# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC21

- 284

____________
IN RE: AMENDMENT TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 6
- 10.3. April 15, 2021
PER CURIAM. On its own motion, the Court amends rule 6

- 10.3(d) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(d). The Business Law Section of The Florida Bar recently adopted a policy regulatin g the composition of faculty at section

- sponsored continuing legal education programs. Subject to certain exceptions, the policy imposes quotas requiring a minimum number of “diverse” faculty, depending on the number of faculty teaching the course. The p olicy defines diversity in terms of membership in “groups based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and multiculturalism.” The stated goals of the- 2

- policy are “eliminating bias, increasing diversity and implementi ng tactics aimed at recruiting and retaining diverse attorneys.” The Court recognizes and is grateful for the Bar sections’ important contributions to the legal profession in our state. And the Court understands the objectives underlying the policy at is sue here. Nonetheless , certain means are out of bounds. Quotas based on characteristics like the ones in this policy are antithetical to basic American principl es of nondiscrimination. Cf. Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306, 3 3 4 (2003) (“To be narrowly tailored, a

race
- conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system

. . . .”) ; Regents of University of Cal. v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 307 (1978) (numerical goal or quota “must be rejected” as “facially invalid”). I t is essential that The Flori da Bar withhold its approval from continuing legal education programs that are tainted by such discrimination

. Accordingly, rule 6

- 10.3(d) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which governs course approval for continuing legal education, is amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring. The amendment shall become effective immediately and shall apply prospectively to any- 3

- course that has not already been approved as of the effective date

. The Court ex pects that The Florida Bar will amend its policies as necessary to ensure compliance. Because the amendments were not published for comment previously, interested persons shall have seventy

- five days from the date of this opinion in which to file
comments with the Court. 1 It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. LAWSON, J., concurs specially with an opinion. LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion.

1 . All comments must be filed with the Court on or before June 29 , 2021 , as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E

- Filing Portal (Portal) in accordance with In re Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida via the Florida Courts E

- Filing Portal , Fla. Admin. O rder No. AOSC13

- 7 (Feb. 18, 2013). If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in Florida, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the Portal. Comments filed via the Portal must be submitted in Microsoft Word 97 or highe r. See In re Electronic Filing in the Florida Supreme Court , Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC17

- 27 (May 9, 2017). Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand

- deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399

- 1927; no additional copies are required or will be accepted.- 4

- THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. LAWSON, J., concurring and concurring specially. I agree with the majority’s decision to adopt the amendment to rule 6

- 10.3(d) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, and with the majority opinion.
I write separately to further express my support for what I view as the well

- intended motivation underlying the decision of The Florida Bar’s Business Law Section to adopt a policy aimed at meaningfully broadening participation in the instructor pool for its educa tional offerings. At this Court’s direction, both the Bar and the State Court System have for many years worked diligently to assure a system of justice that is fair for all and that treats all individuals as equal under the law. This Court is steadfast i n its firm commitment to these ideals. I believe that these ideals are best advanced when individuals with very different backgrounds and experiences work together. This is because our experiential differences often result in starkly different modes of t hought and perception

— including deeply- 5

- divided perceptions surrounding concepts as facially straightforward as “fairness” and “justice.” It is when those who perceive and think differently come together in an environment of mutual respect and genuine conce rn for the well

- being of others that we can best gain the understanding necessary to fully advance the ideals underpinning our judicial system. It is essential that we continue this work, and I am grateful to the Bar and its sections for their continued p ursuit of these core ideals that are central to further advancing the cause of freedom for all, secured for all through the rule of law. LABARGA, J., dissenting. Because I do not believe that the enactment of a rule specifically addressing this issue is n ecessary, I dissent. I believe that a simple letter directed to the Business Law Section , communicating that such action may be in violation of U nited States Supreme Court precedent , would have sufficed. See e.g., Grutter v. Bollinger , 539 U.S. 306, 334 (2003); Regents of Univ

. of Cal. v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 307 (1978). Original Proceeding

– Florida Rules Regulating The Florida Bar- 6

- APPENDIX
Rule 6
- 10.3. Minimum Continuing Legal Education Standards (a)

– (c) [No Change] (d) Course Approval. Course approval is set forth in policies adopted pursuant to this rule. Special policies will be adopted for courses sponsored by governmental agencies for employee lawyers that exempt these courses from any course approval fee and may exempt these courses from other requirements as determined by the board of legal specialization and education. The board of legal specialization and education may not approve any course submitted by a sponsor, including a section of The Florida Bar, that uses quotas based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in the selection of course faculty or participants. (e)

– (g) [No Change]