Tag Archive for: Florida Board of Bar Examiners

SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT NOVEMBER 11, 2010

Mr. Lars Soreide was invited back to speak at St. Thomas University School of Law’s Distinguished Speaker Series to discuss the growing problem of law applicants getting called in for investigative and formal hearings by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners for financial mismanagement. Topics discussed included: credit card debt, bankruptcy, foreclosure, short sales, student loans and over all financial responsibility. Strategies for formally documenting a record of rehabilitation and how to work with your creditors was also discussed. This was followed by a questions and answer session where applicants could ask questions with their specific concerns. For a more detailed explanation they were directed to contact him through his website www.FloridaBarHearing.com.

BAR APPLICANTS IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE

FINANCES CAN BECOME PROBLEMS FOR BAR APPLICANTS

          With increasing frequency I am representing more and more applicants in Florida Bar Investigative Hearings and Formal Hearings before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners with financial problems. These problems range from home foreclosure to unpaid credit card debt.  Applicants ask all the time,”How do I prepare for this hearing when I haven’t done anything to resolve any of these issues?”  Well, the fact of the matter is there are many things you can do. For instance,  it is up to the Florida Bar Applicant to establish a record of rehabilitation at the Investigative or Formal Hearing. One way that I advise my clients to establish financial rehabilitation, is to take a financial educational course. There are several that I find to be particularly helpful and accepted by the Board as establishing financial rehabilitation.  The classes have you set out a plan, which the Board appreciates, that shows how you are going to get out of debt and stay out of debt. If you are in the financial position to pay off debt and close out accounts, then I strongly suggest you do so and submit a newly amended financial affidavit reflecting your new plan.

            The Florida Board of Bar Examiners’ chief concern is that an Applicant isn’t going to turn their back on their creditors. Even if you pay $20 a month or any nominal amount you can afford toward your debt, it is more beneficial to you at your Bar Hearing because this acknowledges you owe the money and are working toward honoring your debts and not turning your back on your creditors. Why are they so concerned you may ask? Well, the answer to that question is simple, trust accounts. You will manage other people’s money as an attorney. If you can’t manage your own finances, don’t expect the Board to allow you to manage others.

            What if my home is in foreclosure or I am delinquent in my mortgage? The popular philosophy on this matter is completely opposite of that of the Florida Bar. Many people feel that in most instances it is financially irresponsible to continue to pay on a mortgage when the value of the house is underwater. The bank took a risk lending on the property just as you took a risk borrowing the money. It was an honest business transaction, with you on the one hand trying to make an investment in a property, and the bank on the other trying to make interest.  However, the Bar does not adopt this outlook and that is the only outlook you should be concerned with. Again, it goes straight to the core of financial responsibility. If you borrow money, you pay it back. If you can’t work out a new deal, then you at least need to stay in constant communication with your creditors and pay what you can. If you can’t pay anything, short sale the property. Also, put everything in writing, send letters so you have documented evidence at your hearing of this communication and work out plan.

            Do everything in your power to resolve all the financial issues before the hearing. Financial irresponsibility is one of the hardest bar hearings to defend because it is a problem today. If you committed a crime years ago, it is actually easier to defend because you have time on your side and it was an isolated incident, whereas with financial problems, as you sit before the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, that problem is still on going. For more advice on Florida Bar Investigative and Formal Hearings you should speak with a lawyer experienced with these types of issues. For a free consultation as to how to prepare for your Florida Bar Investigative Hearing or Formal hearing call, Lars K. Soreide, Esq., with the Soreide Law Group, PLLC. We represent applicants throughout the state of Florida. Our main office is located in downtown Fort Lauderdale. www.FloridaBarHearing.com (888) 760-6552.

The Disciplinary Actions for Substance-Abusing Attorneys Vary Widely

In the National Law Journal, Leigh Jones writes that an Indiana lawyer shows up at the courthouse drunk and gets into a car accident. His license is suspended, but stayed, for 180 days. A New Hampshire attorney and admitted alcoholic takes on what turns out to be a meritless case and conceals the defeat from clients. He is disbarred.

