Florida bar board certification: taking the high road.

It is a rough road that leads to the heights of greatness." Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Epistles, 84, 13

Certification in Florida is 20 years old, and we have come a long way. In many respects, the story of the journey is quite remarkable, involving the participation and, in some cases, the blood, sweat, and tears of many fine lawyers and the Bar staff. Most things worth having or achieving in life do not drop into our laps. More often, it takes skill, effort, diplomacy, and stamina to achieve important goals. By understanding the road that brought board certification to its current status in Florida's legal landscape and the road that lies ahead for the Bar's leadership and the Florida Supreme Court in maintaining and improving the program, all Florida lawyers should take pride in the achievement of board certification and encourage others to support this program. Lawyers who are or who may become eligible as specialists should be inspired to make the commitment to themselves, their families, their colleagues, and their clients to become board certified in one or more areas of law. Like the development of the board certification program, the road will not be easy. However, as the Bar leadership, justices of the Supreme Court, and many volunteers who have worked on this important program thus far have confirmed, it is worth the journey!

Vocal Advocates for Specialization

In a speech to the National Conference of Bar Presidents in August 1966, on Increased Availability of Legal Services Through Specialization, former Florida Bar President Chesterfield H. Smith wisely envisioned specialization as both "desirable and inevitable" and that its acceleration would "at least mitigate the existing deficiency in available legal services." (1) "A man ahead of his time, he recommended a relaxation of then existing prohibitions against advertising in the Canons of Ethics to permit a "restrained and dignified announcement of specialization" suggesting it "might well give a potential client some assistance in intelligently selecting a proper lawyer." (2)

Smith found that the profession's resistence to specialization created a "quandary of the public in choosing an individual lawyer without knowing the branch of law to which he restricts his practice" and, therefore, to have theeffect of "lowering the public's view of the legal profession as a whole." (3) Smith advocated "bringing more intelligence into the initial attorney-client contact" as a "a small step forward ... in solving the most monumental problem facing the bar--that is--to demonstrate to the average citizen the tremendous area of unavailed legal service which could be beneficial to him if utilized, and to so structure the legal profession that effective legal services at reasonable cost are available to every citizen who has a legal problem." (4)

When Burton Young became president of The Florida Bar in 1970, he was absolutely convinced that specialization was an "idea whose time had come." It soon became apparent that Mr. Young's enthusiasm for the concept was not shared by the majority of the Bar's leadership. (5) The Florida Bar was invited by the American Bar Association to become one of the pilot states in certifying attorneys, but Young was not able to convince the Board of Governors to accept the ABA's offer. Most board members thought the concept of specialization was unpopular with "grassroots lawyers" and believed there would be great resistence to competency testing and CLE requirements.

The Board of Governors did agree, however, to the appointment of a blue ribbon five-year planning committee with a mandate to review the subject for further consideration. In the April 1971 issue of The Florida Bar Journal, the committee's report indicated that "specialization is an extremely important possible future development in the field of law" but the committee "did not feel that there was any present desire on the part of the leadership of The Florida Bar to pioneer in the field of specialization." (6)

Chief Justice Warren Burger generated further impetus for certification, particularly in civil trial, in a lecture delivered at Fordham University Law School in 1973. Expressing his deep concern over the quality of some trial lawyers practicing in U.S. courts, the Chief Justice spoke about the English system of advocacy training, involving a period of apprenticeship with an established barrister, and asked what can we learn? First, he observed that "lawyers ... cannot be equally competent for all tasks in our increasingly complex society." Secondly, "legal educators can and should develop some system whereby students or new graduates who have selected, even tentatively, specialization in trial work can learn its essence under the tutelage of experts, not by trial and error at clients' expense;" and third, "ethics, manners and civility in the courtroom are essential ingredients and the lubricants of the inherently contentious adversary system of justice." (7)

Dean Robert B. McKay of New York University Law School observed that the legal profession has "marched up the hill of specialist certification only to march down again in the face of opposition from practitioners not discontent with the absence of regulation." (8) In response, Burger stated, "our commitment to the public and to the system of justice must not let us be marched down that hill any longer." (9)

