In re Florida Bar
In re Florida Bar
Opinion of the Court
The Florida Bar has requested that we amend Article XIX of the Integration Rule relating to group legal services, to authorize the imposition of a reasonable application and renewal fee for group legal services plans.
It is not unusual for The Florida Bar to charge a “user” fee for services to members of the Bar. Florida attorneys wishing to continue their legal education must pay a fee for their admission to programs sponsored by the Bar, and those wishing to identify and advertise areas of the law in which they have substantial experience and education must pay a registration fee under our “designation plan”.
While it may be true, as the Bar asserts, that direct pecuniary benefits from group representation accrues solely to the few attorneys who represent group members, we are convinced that group legal services plans fulfill an essential role which will benefit, with increasing intensity, both the entire legal profession and, more importantly, an increasing number of citizens who are unable to afford any other form of legal representation.
. We have exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to Art. V, § 15, Fla.Const.
. Although a considerable portion of the work connected with the approval and renewal of group legal services plans is assigned to the Group Legal Services Committee of the Bar on a voluntary basis, the Bar estimates that staff time will cost approximately $15,300 in 1977.
. Fla.Bar Integr. Rule, art. XXI, § 3, and Fla.Bar Integr. Rule By-Laws, art. XVII, §§ 5 and 9.
. It is noteworthy in this regard that the very first ethical consideration in our Code of Professional Responsibility recites that “[a] basic tenet of the professional responsibility of lawyers is that every person in our society should have ready access to the independent professional services of a lawyer of integrity and competence.” Fla.Bar Code Prof.Resp., E.C. 1-1.
.Subsequent to oral argument in this case, an amicus brief was filed by Legal Representation, Inc., challenging the authority of any state, either directly or indirectly through the Bar, to regulate group legal services plans on the grounds that the regulation of certain types of plans has allegedly been preempted by federal legislation. Amicus suggests that until this issue is resolved, a decision on filing fees by this Court would be premature. Our decision today obviates Legal Representation’s concern.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- In the Matter of THE FLORIDA BAR-Petition to Amend the Integration Rule to Provide for a Registration and Re-Registration Fee for Group Legal Services Plans
- Status
- Published