Also, an Iowa attorney and self-described alcohol abuser involved in a series of disciplinary actions, including taking a client’s money and abandoning a divorce case, gets a license suspension. He can apply to renew it in six months. Meanwhile, a Florida attorney who’s been sober and in a 12-step program since his arrest on drug charges in 2004 is disbarred for the six-year-old offense.

Each of these four cases involved substance abuse — and each had a very different outcome. The decisions, all from the past two years, show how broad the inconsistencies are in the way courts dole out punishment for substance-abusing attorneys. Whether because of uneven precedent, murky ethics rules or a hard-line stance against recognizing addiction as a mitigating factor in misconduct, courts can give attorneys little more than a slap on the wrist in some cases. In others, careers are finished.

In the Iowa case, for example, the court found that attorney Ross Hauser, who had practiced for 23 years, abandoned his client’s divorce action and failed to respond to disciplinary complaints. Records indicated that he admitted having a history of alcohol abuse. The Iowa Supreme Court in May, while recognizing the attorney’s multiple previous discipline problems, suspended his license with a chance for reinstatement after six months. The court rejected a recommendation by the state’s grievance commission that he provide ongoing evidence that substance abuse was not affecting his practice. The court wrote that it did not have a system in place to do so.

“There are concerns that attorneys are not being dealt with, one, in an enlightened manner and, two, consistently,” said Judge Robert Childers, chairman of the American Bar Association’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. He sits on the Tennessee Circuit Court’s 30th Judicial District, based in Memphis.

In New Hampshire, William Conner took on a case representing a couple suing a contractor over the construction of their home. Court records said the lawyer, who admitted that he was an alcoholic and had a previous public censure, failed to pursue the case, which was later determined meritless. The court said he also hid from the couple that the case had been dismissed. The court ruled that, although alcoholism can be a mitigating factor, disbarment was the only appropriate punishment for him.

But, Indiana attorney Peter Katic appeared in court with a blood-alcohol content more than twice the legal limit and was involved in a car accident while intoxicated, according to court records. The Indiana Supreme Court last year suspended Katic, who had previously served as a judge and had been disciplined twice for judicial misconduct, for six months. It stayed the suspension provided that he meet the monitoring requirements of the lawyer assistance program.

Bill Weigel, president of the National Organization of Bar Counsel, recognizes the inconsistencies in how disciplinary bodies and courts deal with substance-abuse problems. Because the cases are so “fact specific,” consistency can be difficult to achieve, he said. “These cases are so situational.”

Richard Baron would like to think that courts have become more enlightened about attorney addiction, but he’s not convinced. For 25 years, Baron has represented attorneys, most with substance-abuse issues, in disciplinary actions. In August, he had one of the biggest surprises of his career. Although his client, Daniel Noah Liberman, had been drug- and alcohol-free for six years, the Florida Supreme Court disbarred him following his guilty plea to a 2004 drug trafficking charge. The court on Aug. 26 rejected a referee’s recommendation that Liberman receive a three-year suspension. He had no previous arrests or discipline problems. The court noted that he “had an illness; he was drug addict.”

Liberman, who had been supplying friends with small amounts of metham­phetamine and Ecstasy, was asked by a friend, who unbeknownst to Liberman had been arrested and was working as an informant, to supply him with Ecstasy for a party. The amount Liberman supplied met the limit for a trafficking charge.

In a dissent, Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente wrote that Liberman had accepted responsibility for his conduct, had gone into a rehabilitation program immediately following his arrest and always had tested negative on random drug tests. He was a supervising tutor for children at a charity serving poor and homeless people. The justice wrote that he had continued to work as a paralegal and was “a productive member of society.” She noted that there was no evidence that Liberman’s conduct had harmed any clients.

Even so, the majority concluded that only disbarment could “measure up to the gravity of a conviction for illegal drug trafficking.” The majority also determined that the mitigating circumstances were insufficient to warrant anything less than disbarment. Liberman did not respond to requests for an interview. Baron said the decision demonstrates a “hard right turn” by the court and ignores precedent in a strikingly similar case. “They were out to punish him,” Baron said.