Eventually, within The Florida Bar, the road began to turn. Specialization plan options were presented to the membership in 1974 and in a letter to Bar President Earl Hadlow dated February 8, 1974, Chesterfield Smith again spoke to the value of certification as then President of the ABA. "From every corner of both the legal community and the public, I hear questions as to whether or not the organized bar is doing all that it should to provide the kind and quality of legal services needed by the public. Your effort to regulate specialization in Florida is a substantial and positive response to these questions. It is a direct attempt to ensure to the public that the quality of legal services, at least in specialty areas, will be continually maintained and enhanced." (10)

Miami trial lawyer Barry R. Davidson envisioned specialization in Florida to be akin to an existing program in California which he distinguished by a single word--"standards." He saw such a plan, in contrast to what was then being discussed in Florida, to be the only way to accomplish the goals of specialization, which he described as a "maximization of excellence in areas of practice of law and a resulting increase of the quality of services rendered to clients." (11) According to Davidson, the California plan incorporated continuing regulation and control and included compulsory continuing legal education and maintenance of standards within a specialty area, which appeared to be an appropriate model for Florida. Davidson's vision was not without support, but it was an idea whose time had not yet come.

Designation Plan

On October 7, 1975, the Supreme Court of Florida approved a designation Plan. (12) In the Bar's petition to the Supreme Court for establishment of the Designation Plan, four goals were cited: 1) To improve the qualities of the services rendered by the legal profession; 2) to disclose the areas of a lawyer's specialization so as to enable the public to make a more knowledgeable and informed choice of attorney; 3) to permit a general practitioner to specialize more efficiently and to better compete with larger firms; and 4) to avoid unduly restrictive administrative machinery which might interfere with increased specialization. The plan was to be administered by a designation coordinating committee appointed by the president of The Florida Bar.

Designation was initially available in 21 approved areas of practice from which a member could select three, providing the member had practiced law at least three years and if, during the three years preceding application, the member had substantial experience in each area selected. Within three years of implementation, the Bar returned to the court for changes to the plan designed to strengthen and improve the criteria for participation. Pre-application CLE was initiated, and certificates of reference were also added as an element for renewal. (13)

In its time, the designation plan provided an answer to advertising opportunities: Lawyers could include their designated areas on letterhead, business cards, in the Yellow Pages, and other law listings. Designation Coordinating Committee Chair Earl B. Hadlow summarized designation as a means to "permit members of The Florida Bar to inform the public concerning areas of law practice in which such members have substantial experience or education. (14)

In less than three years from the implementation of designation, 31 percent of the total membership of The Florida Bar had elected to participate in the program. Approximately 40 percent of the in-state membership had designated, and over 60 percent of the eligible, potentially interested attorneys were participating in the plan. At that time, there were 22,588 members in good standing. (15)

The expansion of continuing legal education opportunities was a natural outgrowth of the Bar's early steps toward specialization. The number of seminars offered by The Florida Bar rose from six in 1974-75 to 51 in 1977-78. (16) While Florida Bar membership increased 23.5 percent in that time frame, Florida Bar CLE registration increased 298 percent. (17) Approval of CLE was the responsibility of the Designation Coordinating Committee, and it enlisted help from advisory committees to determine the credit worthiness of sponsor and member submissions.

In his report on designation, Hadlow surmised Florida's specialization efforts were evolving toward a "two-tiered" system. He characterized the Designation Plan as an "availability plan" as opposed to a competency plan then in effect in California. An availability plan permitted a lawyer with minimum experience to inform the public and other lawyers of the member's experience and availability for further practice in particular areas. The competency plan, on the other hand, was intended to impose rigid standards and include an oral or written examination. (18)

Hadlow predicted that should the U.S. Supreme Court eliminate all restraints on advertising by lawyers, then some of the incentive to enhance proficiency through CLE in exchange for permission to designate areas of practice will be removed. He concluded, however, that "knowledgeable experts in specialization have indicated that the Florida plan may be the best of the existing plans and hopefully it can evolve into an even better plan for the public and the bar." (19)

The Florida Designation Plan was the first program of its kind in the country and in 1976, The Florida Bar won a special project award from the ABA for this plan.

