SC18-1176 Amendments to the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220
Articles,  Blog

SC18-1176 Amendments to the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220


>>ALL RISE.
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW
IN SESSION, ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEAD, DRAW NEAR, GIVE
ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE
HEARD.
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS
HONORABLE COURT.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE
SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA, PLEASE BE SEATED.
>>WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA
SUPREME COURT.
THE FIRST CASE ON THE DOCKET IS CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.220.
>>GOOD MORNING.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS SCOTT DIMOND OF THE PROCEDURAL RULES COMMITTEE.
WILL COUNSEL MAKE THEIR OWN
APPEARANCES?
>>KATHLEEN MCLEROY ON BEHALF OF PRO BONO LIQUID SERVICES
COMMITTEE.
>>GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR AND
JUSTICES WHICH DONNIE MCKENZIE ON BEHALF OF THE PRO BONO
STANDING COMMITTEE.
IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, SPLIT
TIME FOR THE INITIAL PRESENTATION.
I WILL LIMIT MY REMARKS TO
DISCUSSING CONFIRMATION OF THE
COURT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT THESE REVISIONS, THEY ARE PROCEDURAL
NATURE, NOT SUBSTANTIVE.
THE QUESTION OF DESIGNATING
SPECIFIC RECIPIENTS IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE RULE.
BOTH COMMITTEES RESERVED A
SHORT REBUTTAL PERIOD TO
ADDRESS REMAINING CONCERNS THE COURT MAY HAVE.
BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, THE
PROPOSALS WE ARE HERE TO
DISCUSS PAST BY SEVERAL RULES BY RELATIVELY WIDE MAJORITY,
19-5, ALL TO BE APPROVED BY THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS UNANIMOUSLY,
SO WHILE THERE IS NO MINORITY OPINION WITH REGARD TO THE
COURT AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THIS
RULE IT IS A RELATIVELY SMALL
MINORITY AND IT IS PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE CONCERN THAT IT
IS SUBSTANTIVE RATHER THAN
PROCEDURAL IN NATURE.
>>IF YOU WERE IN THE PROBATE RULES AND THE PROBATE RULES
COMMITTEE PASSED OR RECOMMENDED
A RULE AND THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS HAD UNANIMOUSLY SENT IT ON TO US RECOMMENDING IT
THAT FOR TRUSTS, WHERE THE
ORIGINAL PURPOSE IS NO LONGER
ABLE TO BE CLOSED AND THE PROBATE JUDGE, TO ALLOW FOR
SOME SORT OF SIMILAR PURPOSE,
WOULD THAT BE A SUBSTANTIVE
PROCEDURAL RULE THAT PASSED THAT?
>>IF THERE’S ALREADY AN
EFFECT, IF YOU HAD THE SAME
CIRCUMSTANCES WE HAD HERE WITH CONSENT OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED
AND KNOW ONE LOSING THE FUNDS
THAT WERE ISSUED IT WOULD NOT
BE SUBSTANTIVE ANY MORE THAN THIS RULE.
>>HOW IS THAT THE CASE OF THE
LEGISLATURE PASSED THE
IDENTICAL STATUTE AND IT IS ONE OF THE ONES CITED BY THE PARTY
736-041371.
>>THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A
RULE DICTATING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
>>THEY PASSED A STATUTE,
ACTING ON CONSTITUTIONALLY
PASSING THAT STATUTE.>>I DON’T KNOW THAT
SPECIFICALLY BUT THE CONTEXT
THAT EVERYONE AGREES TO THE
DONATION YOU DON’T NEED THE LEGISLATURE IN ACTIVE BECAUSE
THERE IS NOBODY AGREEING TO IT
ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THE FOLKS IS WILL IT WAS CAN’T CHANGE THEIR MIND, THE
LEGISLATURE IN THAT CONTEXT,
THERE IS NO CONSENT TO THIS, IT
IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSENT AND IT MAY BE SUBSTANTIVE.
IN OUR CONTEXT WE TALK ABOUT A
RULE WHERE EVERYBODY AGREED THE
FOLKS GETTING THE MONEY AGREED AND THE COURT CONSENTED TO IT
AND IN THAT CONTEXT THERE IS NO
ONE WHOSE WILL IS NOT TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT AND –>>SOME PEOPLE HAVEN’T AGREED.
AND THE PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF
IT, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE
RECEIVING MONEY, THEY HAVE NOT CLAIMED IT.
>>I DISAGREE RESPECTFULLY.
THOSE PEOPLE HAVE CONSENTED
BECAUSE THIS MONEY IS BY DEFINITION A LENDER TO THE RULE
RESIDUAL.
IT OCCURS WHERE YOU TRIED TO
GIVE IT AWAY AND FOR WHATEVER REASON CAN’T BE GIVEN AWAY.
FOLKS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO GET
IT NEVER GET IT.
MONEY YOU CANNOT GET IS THE SAME AS MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE.