PREVENTION VS. PUNISHMENT

There are about 45 lawyers assistance programs across the country, most of which work directly with bar counsel and courts to provide confidential support and facilitate addiction recovery through drug testing, 12-step programs and mental health assistance. In many states, they provide recovery “contracts” with attorneys, who agree to submit to monitoring.

John Clegg wishes he’d never gotten involved with a lawyers assistance program. The former partner at McGlinchey Stafford got help from the Louisiana program in 2006 for a cocaine addiction after firm leaders confronted him about his erratic behavior. His billing had become inconsistent, he was looking disheveled at work and he had behaved aggressively during a firm-hosted golf tournament, where he told an off-color joke that offended attendees.

Firm leaders and lawyers assistance workers held an intervention for Clegg, who admitted that he had used crack cocaine. He went to 90-day in-patient treatment, and once he got out, he returned to work at the firm under a five-year “contract” with the assistance program.

With his approval, program workers monitored his recovery and — because he had waived the program’s duty of confidentiality — they communicated with the law firm about his recovery progress. When he twice tested positive for drug use, however, the firm, compelled by its duty to its clients, alerted disciplinary authorities.

In July, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that, although assistance program volunteers and employees had a duty of confidentiality that participants can waive, that duty did not extend to law firms themselves. The court suspended Clegg for a year and a day and deferred all but six months on the condition that he continue treatment through the lawyers assistance program.

Clegg, who could not be reached for comment for this story, said at the time the decision was issued that he had planned to seek rehabilitation on his own before the intervention but decided to use the Louisiana program once co-workers confronted him. He made the wrong decision about getting help with the Louisiana program, he said. The ruling, he believes, served as a deterrent to getting help. “You’re just setting yourself up for discipline,” he said. “The only charges against me were because I was a [legal assistance program] participant.”

ABA RULES

A way to bring consistency to disciplinary actions involving substance abuse may be through the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Last year, the ABA adopted a rule that substance abuse and mental health professionals hailed as a victory.

The rule allows for the conditional admission to practice for law graduates who have experienced chemical dependency. It provides that applicants who otherwise meet requirements but could have been prohibited from admission because of past drug or alcohol problems can practice if they demonstrate rehabilitation.

Four states are considering adopting the rule. Eighteen already have similar provisions in place. The purpose of the change is to prevent applicants seeking admission to the bar from keeping their addiction and recovery a secret. Otherwise qualified applicants often do not disclose their problems for fear they will prohibit admission, said Childers, chairman of the ABA’s Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs. Childers pushed for the ABA’s new rule. “It encourages students to get help early on,” he said.

The new rule is not about coddling lawyers, he said. “This really is aimed a protecting the public. There are lawyers out there getting licensed with no conditions, no monitoring in place.”

Childers said he is aware of the Liber­man disbarment in Florida and is troubled by it. The commission will hold its annual conference in October. He expects much discussion about the Liberman case. “I’m hoping it’s an aberration,” he said.

Creating a rule to bring about consistency for existing attorneys is more difficult than dealing with attorneys seeking admission, Childers said. The facts of each case vary significantly, including whether there are prior sanctions, the number of misconduct claims, the degree of client harm and whether laws were broken. The key, he said, is to bring all parties to the table, including bar counsel, judges and health care professionals, and to work through the ABA commission’s “protocol” to create a proposal.

“I’d like to see absolute uniformity, but the facts of every case are different,” he said. “That’s why we have judges.”

This article is from the National Law Journal.

Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

Florida’s LOMAS program going strong at 30

LOMAS helps Florida attorneys with all aspects of law practice management  

The Florida Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance Service is celebrating its 30th anniversary this year writes Mark Killian for The Florida Bar News. The LOMAS program provides a wide range of law practice management information, services, and products to Bar members.

“Many lawyers lack the business management skills necessary to manage their law offices properly or market their law practices effectively,” said Jerry Sullenberger, a LOMAS practice management advisor.

The dirctor of LOMAS, Judith Equels, said the majority of law schools still do not teach practice management skills and best practices, such as trust accounting compliance, calendar control, human resources management, risk and conflict avoidance, client relations, and technology management.