Certification in Sight

Having achieved an important step with the designation plan, the Designation Coordinating Committee began to focus more attention toward what it perceived to be a true specialization program. It turned to the ABA Standing Committee on Specialization and various specialization committees in other states. By January 1978, the Designation Coordinating Committee, with Barry Davidson as chair, presented a proposed certification plan to the Board of Governors and successfully secured the board's approval. (20)

For tax lawyer Sam Ullman, certification was a reaction to advertising. "After the Supreme Court said that advertising was a protected 1st Amendment right, (21) some of the ads we saw were unbelievable. Designation was suppose to be a hedge on that. In the beginning, you could voluntarily say you were a tax lawyer, a real estate lawyer and a trial lawyer. We'd look in the Yellow Pages and see all kinds of people who we knew didn't know income tax from thumbtacks advertising as tax lawyers. We felt the public was being misled. (22)

Ullman remembered it was during his year as chair of the Tax Section in 1977 when Bar President Russell Troutman came to the summer meeting and reminded the group about its vocal opposition to the designation plan. Troutman challenged the section to write a certification plan. Ullman appointed a committee. (23) and by November, the section had a plan and by January 1978, the section had secured the approval of the Board of Governors. (24)

"Of course, we were debating things like peer review, and how many hours would be required, how many years experience would be required, how often recertification should occur, if at all," Ullman remembered. "The certification plan was born in opposition to the kind of free advertising, free reign, unfair competition that was occurring in the Bar and a desire to raise the standard and let referral sources and the public know that there is a step higher." (25)

Tax certification was a natural specialty area and generally accepted. The movement in civil trial, however, reflected a more theatrical quality distinctly reflective of its proponents. Twenty-three years after a controversial debate at the Tampa Airport Marriott (then Host International) Hotel, Miami trial lawyer Barry Davidson recalled a turning point in the history of specialization in Florida: "It was in this very hotel that the concept of certification went to the Board of Governors. Just before the lunch break they voted it down. It was Larry Stewart who took David Shear over by the window and hung him upside down by his ankles, basically telling him what was going to happen if it didn't pass. We came back after lunch, somebody moved to reconsider and that's how that happened." (26) Davidson recalled another impetus for civil trial certification which was that the Southern District Court of Florida was already working to create a separate trial bar.

The year was 1979 and the Supreme Court of Florida had only days earlier (September 6, 1979) issued its opinion on the first petition for a certification plan. (27) The court concluded that "the proposal to grant general certification authority to the Board of Governors must be disapproved." The Court was clearly uncomfortable about the "pitfalls of protectionism" and "a procedure that might allow unfair advantage to one segment of the legal profession. (28) The issue before the Board of Governors at its meeting in late September then became whether to petition for rehearing for clarification in specific areas of the order.

In its decision, the court clearly recognized that the then existing designation plan did "not provide any means to measure competency in the designated field." (29) The court requested the Bar consider submitting a pilot program in the specialty area of taxation and explore the possibility of a pilot educational program for trial advocacy. On the latter issue, the court challenged the Trial Lawyers Section, the Academy of Trial Lawyers, and the law schools to consider a trial advocacy training program. Overall, the court was clear as to its "responsibility to ensure that the legal system of this state is responsive to public needs and that the lawyers of this state are competent to practice their profession. (30)

The Bar filed a motion for rehearing or clarification from the 1979 decision and requested the court temporarily suspend the order and establish a Supreme Court/Bar committee. Later that year, the court granted the Bar permission to submit a new permanent certification plan and designated Justice Ben F. Overton as the conferee for the court.

The Bar submitted another proposal, but in its May 1981 decision, the court was still unable to grant approval finding "the plan's administrative structure cumbersome and not sufficiently interrelated with advertising and designation." (31) In its opinion, the court spoke to the two-fold purpose of specialization. "First, specialization establishes goals and provides incentive for continuing legal education which should improve the competency of the bar; second, it identifies for people both within and without the profession those lawyers who have demonstrated special knowledge, skills and proficiency in a specific field." Quoting from an article by Marvin E. Frankel entitled Curing Lawyers' Incompetence: Premium Non Nocere, the court included in its opinion: "The significant qualities distinguishing good from bad lawyers--and, thus, the areas for truly major concern about `competence'--are matters of character, judgment, wisdom, morals, and attitude, not the business of technical proficiency." The court noted, "Technical proficiency without professional integrity still adds up to a bad lawyer." (32)