>>WHY SHOULDN’T IT BE EVEN IF
IT IS RESIDUAL SOMETHING THE
LEGISLATURE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING WHAT HAPPENS WITH
RESIDUAL FUND?
>>ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED
AGREED TO IT. IT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN IF THE
PLAINTIFFS AGREED TO GIVE IT A
DEFENDANT AGREED TO GIVE IT AND
THE COURT APPROVES IT, WHOSE RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED UPON?
IF YOU READ THE MINORITY
POSITION, SOMEBODY AS MONEY IS
REMOVED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND I REJECT BOTH PARTS OF
THAT.
NOBODY’S MONEY IS REMOVED
BECAUSE THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER GET THIS MONEY BY
OPERATION OF THE CLASS-ACTION
METHOD AND CONSENT IS IMPLICIT
BECAUSE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE AGREED ON THEIR BEHALF AND
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO
CONSENTED TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE CLAIM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>>OF THE LEGISLATURE PASSED A
LAW THAT SAYS ALL UNCLAIMED
FUNDS IN THE COURT REGISTRY AFTER A YEAR IS TO ACHIEVE THIS
TO BE DEPOSITED WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES WOULD THAT BE A SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL LAW?
>>THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE
BECAUSE THE MONEY IS THERE AND
IT WOULD OTHERWISE NOT BE GIVEN AWAY AND THAT HAPPENS NOW.
THIS MONEY DOESN’T GET IN THE
WAY, IT GOES TO —
>>HOW CAN WE PROCEDURALLY PASS SOMETHING THE LEGISLATURE HAS
DETERMINED WHERE IT IS SUPPOSED
TO GO?
>>NO ONE ELSE HAS GIVEN IT AWAY.
ALL THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO
GIVE IT AWAY.
THE LEGISLATURE DOESN’T GIVE IT AWAY, ANY OTHER ASPECT OF THE
CLASS-ACTION RULE, THIS IS A
CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE
DEFENDANT AGREES TO DO THIS, NOT ONLY AGREES TO GIVE IT TO
CHARITY BUT WHICH CHARITY TO
GIVE IT TO.
THE PLAINTIFFS AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVES WHO REPRESENT
THE MEMBERS WHO AREN’T THERE
FOR PURPOSES OF ALL ASPECTS OF
THE CLAIM INCLUDING COMPROMISED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THEY
AGREE AS WELL.
OF THE DEFENDANT AGREES, THE
COURT APPROVES IT, WHO’S MONEY IS TAKEN AWAY?
THERE’S NOTHING FOR THE
LEGISLATURE TO DEAL WITH
BECAUSE THE PARTIES HAVE ALREADY DONE IT.
OF THE PARTIES DON’T DO IT WE
HAVE A STATUTE, LEGISLATURE
SAYS ANY UNCLAIMED FUNDS SITTING AROUND FOR ANY PURPOSE
AFTER FIVE YEARS, THAT THE ONLY
ALTERNATIVE CLAIMANT HERE BUT
THAT IS NOT SOMEBODY WHOSE RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED
BECAUSE IT REALLY COMES INTO
EFFECTIVE THERE ARE NO OTHER
CLAIMANTS AND THIS WHOLE MECHANISM PROVIDES FOR THESE
PEOPLE TO AGREE TO DO SOMETHING
THEY ALL WANT TO DO.
AND THEY ARE IN WRITING, ANY CONTRACT WOULD BE AMENDED BY
BOTH PARTIES AGREED IN WRITING.
ALL THE PARTICIPANTS IN THIS
PROCESS –>>YOU ARE BEYOND YOUR INITIAL
TIME.
LET’S KEEP GOING A WHILE BUT
YOU ARE USING THAT TIME.>>I WANT TO ADDRESS THE
QUESTIONS.
I WILL CONCLUDE AT THE END OF
THE DAY THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS TO THE MINORITY POSITION.
THE BODY’S MONEY IS TAKEN AWAY
WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND THAT
IS NOT TRUE IN EITHER CASE. IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY BECAUSE
THEY HAVE A CLAIM, THEY NO
LONGER CAN GET IT AND NEVER GET
IT WHICH IS WHY YOU HAVE THESE DISTRIBUTIONS.
IS NOT WITHOUT THE CONSENT
BECAUSE DULY APPOINTED CLASS
REPRESENTATIVES ENTITLED TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF HAVE
AGREED.
NO ASPECT OF THE MINORITY
POSITION IS ACCURATE. NOBODY’S MONEY AND EVERYBODY
AGREED TO GET IN THE WAY.
>>KATHLEEN MCLEROY OF THE
LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE. MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES, WHICH
I COCHAIR AND WORKED ON THIS
RULE AND THE PROPOSED RULE IS AN EXTENSION OF THE PRIOR WORK
OF THE FLORIDA ACCESS TO CIVIL
JUSTICE COMMISSION AND FLORIDA
CIVIL RULES COMMITTEE. THE RULE BEFORE THE COURT IS A
COLLECTIVE PRODUCT OF THOSE TWO
EFFORTS.
