tallahassee, Florida; Judge Jon Berkley Morgan, Chair, Criminal 
Procedure Rules Committee, Kissimmee, Florida, H. Scott Fingerhut, Past Chair, 
Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, H. Scott Fingerhut, P.A., Miami, Florida, 
and Meredith Charbula, Past Chair, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee, Fourth 
Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, Florida; and John F. 
Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Heather Savage Telfer, and Krys Godwin, Staff 
Liaisons, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
for Petitioner 
 
Alan Abramowitz, Executive Director, Dennis W. Moore, General Counsel, 
Camille A. Frazer, Regional Counsel, and Thomasina Moore, Statewide Guardian 
ad Litem Office, Tallahassee, Florida; David Margolis, General Counsel, Nicholas 
A. Shannin, Former General Counsel, and Tiffany Moore Russell, Clerk of Courts 
in and for Orange County, Orlando, Florida; Kara Ann Felton, Chair, Juvenile 
Court Rules Committee, Tallahassee, Florida, and Ward Lee Metzger, Past Chair, 
Juvenile Court Rules Committee, Jacksonville, Florida; and Mikalla Andies Davis, 
Staff Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Florida, 
 
 
Responding with comments