Pass the Florida Bar and you can practice law in the Sunshine State.
That’s the way it’s been. Florida doesn’t allow legal reciprocity, which allows attorneys from other states to practice full-time without passing that state or locale’s Bar exam. Florida is among the dozen or so states that don’t offer the service.
However, there’s been much talk the past few weeks about changing Florida’s law. Making it so non-Florida attorneys could practice within the state by “admission by motion” — by meeting certain criteria, with passing the Florida Bar exam not among them.
The idea hasn’t exactly been met with glowing praise from many within Northeast Florida legal circles.
“What I am hearing from others and my personal opinion is about the same,” said John DeVault III, managing director of The Bedell Firm and a former Florida Bar president. “There’s no real benefit to the citizens of Florida and clients … I don’t see any real benefit.”
Well, maybe a couple for attorneys.
Large firms with a presence outside Florida could stand to benefit. Even more so, a bulk of attorneys looking to retire to sunny Florida and “hang a shingle,” as he describes it.
“California and Florida have always resisted,” said DeVault of offering reciprocity. “People always want to retire here.”
Jake Schickel, a partner at Coker, Schickel, Sorenson, Posgay, Camerlengo & Iracki, said most attorneys he knows are against the idea of admission by motion.
“I do not think it would be appropriate in Florida,” he said.
Many people think there already are enough lawyers in Florida — adding a wave of new attorneys without Florida knowledge could end up hurting clients, he said.
Although those are his feelings, he went on to say he would further study the issue.
That was the suggestion made by Florida Bar President Ray Abadin. In late July, an admissions subgroup of the state Bar’s Vision 2016 Commission issued the preliminary report suggesting the Florida Board of Bar Examiners recommend and the state Supreme Court adopt an admission of motion rule.
Under the rule, attorneys could be admitted based on meeting eligibility requirements that include practicing law for five of seven years before applying; producing evidence of having good moral character; being in good standing in all jurisdictions where licensed; and not failing the Florida Bar exam within the past five years.
In the days after the report, enough concern and pushback from attorneys across the state caused Abadin to send a message to Bar members clarifying no action had been taken on the issue.
Instead, he wrote, the topic was part of a broader analysis — the Vision 2016 group’s goal is to look at the current and long-term challenges the legal profession faces.
The report backs its stance based on clients’ needs no longer being confined to a single state along with advances in technology and communication. Multijurisdictional practice, it went on to say, “has become the norm rather than the exception” and Florida attorneys are at a competitive disadvantage because they can’t cross borders.
The ideas within the report generated discussion — much of it negative — but Abadin wants attorneys to study and provide opinions before any action is taken.
Schickel said a long-range planning committee for the Bar less than a decade ago brought up the idea of the admission change, but it went nowhere. Since then, there have even been further limits on pro hac vice — the legal term for a judge allowing outside attorneys to take up a case without being licensed in that state. Is he surprised the issue is back?
“Frankly,” he said, before pausing. “Yes.”
Not everyone is completely against the idea, though.
Former Jacksonville Bar Association President Michael Freed can see possible benefits and said it’s appropriate for the state organization to take a look at admissions.
“I’m not hesitant in and of itself,” said Freed, a Gunster shareholder. “I’d like to think there is a way to provide opportunities to people.”
Freed has firsthand experience with the issue. He passed the Maryland Bar before moving to Washington, D.C., where he also was sworn in. When a Florida opportunity came, though, he had to take and pass the Florida Bar — each part of it. He had just passed other Bar exams, but still had to take the multistate and ethics portions of the Florida Bar, rather than simply the state-specific section. Changing it so only the state-specific part would be required is an idea, he said.
“I’m sensitive to the challenges there can be for someone already admitted,” he said. “I think we need to make sure it’s the right hoops they’re jumping through.”
Freed said he understands the historical hesitancy — Florida being a retirement state, the risk to consumers from attorneys without specific state knowledge — but proper and ongoing oversight could help.
“We have to maintain our standards,” he said.
That’s one fear of Schickel’s. Allowing so many new attorneys into the market who don’t have proper Florida legal knowledge could bring down professionalism and ethics. That rings especially true for Northeast Florida, he said, with attorneys who are collegial and have been brought up to practice law here.
Despite all the talk, the idea is still preliminary. Like Abadin reminded members, there is no action to be taken. The local representation to the Bar Board of Governors is well aware of the situation, though.
Michael Tanner, shareholder at Tanner Bishop, and Fred Franklin, Rogers Towers shareholder, said they’ve heard from members. And almost all of the reaction has been against the idea.
Both said they hadn’t come to a decision on how they would vote if it came up.
“We know as a board, this is an issue of … greater sensitivity to the members,” said Tanner. “No decision is going to be made before hearing from the public.”
After that, it would go to the Florida Supreme Court for a vote.
Those in opposition are confident it won’t come close to that — and conversation could end sooner rather than later.
“I think the board will take action, probably at its next meeting,” said DeVault. “I’d be very surprised if not.”
@writerchapman
(904) 356-2466