A Court/Bar Committee on Specialization (33) was subsequently appointed and with guidance from Justice Ben Overton, representatives from the trial and tax sections began to fine-tune the plan to comply with the court's order. One area of difficulty was the court's request that the new oversight board also oversee advertising. Justice Overton explained that because Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977), left to the states the regulation of advertising relating to the quality of legal services, and because certification and designation were designed to ensure quality and a proper means to advertise those services, a central board was necessary to properly regulate all three. (34) Although unsure of its role in advertising, the newly drafted plan established oversight responsibility in the Board of Certification, Designation and Advertising (BCDA). In January 1982, a redrafted plan with standards for both civil trial and tax law was approved by the court for implementation on July 1, 1982. (35)

Unable to find a practical niche in advertising oversight, the court eliminated this responsibility from the board's jurisdiction in 1987, shortening its title to Board of Certification and Designation (BCD). (36) The following year, the board's name was altered again, for the third time, when the court approved the continuing legal education requirement (CLER), assigned administration to the board and added `Education' to the title: Board of Certification, Designation and Education (BCDE). (37) The fourth transition occurred in September 1989, when the BCDE became the Board of Legal Specialization and Education (BLSE), and has remained as such to present. (38)

Certification Area Expansion and Program Growth

As a result of Florida's specialization pioneers, a "higher step" has become available for practitioners in 19 practice areas through the growth of the certification program since its introduction in civil trial and tax. By 1984, standards were in place for marital and family law. (39) In 1985, estate planning and probate, later renamed wills, trusts & estates, was in place. (40) Both criminal law (in trial and appellate)(41) and real estate were approved in 1986. (42) Workers' compensation was the last area of the 1980s, approved by the court in 1987. (43) A six-year gap then occurred before new areas were added. In 1993, appellate practice was in place (44) and in 1994, both health law and immigration and nationality were approved. (45) One of the more challenging years for the board, its committees, and Bar staff was 1995 with the addition of four new fields: admiralty and maritime; aviation law; business litigation; and city, county & local government. (46) International law (47) and elder law (48) followed in 1997; and the newest fields labor & employment law and antitrust and trade regulation were approved in 2000. (49) In 2003, construction law is the latest field to be presented to the court for approval.

The obvious issues on further expansion into new specialization areas requires marshaling volunteers and support for the new programs, consideration of availability of staff and resources, and how far the program will go into sub-specialties and areas of practice with small numbers of lawyers. Questions must be addressed, such as: Why should a legitimate specialty not be recognized just because the number of eligible lawyers is small? If the public and Bar benefit from the proliferation and identification of certified specialists, what does it matter if the number of persons qualified and certified is small? On the other hand, it is difficult to economically sustain and logistically manage programs with small numbers. Authorizing a subspecialty may affect certification in related areas, and these tough issues will not go away. The Bar leadership and court do not want to certify a specialty which will detract from the overall program or, worse, is doomed to fail or be decertified. These issues will be debated and addressed as the certification program continues to grow to accommodate new areas of legal practice and as it becomes even more important in our profession and to the public.

Phase-out of Designation Plan

Designation remained a part of Florida's specialization program for 14 years following approval of certification. While designation provided a safe stepping off point and transition for the ultimate move to a program with measurable requirements in competence, education, commitment to a specialty area, and professionalism, including testing and peer review, the leadership of the Bar recognized that designation did not ensure initial and continued qualification in a specialty area to the extent necessary to meet the objectives outlined by the Supreme Court. The two-tiered approach also proved to be confusing for legal consumers and advertising the distinctions, in the Yellow Pages, for example, cost prohibitive for the Bar.

The Tax Certification Committee was the first to request a policy decision by the oversight BCDA to prohibit members from participating simultaneously in both the certification and designation plans in the same area. The committee considered designation and certification as "identifiable levels of specialization as opposed to cumulative awards of accomplishment." (50) Unsure of its authority to enforce such a policy, the BCDA ultimately found the duplication of areas under both programs to be both confusing and unnecessary and therefore proposed eliminating designation areas as they were superseded by certification.

Eventually, given the gradual demise of participation in the designation plan and the confusion the system created for legal consumers, the fate of designation was conclusive. By April 1993, the Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of its Program Evaluation Committee to initiate a three-year phase-out of all 16 remaining designation areas with final termination on June 30, 1996. In approving the Bar's proposal, the court cited the Bar's findings that the designation plan was "confusing to the public and lacks qualitative attorney data; exhibits declining enrollment and support from within the membership of The Florida Bar; and reflects diminished utility while operating in conjunction with the Florida Certification Plan. (51) Accordingly, the designation plan was phased out in favor of expanding the certification program to more specialty areas.

