Y2K, JNCs, MDPs - who knew?

Well, Y2K has finally come and gone. The most anxiously awaited New Year of any of our lives, for sure. The year of the most hype, and the most fear, seems to have fizzled on both counts.

A few years ago, I started buying into the hype, and dreamed about exotic ways to spend New Year's Eve 2000. As the day drew nearer, I had not yet made plans. All of the exotic trips seemed overpriced, and I was resistant to being held hostage to that. Being in the midst of the Bar presidency helped make the decision. In this job, being on the road all the time suddenly made staying home look like a vacation. As December 31, 1999, finally arrived, the world watched beautiful displays of fireworks in every time zone (Paris was my favorite), giving an armchair traveler a glimpse of celebrations around the globe. And what did I finally choose to do? I spent New Year's Eve at home with the people I love. At midnight we watched Miami's own stupendous fireworks display over Biscayne Bay and Miami Beach from our 23rd floor terrace. It was a great beginning to the new millennium.

A Pause to Reflect

For me at least, the night the millennium turned put the importance of loved ones and making the most of our brief time here in exceptionally sharp focus: as time marches on, and our children reach adulthood, we realize that our legacy is not what we do every day but whether we leave the world a better place. Our responsibility to our profession is no different. Recently, the Bar lost several outstanding leaders including Bill Colson and Don Gifford, longtime members of the Board of Governors, and Sonny Yahr Schneider, one of the most dynamic presidents of the Florida Association for Women Lawyers, Miami Chapter. While their deaths saddened all, we will always be grateful that their lives made our profession better; our lives must do the same.

For me, the New Year marked a midway point in my Bar administration. As one would have expected, it's passed in a whirlwind. When I became Bar president six months ago my dear friend and mentor, Chesterfield Smith, warned me that "there are a lot of things you want to accomplish, but don't take on too many projects ... leave room for the ones that take you on."

This year, several issues took all of us on: the Bar is now taking a close look at fundamental issues ranging from how we select judges to how we structure law firms. It is my hope that wherever you stand on these questions, you view them, as Sonny, Don, and Bill would have, from the perspective of a lawyer responsible for improving our profession and not merely a practitioner benefitting from it. Our children, and the Bar leaders that devoted their lives to these goals, deserve no less.

Here are three issues that have dominated my administration and that you will be hearing a lot about in the months to come.

Merit Selection v. Elections

By the time you read this magazine, you may have seen in the Bar News coverage of the Bar's Board of Governors vote on the position it will take on merit selection and retention of trial judges in the fall elections. The Board's 34-9 vote means that the Bar will advise voters to support local referenda adopting merit selection as a basis for filling trial court judicial vacancies. This was not a decision lightly considered or easily reached.

A special committee was appointed to study this issue. The question before the committee was whether the Bar is to advocate the current hybrid system for selecting trial court judges, the merit selection and retention system, or simply to educate the public on both systems. The committee held open forums and listened to hours of statements from attorneys and judges throughout the state. I personally sat and listened to most of them. I want to thank all of the lawyers and judges who spent their time explaining their views on which system of selecting our judiciary they preferred and which system they felt the Bar should advocate. All of those statements were transcribed and are available for your review. Like me, you might be surprised by the range of views expressed at the hearings.

At first, I thought I saw a split between large counties and small. Lawyers from small counties principally believed that they knew enough about their judges to elect them while those from large counties believed that the election process provided too much opportunity for abuses at the hands of fund-raisers and public relations people. But, as usual, Dade County bucked the trend and split on the subject. By far, the most outspoken group was the Cuban American Bar Association. They vigorously opposed merit selection and retention. On the other hand, the Dade County Bar Association board of directors voted 12-11, after a full Saturday of debate, to endorse a position in favor of merit selection and retention. In Miami at least, the debate goes on and on.

Next fall, we will all have the opportunity to vote on the system in local option elections. Whatever your view, I urge each of you to spend time talking with your friends and neighbors, particularly nonlawyers, about the many issues that inhere in the merit selection/ election debate. The link between how we choose and who we choose is inescapable. Your vote will affect our system for years to come.

JNC Issues

This year, the judicial nominating process probably got more attention than ever before: What started on a low note ended on a high one. Initially, newspaper articles talked about potential "shadow JNC panels" and limiting appointments to nominees "ideologically compatible" with the Governor's Office. After a strong reaction from around the state, I met with Governor Bush and had a constructive and lengthy dialogue. In the end, he wrote an open letter to all attorneys and JNCs, calling for more diversity and reaffirming his commitment to a well-rounded judiciary. In January, Carol Licko, general counsel for the Governor, spent the day at the JNC Institute in Miami, with more than 75 commission members. During that day, numerous proposals were made on ways to make the system even better. Ms. Licko enthusiastically endorsed the proposals and has since reported that the Governor embraced the proposals with equal enthusiasm.

Let me assure you that I will continue to work on this issue, and I ask you all to join me. As lawyers we have an obligation not just to scrutinize but to participate in the selection process. We have an obligation to encourage the best applicants to apply and we have an obligation to encourage diversity among those applicants. The Governor has invited JNCs to send him more diverse candidates and invited us to watch his selections in the years to come. We will do just that. There is nothing more critical to our justice system than the selection of a quality, qualified judiciary and its ability to remain independent.

Multidisciplinary Practices

And, finally, "MDP" has gone from an unknown acronym to a household (or at least law office) word. The ABA shocked a sleeping profession into awareness last June when its Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice released findings which included a proposal to change our current rules which prohibit the sharing of fees between attorneys and nonattorneys.

Florida once again took a leadership role in examining the issues surrounding the future of the practice of law, and the potential melding of our profession with other vocations, by stopping the ABA vote last August and commissioning our own intensive study. Our MDP Committee has created two comprehensive position papers which you will see in this issue, one representing the arguments opposing MDPs, the other in favor of MDPs. At the ABA's midyear meeting in Dallas, expert after expert proclaimed these two reports to be among the finest available and urged other states to use our reports as the basis of their study. My sincere thanks to each of the committee members who put in countless hours preparing these reports for all of our benefit.

The Board of Governors has not yet taken a position on our own study commission reports. The ABA's Special Commission on MDP now says that it will submit new proposals by April. If the Board's preliminary discussion on February 5, 2000, in Tallahassee is an indicator, the Board debate I have scheduled for April 7, 2000, in Tampa will be lively to say the least. Please make the time to read the reports in this issue and let me or your Board representatives know where you stand. I truly believe that the future and fundamental nature of our profession may hinge on how we respond to these revolutionary proposals.

If nothing else, the turning of the millennium should have given us all some perspective. We will need it as we confront the daunting issues ahead.