Of the 30-plus state, local, and provincial bars that now have practice management programs, LOMAS is considered the granddaddy of the concept since the 1980 roll-out by The Florida Bar of a program offering law office management assistance.

In addition to on-site consultations, and presenting dozens of seminars each year, LOMAS responds to thousands of telephone calls and e-mails from Bar members annually on topics such as establishing and maintaining a conflict-of-interest system; maintaining a trust account; effective client communication techniques; effective docket control and calendaring procedures; as well as basic information on how to establish and operate a solo practice, including technology advice.

Norman Vaughan-Birch, the Board of Governor’s liaison to the LOMAS Advisory Board, thinks more lawyers should take advantage of the low-cost resources LOMAS provides — especially young lawyers striking out on their own in this down economy.

“It’s how you balance your budget; it’s how you create trust accounts, some of the things that are pitfalls for young lawyers,” Vaughan-Birch said. “LOMAS has all kinds of programs for sole practitioners.”

And LOMAS is not just for solos. Vaughan-Birch, the managing partner of the 18-lawyer Kirk Pinkerton firm in Sarasota, brought LOMAS in a year ago to give his office the once-over. Vaughan-Birch wanted to know if the firm was adequately staffed, if their administrative procedures were adequate, their technology up to date, and if there were more efficient or smarter ways to conduct business.

“It’s like an annual physical: They poke you everywhere,” said Vaughan-Birch, adding the cost was “relatively inexpensive, certainly compared to any of the large consulting firms that would come in and basically tell you the same things.”

Equels said LOMAS doesn’t soft-pedal the issues and challenges identified during a private on-site consultation.

“We conduct an in-depth review of the strengths and weaknesses of your practice, focusing on recommendations that help lawyers manage risk, cut costs, and improve profitability,” Equels said. “Our goal is to provide lawyers with the law practice management knowledge and tools to implement policies, processes, and procedures that will make the office run more efficiently and effectively.”

Equels said often the lawyers are already aware of the issues, but need assistance in identifying and implementing solutions. She said each consultation is tailored to address specific issues within the practice and that, in every case, the managing attorneys set the parameters of the consultations.

Vaughan-Birch said having LOMAS check out your operations is “absolutely one of the best investments you can make.”

In the Beginning
The late Sam Smith, former president of the Bar, in a speech to the Board of Governors in 1978, said that the Bar should offer “an ounce of prevention that potentially prevents this costly pound of cure,” according to retired Judge Walter S. Crumbley, a past chair of the LOMAS Advisory Board.

“His comment came during consideration of the 1978 budget when the Bar was considering a request for additional prosecutors for the disciplinary arm of The Florida Bar,” Crumbley said.

“Out of this comment and later committee work came the idea to create a membership fees-supported service dedicated to educating the membership on how to run a practice in an economical and professional manner that, hopefully, would slow down the number of grievance cases filed with the Bar’s Lawyer Regulation Department.”

Tampa’s David Shear, president of the Bar in 1979, once said the creation of LOMAS was one of the proudest moments of his administration.

“I had a vision that this program would really benefit lawyers, their practices, and the system,” Shear said.

LOMAS began operations in 1980 with a focus on conducting educational programs and on-site law office consultations.

LOMAS now promotes effective management techniques for both lawyers and support staff in a manner flexible enough to respond to the immediate demands of today’s ever-changing law office environment.

LOMAS’ goals all involve the principal objective of assisting attorneys in improving the management of their practices, including:

• To investigate, accumulate, and evaluate practice management information and technologies.

• To publish and distribute information and techniques relating to practice management.

• To increase awareness of professional liability and risk management procedures.

• To anticipate trends and problems in law office management and to advise the Bar’s leadership.

The Future
Equels joined the LOMAS staff in January 2000 after a 20-year career as a legal administrator with both large and small firms and as a private management consultant. With the retirement of longtime LOMAS Director J.R. Phelps in 2009, Equels was promoted to director. The program also is supported by practice management advisor Sullenberger, who has decades of experience in not only law firm administration but also technology systems management and training programs.

