from The Florida Bar News
A slimmed-down Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism and a clarification of the relationship between the commission, the Bar’s Committee on Professionalism, the Bar’s Henry Latimer Center for Professionalism and local professionalism committees are the results of a review of Bar and court professionalism efforts.
The Bar’s Program Evaluation Committee spent the past year studying how professionalism entities operate and interact.
Committee Chair Greg Coleman reported on the committee’s findings at the May board of governors meeting.
While the committee was doing its work, Supreme Court Justice Fred Lewis, chair of the Supreme Court commission, said the commission has been working on its membership and focus.
At its most recent meeting in May, the commission unanimously voted to recommend that its size be reduced and that the commission begin exploring new ways of instilling professionalism, including perhaps setting professionalism standards in Bar conduct rules.
“During our last meeting in Tampa, the commission itself voted unanimously to recommend to the court that it be restructured somewhat so it’s not so large. And they voted on what that structure will be,” said Lewis.
He said the idea is to focus more on members who are interested in and committee to professionalism rather than automatically appointing members based on the Bar or academic positions they hold.
As for the commission’s goals, Lewis said the group believes it has done a good job reaching out to law students while they are in law school, but now needs to extend that same effort to practicing lawyers.
“The commission unanimously voted to begin exploring whether it’s possible, whether it’s feasible, whether it’s a good idea to approach a formalization in a rule structure that would address professionalism issues that are not currently addressed by the Code of Responsibility,” said Lewis.
“At the federal court level, there are some local court rules of federal court that have introduced professionalism concepts into rules of the courts,” he said.
“Is that workable, is that acceptable, is that something that could be reduced for the state courts? Would it work, be accepted, and not turn every case into a battle over the rules of professionalism?”
Lewis said the commission wants to see what other state bars are doing, as well as federal courts, including the use of peer review committees and possibly other programs.
“The whole world is open. At least it is a world that is making steps forward rather than accepting the status quo. We’re concerned we’re not making as much progress as we could make,” said Lewis.
“In some areas in federal courts, they have a peer committee that if someone is misbehaving, the judge tells that person, ‘You have to go before that group of peer lawyers’ to discuss what that offending person has done,” he added.
At the board of governors’ meeting, Coleman presented recommendations for the way the commission, committee and center for professionalism should develop and carry out professionalism efforts. The board ratified the committee’s recommendations.
“We didn’t look at anything substantive, meaning telling them what they should be doing,” said Coleman.
“But we came up with a structure that we think works to try and enhance at least the sharing of information and at least gives guidance to these folks on how all this should work,” he said.
“The Supreme Court commission is the visionary group. They are basically strategic planning. But we have asked them to give specific directions,” said Coleman.
“When they come up with a concept for professionalism or for a program, they’re not just supposed to say, ‘We like this concept. Do something.’ We asked Justice Lewis, and he agreed to give specific directions as to how he wants that implemented and who should be responsible,” he said.
The plan also envisions that the commission will have a workshop every three years to review the state of professionalism in the legal profession.
The professionalism committee and the professionalism center will have supporting roles for the commission, according to Coleman.
The committee used to be charged with carrying out directions from the Bar president, Coleman said, but that was changed about six years ago when the committee was directed to carry out the commission’s plans.
The Program Evaluation Committee recommended, and the board approved, that the committee continue to carry out the commission’s bidding, but that it also again accept projects from the Bar president and the board of governors.
“The center is designed to help the committee,” said Coleman. “The center is a resource; they’re not supposed to be driving agendas. They can make suggestions, and they can make recommendations.”
According to information provided to the board, the center also “will serve as an archive and clearinghouse for exchange of information regarding professionalism efforts, past and present, and will work closely with the professionalism committees of both local/voluntary bars and circuit courts to promote the goals established by the Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism. The center will also work on special projects, as assigned by The Florida Bar president and Board of Governors.”
Local and circuit professionalism committees will assist in implementing professionalism programs throughout the state to meet the commission’s goals and also keep the center updated on activities, according to Coleman.
He also said that Lewis had reviewed and conceptually approved the committee’s recommendations.
As for the commission, Coleman said Lewis wants to reduce the size of the panel from around 42 to 15-20 members and do away with automatic members, which includes the Bar president and president-elect, the Young Lawyers Division president, the deans of the state’s law schools, designated judges, and others.