Members must comply with trust accounting records requests: board prefers public reprimands be administered by the Bar president.

A Bar rule amendment clarifying that it is a matter of contempt when Bar members fail to comply with a subpoena for trust accounting records has been approved by the Bar Board of Governors.

The board, at its October 5 meeting, also approved a policy change and rule amendment ratifying that it is the Bar's preference that public reprimands be administered by the Bar president at board meetings.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The board also got previews of several rule amendments likely to come up for a vote at future meetings.

The trust accounting matter involved amendments to Rule 3-7.1(d)(f) and Rule 5-1.2(g). Board member Andy Sasso, chair of the Disciplinary Procedure Committee, said the changes delete redundant language and clarify that Bar members must comply with subpoenas for trust accounting records or be considered in contempt of court.

The changes to Rule 3-7.1 provide that the agency seeking contempt must show that no good cause exists for failing to comply with the subpoena and provide that the Supreme Court may suspend an attorney who fails to comply--provisions that had been in Rule 5-1.2.

The amendments now go to the Supreme Court for its review.

On the public reprimand issue, the board approved changes to Rule 3-5.1(d) and Standing Board Policy 15.92. Those provide that the Bar's preference is to administer public reprimands before the board, usually during one of the next three meetings after a final order is issued by the Supreme Court.

Those changes track recommendations made by the Special Commission on Lawyer Regulation, and mirror the board's policies since last year when it began doing virtually all public reprimands before the board. Several years ago, the board had decided to allow reprimands to be carried out in local venues, with the result that few reprimands were done before the board.

But the special commission found many times the local reprimands were never done and that appearing before the board had a larger impact and hence a greater deterrence on lawyers.

While the rule must go to the Supreme Court, the Standing Board Policy Change is effective 30 days after the board's action.

Sasso presented several items to the board which may come back for final votes in December or at later meetings. Those include:

* Two options for changing the way civil penalties in unlicensed practice of law cases are collected. Currently, such fines are collected by the Supreme Court, but the court has found it onerous to administer that process and asked the Bar to look into it. The Standing Committee on UPL has proposed two solutions for the board's consideration. The first would have the civil penalty changed to a cost payable to the Bar, and the second would have the court delegate the collection process to the Bar.

* An amendment to Rule 1-3.10(b) to provide that a lawyer licensed in another state but living in Florida may appear pro hac vice in a Florida case if the lawyer has applied to join The Florida Bar and has not previously been denied admission to the Bar. Current rules prohibit an out-of-state lawyer living in Florida from appearing in any Florida case prior to joining the Bar. Board member Ben Kuehne said he would like the issue examined beyond the rule change, adding, "I have some issues about lawyers who may maintain a residence in Florida and maintain an active license in another state and may want to appear in a Florida case."

* An amendment to Rule 3-7.7(c)(6) to clarify when the court enters a disciplinary order with a financial judgment, the order shall specify to whom costs are awarded, to whom restitution is owed, or to whom a fee is ordered forfeited.

* An amendment to Rule 5-1.2(b) dropping the requirement that original canceled checks be maintained in trust accounting records, since many banks no longer return canceled checks. The change allows legible copies to be maintained in lieu of the original check.

* An amendment to Rule 10-7.3 authorizing the Bar to conduct discovery when someone found to have committed the unlicensed practice of law fails to pay a civil penalty imposed by the Supreme Court. The rule also allows the penalty to be discharged if the person is found unable to pay.