What Have We Accomplished?

The Board of Legal Specialization and Education has the responsibility and authority to administer the program for the regulation of certification. (52) In preparation for this article and to assist in understanding the historical development of the certification program, the BLSE invited past leaders of the Bar, BLSE, and certification committees to comment on the issues of the past and present. With grateful acknowledgment for their service to the program and continued valuable input, we have incorporated some of the comments in this article. Other ideas and comments received from these remarkable individuals will add to the core of knowledge from which future decisions will be made. (53)

* Twenty years later, how do we describe certification's impact?

"Incremental," according to Miami trial lawyer Larry S. Stewart. "I don't think we've achieved anything close to what we thought we were going to achieve.... I see it as a positive and worthwhile program, I just don't see that the public has picked up on it to any significant degree."

According to Orlando lawyer Cheney Mason, the program has had a significant impact. "I'm a criminal trial lawyer and a divorce lawyer, so I'm in the pits all the time and people are constantly interviewing comparing different lawyers. Fees have increased and clients use the internet to find out what you've done and where you've been. Every lawyer I know that is board certified, no matter what the field, is extremely proud of it. It has become a real measure of who they are."

Miami appellate lawyer Roy Wasson thinks board certification in appellate practice has improved the quality of appellate lawyering for one specific reason--most appellate lawyers usually focus in one narrow subject matter area like personal injury appeals, or criminal appeals, or administrative appeals. For appellate practice certification: "You've got to bone up on different areas outside of your normal area, so you've got to learn more of a broad cross section in the subject matter of appeals, and that's bound to help."

Speaking on the effect of certification on referrals, Barry Davidson believes certification is very helpful. Knowing that someone "is board certified in a particular area and knowing that he or she has taken that extra step makes me more comfortable in making a referral."

* What about the perception that certification creates a higher standard of care in malpractice cases for board certified lawyers?

Steve Rappenecker, a Gainesville lawyer who is on the board of directors for Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company and the underwriting committee, responds: "Board certified lawyers are viewed far more favorably by us in terms of underwriting than the nonboard certified attorneys."

Former Board of Governors member Manuel Morales, Jr., believes more credentials are always an advantage. "In fact, typical cross examination in a medical malpractice scenario when a physician is not board certified are questions addressing that very issue as to why he or she has not become board certified."

In 2001, BLSE Chair Elizabeth Russo wrote that board certification "is a positive factor in all aspects of a lawyer's career." If anything, board certification would be utilized as a strong point of emphasis for the defense in any legal malpractice suit. At least one legal malpractice insurer has taken the affirmative step of offering premium discounts for lawyers who have obtained board certification. (54)

* Are we where we ought to be?

According to Tampa lawyer Dan Burton: "I am surprised today that there are almost 4,000 lawyers, leaders of the Bar, former presidents, members of the Board of Governors, and others who have subjected themselves to the cost, time, and energy it takes to apply for certification and pass the examination. I think we have come a long way having only been doing this for 20 years--I'm very encouraged."

Former Bar President John Frost believes that the public does not understand board certification. We need to convey that it's "not only for your own benefit, but for the benefit of the profession; the public needs to know that you care enough that you want to be the best."

* How do we make board certification part of the fabric of lawyering in Florida?

Cheney Mason suggests: "Maybe it's time to get the Board of Governors and the leadership to fully embrace board certification and to indeed say, `okay, it's a good thing for the public.'"

In the Tax Section board certification is required for certain committee positions and moving up to the chair and chair-elect, according to Sam Ullman. "We view certification as a sleeping giant. We're still active and pushing members of the section to become certified ... because we believe that the bar can be raised and raising the bar is one of the purposes of The Florida Bar and Certification."

Jacksonville family lawyer Elliot Zisser believes that if you are over 50 and happen to be a good lawyer, you are probably already successful. "The economic incentive is going to have to come from those who are not yet successful--the younger members of the Bar--and from the public who is not yet aware of board certification to want to hire certified lawyers."

