Summary
The Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt proposed amendments to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-6.1 that would have removed the deferral of certain government lawyers from the aspirational pro bono goal and mandatory reporting requirement. The Court held that government attorneys prohibited by statute, rule, or regulation from practicing law outside their government employment must remain deferred, while emphasizing that permissible pro bono activities that improve access to courts are encouraged.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court of Florida had authority to expand the pro bono program to encompass activities not directly related to services for the courts and the legal needs of the poor.
- Whether Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-6.1 should be amended to remove the deferral of government lawyers who are prohibited by statute, rule, or regulation from practicing law outside their government employment.
Holdings
- The Supreme Court of Florida lacks authority under the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to expand the pro bono program to cover uncompensated public service activities that are not directly related to services for the courts and the legal needs of the poor.
- Government attorneys who are prohibited by statute, rule, or regulation from practicing law outside their government employment must remain deferred from the pro bono requirements of Rule 4-6.1.
Key quotations
“Because we do not have the authority to expand the pro bono program to cover activities that are not directly related to the legal needs of the poor, we conclude that government attorneys who are prohibited by statute, rule, or other regulation from the practice of law must continue to remain deferred from providing pro bono legal services pursuant to rule 4-6.1.” (at 446)
“Rather than place government attorneys in the awkward position of trying to reconcile a pro bono obligation with the restrictions of their employment, we conclude that the current system whereby government attorneys are encouraged to engage in a wide variety of pro bono activities that increase knowledge about the legal system and access to courts, but are deferred from the requirements of rule 4-6.1, is preferable.” (at 447)
Factual background
Florida's pro bono program deferred government lawyers who were prohibited by statute, rule, or regulation from practicing law outside their government employment. The Standing Committee reported that government attorneys were participating in numerous pro bono programs and recommended eliminating the deferral from Rule 4-6.1. The court concluded that the existing deferral remained necessary because some government attorneys continued to be legally barred from providing legal services outside their official government functions.
Procedural history
The Standing Committee filed a report recommending removal of the deferral of government lawyers from Rule 4-6.1's aspirational pro bono goal and mandatory reporting requirement. The proposed amendments were published, comments were filed, and the Supreme Court of Florida heard oral argument. The court declined to adopt the proposed amendments.