“As an administrator and then as a private consultant, I would frequently encourage attorneys and administrators to contact the LOMAS program for help with practice management, office management, marketing, budgeting, and personnel issues,” Equels said. “I was always surprised to discover how few Florida Bar members knew about this terrific member service. Today, we just keep working hard, as former PMAs have done in the past, to get the word out to members about what LOMAS has to offer.” 

LOMAS enters its fourth decade, its practice management advisors continue to operate by the original program concept of being “the ounce of prevention that prevents a costly pound of cure.”

This information was obtained from The Florida Bar News.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA’S SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 21 ATTORNEYS 8/31/10

It was announced on Aug. 31, 2010, on The Florida Bar’s websited that The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 21 attorneys, disbarring seven and suspending 11. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Three attorneys were publicly reprimanded and one was placed on probation. Two were ordered to pay restitution.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, fewer than five percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.

This information was obtained from The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

Florida Paralegals ask to be Bar Licensed and Regulated

Gary Blankenship wrote in his article for The Florida Bar’s, The Florida Bar News, that as part of the required three-year review of the Bar’s voluntary Florida Registered Paralegal program, the Bar is looking into the request by some paralegals that they be licensed and regulated by the Bar or the Supreme Court.

It was announced that The Bar Board of Governors, at its July 23 meeting, approved a recommendation from the Program Evaluation Committee to set up a nine-member committee to examine regulating paralegals.

“That program [FRP] is up for review right now. But the registered paralegals have requested that we look into requiring that they be regulated in some form or fashion, and their request specifically is that they be regulated by The Florida Bar or the Florida Supreme Court,” said board member Greg Coleman, chair of the Program Evaluation Committee, which will review the registered paralegal program.

Coleman noted that several years ago, paralegals went to the Legislature to request mandatory regulation. That measure died when the Bar agreed to study the issue, which led to the registered paralegal program.

“This time they came to us first. We had quite a long discussion,” Coleman said. “We think it is worthwhile exploring and think it’s something that should be discussed and vetted.”

It was announced that the new committee will include three members from the PEC subcommittee, three paralegals, and three others chosen by Bar President Mayanne Downs.

“The [PEC] motion was to have this committee appointed to explore this issue of paralegal regulation and anything else the president wants to throw into the mix,” Coleman said. “There’s a real threshold question on whether the Supreme Court can regulate paralegals, and that will be looked at.”

Notably, the board approved the recommendation by a voice vote.

Mark Workman, president of the Florida Alliance of Paralegal Associations, said regulation would protect the public by helping to crack down on unsupervised paralegals who do unauthorized legal work and also help in “setting educational standards, ethical guidelines and to enhance the public’s perception of who we are and what we can and cannot do.”

Workman also said, “We want to have a valid say in our direction . . . in the direction the paralegal profession goes.”

Workman added that his organization performed a survey of paralegals and the preliminary results showed 95 percent felt the $150, which is paid annually to the Bar by those participating in the Florida Registered Paralegal program, should be spent exclusively on matters to help and advance paralegals.

Ninety percent said paralegal representatives on the Bar’s FRP Committee should be elected by paralegals rather than appointed by the Bar; 87 percent said paralegals should have a voice in their profession, he said. Another 79 percent favor mandatory regulation of paralegals, but only 50 percent thought the Bar’s existing FRP program should be mandatory.

“We do want more control over our profession,” Workman said. “We believe that it is through the Supreme Court that we should be regulated; it needs to stem from the Supreme Court and not directly from The Florida Bar.”

Johnna Phillips, a former president of the Paralegal Association of Florida and a member of the Bar committee that came up with the current FRP program, said mandatory regulation is a logical step and not necessarily a major change from the current program.

It could be as simple as requiring that anyone using or given the title paralegal meet the education and testing requirements of the FRP program. That includes passing one of two nationally recognized paralegal certification exams.

It would also abolish the current grandfather clause, due to expire in another year, of the FRP program, she said.

“We would want something that is very similar to the provisions of the FRP program without the grandfathering,” Phillips said. “Candidates would have to meet the credentials of the FRP program at the time the sunset goes away. There would be a mandatory education requirement for those who call themselves paralegals.”