Orlando lawyer Gary Salzman, chair of the Business Litigation Certification Committee, pointed out that his 17-member law firm pays for its associates to apply for board certification and will give time off to study for the exam. Using the medical analogy, "Until the consuming public of legal services are routinely asking 'are you board certified?' you won't get the pull or the demand for certification. The solution is educating the public."

Jacksonville lawyer Jake Schickel observed that although board certification is part of the fabric in the medical profession, the legal profession has not yet arrived. "It's got to come from the leadership and the organization--the total aspect of the Bar. We're still struggling with the feelings and perceptions and antagonisms of a whole lot of people."

The Road Ahead: Potholes, Roadblocks, and Progress

Board certification in Florida has come a long way. Our pioneering program is acknowledged as one of the best programs in the nation, and has been blessed with wonderful, committed volunteers over the years and a dedicated and excellent staff.

Like all similar Bar committees, the BLSE now has term limits for its members. At six meetings a year, often the end of a board member's term comes about the time he or she has absorbed sufficient knowledge to understand the many facets of the job. Thus, while term limits broaden involvement of members of the Bar and introduce fresh blood, such limits also present a challenge for the BLSE.

The BLSE recently developed a communications committee to develop a long range plan for informing the Bar membership and the public of the existence and advantages of board certification. From its recommendations, the BLSE will develop an overall long range communications plan to be presented to the Board of Governors. The plan will set forth the goals and objectives of the board certification program in a manner that will provide the various committees in each specialty area with specific guidance for the execution of the important tasks of testing, certifying, and recertifying specialists in their respective areas.

Recurring difficult issues for the BLSE involve fairness of examinations, peer review, and practice experience requirements. The BLSE is committed to a fair and consistent application process with appropriate safeguards and appeals. The Florida Supreme Court has monitored the processes and provided guidance when necessary. Maintaining the quality of the lawyers who are certified while ensuring fair and open access to lawyers who can meet the eligibility requirements is the challenge, which entails a great deal of conscientious and difficult work by staff, the certification committees, and other volunteers.

The examination requirement presents a perceived obstacle to certification as well as logistical and administrative challenges for volunteers and staff. No one wants to take "another bar exam." That sentiment is understandable, because every lawyer in Florida has met that challenge, and most have vowed not to repeat the experience. However, the board certification examination is not another bar exam. It is a test carefully developed by peers in a specialty area designed to confirm competence in that specialty. The tests are not easy, but passing is attainable for a specialist. The committees agonize over the development of appropriate questions and then in grading them. Testing and scoring is accomplished in accordance with methods developed and monitored by the BLSE's testing consultant. And, there is an appeal process for those who feel they did not receive appropriate grades.

Peer review confirms an applicant's competence in and commitment to a specialty area with a level of professionalism that meets or exceeds the standards established by ethical codes. The applicant participates in the selection of lawyers and judges who will be involved in peer review, and the committees solicit responses from others who should know the applicant, such as opposing counsel, co-counsel, or judges before whom the applicant has appeared. Judicial peer review is particularly important in many areas of practice. If a question arises in peer review, the applicant has an opportunity to supplement with additional potential peer reviewers. To ensure full opportunity for peer participation, the peer review is confidential as to the source and the specific content of the review. The peer review system is not perfect, and confidentiality sometimes creates difficulty in appeals and responses to negative peer review. The BLSE and the certification committees are sensitive to these issues and work hard to ensure that the process for each applicant is not corrupted by malice or bias.

Different practice areas understandably have variations in their experience and practice requirements. Despite efforts to tailor practice requirements and to remain current with the times, issues will continue to arise. One such issue is the number of trials required for initial and recertification in civil trial. With mediation and other alternate dispute resolution coming to the fore, and the increasing costs of litigation, obtaining and maintaining the requisite numbers of trials is difficult, even for those who limit their practice to trial work. Further-more, strict construction would provide the same credit for a one-day trial as one that was years in preparation and three weeks (or more) in the courtroom. On the other hand, the certification committee and BLSE need to ensure that a certified specialist has and maintains the requisite experience in actual trial time to merit certified status. This issue will continue to receive further study in the future.

