Court Opinion

ID: 9655288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:04:58.921143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:17.308990
License: Public Domain

CANADY, J.,
dissenting.
From the grant of exclusive regulatory authority in article V, section 15, Florida Constitution, the majority unjustifiably derives and asserts a type of exclusive judicial authority that is sui generis. Neither the majority nor the respondents have identified any precedent in any other area of the law for the assertion of what amounts to exclusive issue-of-first-impression jurisdiction. In asserting this unique jurisdictional claim, the majority departs from the framework previously established under rule 10-7.1(d)(3) and rule 10 — 9.1(c) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar— a framework which acknowledges the dichotomy between the regulatory process and judicial proceedings in which private parties seek relief. I would quash the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim of unauthorized practice. I therefore dissent.