Paralegals wanted a mandatory scheme when the FRP program was set up, and accepted that as a first step, she said.

“I think mandatory would be the next reasonable step in the process,” Phillips said. “There are a whole host of other categories inside the legal team; legal secretaries and legal assistants are certainly part of the legal team. Our time is being billed out and clients should have some sense of assurance when they’re seeing time billed for a paralegal; it is truly someone who is a paralegal.”

This article appeared on The Florida Bar’s website.

The Soreide Law Group, PLLC,  represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

Social Networking Sites Can Affect Your Legal Career in Florida

SEBRING – Recently, in a Tampa Bay newspaper article, Brad Dikerson wrote that it boasts over 500 million users and is one of the most popular ways to stay in touch with family and friends in the 21st century.

These sites are accessed in a public domain and, therefore, certain comments that are posted on, say, a county official’s Facebook page, can be subjected to the state’s Sunshine laws.

But one of Facebook’s downsides is the harm it can potentially cause to public officials, those in the court system and also the media.

“Social networking sites can impact open government, and that’s both sides of open government,” said Jim Rhea, director of Florida’s First Amendment Foundation.

Public records include not only documents, papers and letters, but all other material, “regardless of physical form, characteristics or means of transmission,” according to Rhea.

This broad, encompassing definition of what exactly constitutes a public record was added back in the 1990s, as the world was entering the computer age, and electronic communications were as frequently used as the telephone, according to Rhea.

Things that a private resident might post on their Facebook page or a friend’s would ordinarily not have any impact. However, Rhea said, if several county commissioners were all “friends,” and making posts or sending e-mails about county affairs, then they would be in violation of Sunshine laws.

“Even if this is your private page, you’re still dealing with the transaction of official business,” he said.

Rhea added that there have been situations where officials try to delete these correspondences. Again, they would find themselves in violation because those e-mails and Facebook posts are now public records.

The issue of public records again came into the fold, especially since the defendants in Teen Court are all juveniles and, therefore, their identities are kept confidential, according to Germaine.

Jerome Kaszubowski, who works in the local clerk’s office, said he researched the possibility of establishing a Facebook page almost 10 months ago. One of the biggest issues was over public records in relation to social networking sites.

Concerns included what could happen if someone who had access to the clerk’s page got on and left possibly inflammatory comments.

“There’s no telling what kind of junk that people could throw out there,” Kaszubowski said.

Lawyers have certain guidelines they must follow when it comes to social networking sites, as directed by the Florida Bar Association.

They are allowed to have the sites, as long as they are used “solely for social purposes,” according to the Bar’s guidelines.

If a page appears on a site such as Facebook and is used to promote an attorney or firm, it is subject to all lawyer advertising rules, which include no misleading information and no “visual or verbal portrayals that are false, misleading, manipulative or confusing.”

Florida judges are a different matter. In November, a Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee of the Florida Supreme Court issued opinions on a number of issues related to social networking sites.

One of those was whether a judge may add attorneys as “friends” on his or her social networking site, and whether lawyers could, in turn, add them.

The committee said no on this issue.

In reviewing it, the committee found that by judges adding attorneys as Facebook “friends,” they would be in violation of one of the court’s canons, according to the opinion dated Nov. 17, 2009.

That canon states, “A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judges or others, nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”

In its opinion, the committee thought that judges having lawyers as friends on their social networking site would give the impression, “that these lawyer ‘friends’ are in a special position to influence the judge.”

An evolving medium

While there are numerous advantages to social networking sites, those in positions of governing, judging and newsmaking have to be increasingly careful that they adhere to all rules relating to public records and public information.

As more and more users flock to sites like Facebook, those rules will continue to evolve and what is considered public and private information will undoubtedly change.

Soreide Law Group represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

Florida Lawyers Assistance

Florida Lawyers Assistance, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed in 1986 in response to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate that a program be created to identify and offer assistance to bar members who suffer from substance abuse, mental health, or other disorders which negatively affect their lives and careers (Bar Rule 2-9.11). Florida Lawyers Assistance or FLA receives it’s funding from The Florida Bar, however it is an independent organization.