Regardless of how the BLSE proceeds on these and other issues, it is imperative for certification to be available to all lawyers who meet the criteria and are committed to achieve and maintain the standards of the program. The BLSE and the certification committees are committed to high standards to ensure the distinction of board certification is not adversely affected. For the program to have maximum effect, many more specialists must be motivated to achieve the standards and become certified. To do so, the program must maintain credibility and develop even more effectiveness in making certification meaningful and desirable. Expansion of the program into new specialty areas and the swelling of the ranks in current specialties would present additional challenges for management and recertification. These are the challenges of the present and future for those who lead the BLSE and the certification efforts of the committees and sections. If they do as well as the volunteers and staff of the first 20 years, the program will continue to prosper.

Conclusion

Board certification is a program whose value has been confirmed and reconfirmed by the leadership of the Bar and the Supreme Court. Countless hours by talented and dedicated individuals have brought the program this far. It is available and of value to the public when selecting legal counsel. It is available and of value for lawyers seeking confirmation and acknowledgment of their commitment to a specialty area, qualifications, and professionalism. And, it is available and of value to volunteers who are willing to serve on committees or to mentor or encourage those who should be certified. Participation in this worthy venture is a positive step on the road to a more honorable profession and a better climate for our justice system. Board certification is "taking the high road."

(1) Chesterfield H. Smith, "Increased Availability of Legal Services Through Specialization," remarks presented to the National Conference of Bar Presidents on August 6, 1966, Montreal, Canada. Reprinted 40 Fla. B.J. (December 1966).

(2) Id.

(3) Id.

(4) Id.

(5) November 21, 2002 letter from Burton Young to Dawna G. Bicknell.

(6) Id.

(7) Warren E. Burger, Special Shills of Advocacy, 48 FLA. B.J. 154-155 (March 1974).

(8) "Role of Graduate Legal Education in the Development of the Legal Specialist," paper prepared for symposium of ABA Special Committee on Specialization, New Orleans, December 1970, p. 2.

(9) Burger, supra note 7, at 158.

(10) Letter to Earl Hadlow, President, The Florida Bar, from Chesterfield H. Smith, 48 FLA. B.J. 194 (March 1974).

(11) Barry R. Davidson, A Brief for the California Plan, 48 FLA. B.J. 184 (March 1974).

(12) In The Matter of The Florida Bar, 319 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1975).

(13) The Florida Bar Re: Petition to Amend The Bylaws Under The Integration Rule of The Florida Bar (Florida Designation Plan), 368 So. 2d 1303 (Fla. 1979).

(14) "Florida's Designation Plan After One Year," by Earl B. Hadlow, p 1.

(15) Barry R. Davidson, The Florida Designation Plan: A Practical Approach to Legal Specialization, BAVLOR L. REV. 703 (Fall 1978).

(16) Id. at 704.

(17) Id.

(18) Hadlow, supra note 14, at 13.

(19) Id. at 16.

(20) Meeting of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, Regular Minutes, January 12-14, 1978, p. 2.

(21) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).

(22) On September 19, 2002, the Board of Legal Specialization and Education hosted a roundtable discussion and invited several members of The Florida Bar who were instrumental in the early development of certification in their respective practice areas. Comments by members present have been incorporated into this article.

(23) Members of the original drafting committee for the tax certification plan included Joel H. Sharp, Jr., Charles Egerton, Robert Muraro, and Samuel C. Ullman.

(24) Meeting of the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, Regular Minutes, January 12-14, 1978, p. 4.

(25) See supra note 22.

(26) See supra note 22.

(27) The Florida Bar Re Amendment to the Integration Rule (Certification Plan), unpublished case no. 54,081 (September 6, 1979).

(28) Id. at 2.

(29) Id. at 3.

(30) Id. at 6.

(31) The Florida Bar Re Amendment to the Integration Rule (Certification Plan), 399 So. 2d 1385, 1386 (Fla. 1981).

(32) Id. at 1386.

(33) Members of the Court/Bar Committee on Specialization were: Peter W. Zinober, Chair, Barry R. Davidson, William O.E. Henry, Lawrence G. Mathews, Jr., Justice Ben F. Overton, Stephen A. Rappenecker, Joel H. Sharp, Jr., Larry S. Stewart.

(34) Regular Minutes, Court/Bar Committee on Specialization Regulation, June 26, 1981, p. 2.

(35) The Florida Bar Re Amendment to Integration Rule (Certification Plan), 414 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1982).

(36) The Florida Bar Re Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 494 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1986).

