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 regulating 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 policy 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 implementing 

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 issue 

here. Nonetheless, certain means are out of bounds. Quotas based 

on characteristics like the ones in this policy are antithetical to 

basic American principles of nondiscrimination. Cf. Grutter v. 

Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 334 (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”). It 

is essential that The Florida 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 expects 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. Order 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 higher. 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 

educational 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 in 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 thought 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 concern 

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 pursuit 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 necessary, I dissent. I believe 

that a simple letter directed to the Business Law Section,

communicating that such action may be in violation of United 

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]