Case Name: THE FLORIDA BAR. In re PETITION TO AMEND the RULES OF the SUPREME COURT of Florida RELATING TO ADMISSIONS TO the BAR-RESIDENCY
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1978-05-12
Citations: 358 So. 2d 1362
Docket Number: No. 53265
Parties: THE FLORIDA BAR. In re PETITION TO AMEND the RULES OF the SUPREME COURT of Florida RELATING TO ADMISSIONS TO the BAR-RESIDENCY.
Judges: OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 358
Pages: 1362–1363

Head Matter:
THE FLORIDA BAR. In re PETITION TO AMEND the RULES OF the SUPREME COURT of Florida RELATING TO ADMISSIONS TO the BAR-RESIDENCY.
No. 53265.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 12, 1978.
Russell Troutman, President, Winter Park, Robert L. Floyd, President-elect, Miami, Raymond W. Royce, Palm Beach, and L. David Shear, Tampa, Members of The Board of Governors, and James P. Holla-way, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.
Thomas R. Caruso, Ville Platte, La.; Jay H. Beckerman, Tallahassee; and Larry S. Stewart, Miami, amici curiae.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this proceeding we have considered a petition of The Florida Bar to amend both Section 19 of the Revised 1977 Rules of the Supreme Court of Florida relating to admissions to the Bar and Section 10(a) of the Rules and Regulations of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners.
The proposed change would require applicants to be residents of Florida for at least six calendar months immediately prior to filing their application for admission to the Bar or to state that the applicant intends to maintain residence in Florida for a period of at least six calendar months, commencing not later than two months after the date upon which applicants would first take the Florida Bar examination. To comply with the residence, the applicant would be required to be physically present in this State for at least 150 days during the six-month period of residence.
Upon consideration of the petition, briefs and arguments we have determined that the proposed residency requirements should not be adopted.
Accordingly, the petition is denied.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
BOYD, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
ALDERMAN, J., concurs specially with an opinion.