(37) The Florida Bar Re Amendment to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 510 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1987).

(38) The Florida Bar Re Amendment to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar Chapter 6 (Legal Specialization and Education), 548 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 1989).

(39) The Florida Bar Re Amendment to By-laws of Integration Rule (Certification Plan), 453 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1984).

(40) The Florida Bar Re Petition to Amend the Bylaws Under the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar (Certification Plan), 469 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 1985).

(41) The Florida Bar Re Petition to Amend the Bylaws Under the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar (Florida Certification Plan), 487 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1986).

(42) The Florida Bar Re Petition to Amend the Bylaws Under the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar (Florida Certification Plan, 487 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1986).

(43) The Florida Bar Re Petition to Amend Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 508 So. 2d 1236 (Fla. 1987).

(44) The Florida Bar Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Chapter 6 (LSE), 621 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1993).

(45) The Florida Bar Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Chapter 6 (LSE), 641 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 1994).

(46) The Florida Bar Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 658 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 1995).

(47) Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar--Chapters 6 and 16, 702 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 1997).

(48) The Florida Bar Re Amendments To Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 697 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1997).

(49) Amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 763 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 2000).

(50) Minutes, Board of Certification, Designation and Advertising, September 24, 1982, p. 2.

(51) The Florida Bar Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, 627 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 1993).

(52) Rule 6-3.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

(53) The BLSE wishes to acknowledge and express its appreciation to the following individuals who either attended the September 19, 2002 meeting or submitted their remembrances for the development of this article: Louie N. Adcock, Jr., Daniel N. Burton, Jeffrey Michael Cohen, David Cook, Barry R. Davidson, Lewis W. Fishman, John W. Frost II, William O.E. Henry, Martin D. Kahn, Ann Loughridge Kerr, Edward F. Koren, Bruce Marger, J. Cheney Mason, Judge Daniel R. Monaco, Manuel R. Morales, Jr., Jeffrey L. Myers, C. Richard Nail, Harry A. Payton, Stephen A. Rappenecker, H. Hamilton Rice, James C. Rinaman, Jr., Elizabeth Koebel Russo, Donald J. Sasser, John J. Schickel, Larry S. Stewart, Marilyn Strauss, Judge Richard S. Thompson, Samuel C. Ullman, Norman Vaughan-Birch, Roy D. Wasson, Glenn M. Woodworth, Burton Young, Elliot Zisser.

(54) Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company offers board certified lawyers a 10 percent discount on malpractice premiums.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Truly Qualified Advocate.

During his address at Fordham, Justice Burger brilliantly stated: "A truly qualified advocate--like every genuine professional--resembles a seamless garment in the sense that legal knowledge, forensic skills, professional ethics, courtroom etiquette, and manners are blended in the total person as their use is blended in the performance of the function."

He went on to say that "if one were to undertake a list of the truly great advocates of the past 100 years, I suggest he would find a common denominator: they were all intensely individualistic, but each was a lawyer for whom courtroom manners were a key weapon in his arsenal. Whether engaged in the destruction of adverse witnesses or undermining damaging evidence or in final argument, the performance was characterized by coolness, poise and graphic clarity, without shouting or ranting, without baiting witnesses, opponents or the judge. We cannot all be great advocates, but as every lawyer seeks to emulate such tactics, he can approach, if not achieve, superior skills as an advocate."

Warren E. Burger, "Special Skills of Advocacy," 48 FLA. B.J. 157 (March 1974).

Did you know?

The certification program is financially self-sufficient and operates solely upon revenue generated through the application, exam, and annual fees of its participants. Revenue is also derived from the course evaluation process. All expenses of the program, including staff salaries, occupancy expense at Florida Bar headquarters, staff travel, supplies, printing, etc., are paid from program funds. The general revenue fund of the Bar does not support the activities of board certification.

Ralph Artigliere was appointed by Governor Bush in 2001 as Circuit Judge for the 10th Judicial Circuit after a 24-year career as a trial lawyer He received his B.S. degree from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969 and J.D. from the University of Florida in 1977. Judge Artigliere is board certified in civil trial law, a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, and a member of the Board of Legal Specialization and Education. He is the author of The Florida Bar's FasTrain manual entitled How to Write and Use Jury Instructions.

Dawna G. Bicknell is director of The Florida Bar Legal Specialization & Education.