Opinion ID: 1580181
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: This Court Has a Duty to Supervise The Florida Bar

Text: The Florida Bar is an official arm of the court. R. Regulating Fla. Bar, ch. 1, Intro. Indeed, the Board's actions are subject always to the direction and supervision of the Supreme Court of Florida. R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-4.2(a). Therefore, as the administrative head of the Bar, this Court not only has the authority, but the duty, to require the Bar to follow its own bylaws and policies. Every day, the Bar holds attorneys accountable for their actions in compliance with the rules of The Florida Bar. See generally R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-3.1 (designating the Bar as an agency of this Court for the purpose of enforcing the rules of conduct for attorneys). When these rules are not complied with, there are disciplinary consequences to the lawyers. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 3-5.1 (listing the disciplinary consequences to lawyers who are found guilty of violating the rules). It is not too much to ask for the Bar to comply with its own requirements when we expect lawyers to comply with the requirements of the Bar. See R. Regulating Fla. Bar 1-11.1 (explaining that the Bar's bylaws govern the method and manner by which the requirements of the Bar's rules are met). The majority concludes that this Court should not require the Bar to comply with its own policies and bylaws because the Bar has the authority to act in regards to sections and, therefore, its actions are not ultra vires. See majority op. 191-92. I do not agree with this conclusion or the particular use of the terms authority and ultra vires that the majority employs to arrive at its conclusion. Authority is defined as [t]he power to command, enforce laws, exact obedience, determine, or judge. American Heritage Dictionary 142 (2d coll. ed.1991). And, as the majority notes, ultra vires is defined as unauthorized; beyond the scope of power allowed or granted by a corporate charter or by law. Majority op. at 191 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1559 (8th ed.2004)). However, the majority's use of these terms does not acknowledge that certain requirements, such as compliance with rules, must be met for the exercise of authority to be legal and proper. For instance, a police officer has the authority to conduct searches but not before fulfilling the procedural requirement of obtaining a valid warrant. See generally Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 100 S.Ct. 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979); see also Word of Life Ministry, Inc. v. Miller, 778 So.2d 360, 363 & n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (Even if those voting on May 24, 1978, had been authorized to elect directors, the elections were void for failure to observe restrictions imposed by the articles of incorporation which required directors to be members of the corporation; electing individuals as directors did not confer membership because of specific bylaw procedural requirements for membership). Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that the Bar only has the authority to approve a section's amicus brief when, in doing so, the Board complies with all applicable bylaws and standing board policies. [16] In particular, I respectfully disagree with the majority's statement that the Court will not interfere with or micromanage the activities of the Bar's sections, or the approval of those activities by the Bar, unless the Bar's actions regarding the scope of the activities of its voluntary sections are clearly outside the Bar's authority. Majority op. at 191. This statement is overly broad because there is nothing outside the Bar's authority, as the majority uses the term authority, when it comes to the activities of the sections. Sections are created or abolished by the Bar's Board as deemed necessary or desirable. R. Regulating Fla. Bar, Bylaw 2-7.3. The sections' bylaws, which define the scope and purpose of the sections, are approved by the Board. R. Regulating Fla. Bar, Bylaw 2-7.1. And the sections, which are integral parts of the Florida Bar, must work under the Board's supervision to accomplish their goals and purposes. R. Regulating Fla. Bar, Bylaw 2-7.2. But the majority's statement indicates that this Court will never act to supervise the Bar in its actions relating to sections. As the administrative head of the Florida Bar, we simply cannot abdicate our duty to supervise the Bar. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. (The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.); Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So.2d 913, 920-21 (1979) (explaining that the nondelegation doctrine prohibits the delegation of constitutional functions to others).