It is of utmost importance to the FLA to the protect the confidentiality for those attorneys who contact FLA for help. Confidentiality in voluntary cases is protected by a written contract with The Florida Bar which guarantees the confidentiality of FLA records, as well as by Bar Rule 3-7.1(j), Chap. 397.482-486, F.S., and other state and federal regulations. Law students, attorneys, judges,  and support personnel who seek the assistance of FLA need not worry that FLA will report them to the Bar, the Board of Bar Examiners, or their employer. Information is shared only if the participating individual signs a waiver of confidentiality. FLA’s primary purpose is to assist the impaired law student, attorney, or judge in his or her recovery.

It is of importance to note that Florida Lawyers Assistance takes the firm position that substance abuse, compulsive behavior, and psychological problems are treatable illnesses rather than moral issues. Their experience has shown that the only stigma attached to these illnesses is an individual’s failure to seek help. FLA believes it is the responsibility of the legal community to help their colleagues who may not recognize their need for assistance.

Support Meetings

Through its over 300 volunteer legal professionals, there are over 30 weekly support groups throughout Florida for lawyers, judges, and law students. Some of the groups focus on substance abuse and are attended by legal professionals in recovery or who want to learn more about the recovery process. Other groups deal with mental health issues or dual disorders. These groups meet each week for approximately one hour.

For those dealing with mental health issues such as stress, anxiety, depression, bi-polar disorder, dual diagnoses, or other compulsive disorders, FLA also sponsors support meetings. These meetings are run by licensed mental health professionals to whom a nominal fee is paid by the participants. As with the chemical dependency support meetings, the groups are confidential unless reporting is a requirement of a probation or conditional admission.

Judges, attorneys, and law students recovering from substance abuse, or those who are interested in entering the recovery process, are invited to attend an FLA attorney support meeting whether or not they have disciplinary or bar admission problems or not. Particular issues affecting the recovering lawyer and the maintenance of their recovery while dealing with the pressures and ethical questions in the practice of law or the bar admission process are regularly discussed. The groups are confidential, and no record of attendance or issues raised is reported to FLA or to the Bar (unless required by terms of probation or conditional admission).

If your drug and alcohol abuse problems have created an issue with the Florida Bar or the Florida Board of Bar Examiners you should speak to an experienced Florida Bar defense lawyer to obtain more information on Florida Lawyers Assistance. Call (888) 760-6552 for a free consultation.

SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 20 ATTORNEYS 5/25/10

On May 25, 2010,The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, announced that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 20 attorneys, disbarring six and suspending eight. Some attorneys received more than one form of discipline. Five attorneys were publicly reprimanded and three were placed on probation.

Court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam. Historically, less than 5 percent of disbarred lawyers seek readmission.

As an official agency of the Florida Supreme Court, The Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida.

Soreide Law Group represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services or to speak to an attorney please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINES 28 ATTORNEYS 4/29/10

It was announced through The Florida Bar, the state’s guardian for the integrity of the legal profession, that the Florida Supreme Court in recent court orders disciplined 28 attorneys, disbarring seven and suspending 18. There were some attorneys who received more than one form of discipline. Three attorneys were publicly reprimanded. Two were ordered to pay restitution.

As reported in The Florida Bar, as an offical agency of the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with administering a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for the 88,000-plus lawyers admitted to practice law in Florida. Since Aug. 1, 2007, case files have been posted to attorneys’ individual Florida Bar profiles and may be reviewed at and/or downloaded from The Florida Bar’s website, www.floridabar.org.

The court orders are not final until time expires to file a rehearing motion and, if filed, determined. The filing of such a motion does not alter the effective date of the discipline. Disbarred lawyers may not re-apply for admission for five years. They are required to go through an extensive process that rejects many who apply. It includes a rigorous background check and retaking the bar exam.

Soreide Law Group represents those seeking admittance to the Florida Bar, and existing lawyers, for both investigative hearings and formal hearings in front of the Florida Bar. For more information about our services or to speak to an attorney please visit: www.floridabarhearing.com or call (888) 760-6552.