THE COMMITTEE’S GOAL WAS TO CRAFT A RULE THAT WOULD
INCREASE ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND
ASSIST THE COURT’S DEALING WITH
RESIDUAL FUNDS WHILE NOT IMPAIRING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS
OF CLASS MEMBERS.
>>MAYBE YOU COULD ADD A LITTLE
PERSONAL CONFUSION ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES IN THE WAY THEY
ARE DISCUSSED BUT IT LOOKS TO
ME LIKE WE COULD ALL AGREE THAT
THE FIRST PART OF THE PROPOSED RULE IS PROCEDURAL.
IT TALKS ABOUT TIMING AND HOW
THINGS ARE DONE PRIOR TO THE
JUDGMENT THIS HAPPENS, THE REPORT IS GOING TO BE DONE.
THAT WOULD BE PROCEDURAL,
CORRECT?
>>CORRECT.>>THEN YOU GET TO THE UNLESS
OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY
GOVERNMENT LAW IT SHOULD BE IN
THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO APPROVE THE TIMING METHOD OF
DISTRIBUTION FOR RESIDUAL FUNDS
AND THAT KIND OF THING.
BOTH SIDES SEEM TO CITE TWO TREATISES THAT SUGGEST THIS IS
THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW, IN OTHER
WORDS THAT IN THESE CASES A
JUDGE JUST HAS DISCRETION TO DEAL WITH RESIDUAL FUNDS.
IS THAT CORRECT OR NOT?
>>IT GIVES THE COURT
DISCRETION TO DO THAT.>>IT SEEMS THIS PROCEDURE IS
FOLLOWED IN CASES THROUGHOUT
FLORIDA AND THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY ALREADY BECAUSE FOLKS RECOGNIZE SUBSTANTIVELY THIS IS
SOMETHING THE JUDGE HAS
DISCRETION TO DO WITH RESIDUAL
FUNDS.>>THAT IS CORRECT, STATE AND
FEDERAL COURT THAT PRESENT DO
PROVIDE FOR THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES. IN 2016 THEY SUGGESTED RULES
LIKE THIS TO GIVE THE COURT THE
COMFORT THAT IS APPROPRIATE
PARTICULARLY TO USE IT FOR ACCESS.
>>IS THERE ANY REPORTED
FLORIDA DECISION IN WHICH THE
DOCTRINE WAS APPLIED AND THE DISPOSITION OF RESIDUAL
CLASS-ACTION FUNDS?
>>FLORIDA STATE COURTS.
IN WHICH THE DOCTRINE HAS BEEN USED, I BELIEVE THERE ARE A
NUMBER OF THEM ON THE FEDERAL
SYSTEM AS WELL.
I KNOW OF NO CASES WHERE A COURT SAYS THERE ARE A FEW
CASES WHERE COURTS HAVE SAID
THIS PARTICULAR CHARITY IS NOT
CLOSELY CONNECTED ENOUGH WITH THE CLASS FOR IT TO BE AN
APPROPRIATE RECIPIENT BUT I’M
AWARE OF WHERE THE DOCTRINE HAS
BEEN STRICKEN IN FLORIDA.>>SO THE CONFUSING PART TO ME
IS UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY
GOVERNING LAW WHICH SEEMS TO
RECOGNIZE THE LAST PART IS DEALING WITH SUBSTANTIVE LAW,
BUT WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE
REFERRING TO?
IS JUST AN OUT MEANING THIS PARAGRAPH DOESN’T MEAN ANYTHING
OR IS — ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
A SPECIFIC LAW THAT MIGHT APPLY
TO A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CLASS-ACTION THAT WOULD DIRECT
A DIFFERENT OUTCOME?
>>THERE WAS A DIFFERENT
SUBSTANTIVE LAW OR THE ORDER DEALT WITH PARTICULAR RESIDUAL.
IN SOME CLASS-ACTION SETTLEMENT
IT SAYS THE RESIDUAL GOES BACK
TO THE DEFENDANT IN THAT CASE. THIS RULE SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED
AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE
SUGGESTING OR FOR INSTANCE THE
AWARD THE COURT ENTERED GAVE THE FUNDS TO A PARTICULAR
ORGANIZATION AS PART OF THE
RESIDUAL THAT THIS LATER
CONSENT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE AND TO THE
EXTENT THERE ARE ANY PROVISIONS
OF THE LAW THAT WOULD PREVENT
THIS OCCURRING THAT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THIS RULE TO
ABROGATE THOSE PARTICULAR
STATUTES?
>>RECOGNIZES EXISTING LAW ALLOWING THE JUDGE TO RECOGNIZE
THE DISCRETION AND AT SECTION
UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY
LAW IS THE CORRECT WHAT THIS RULE IS TRYING TO DO IS GUIDE
THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE WHO
IS FACED WITH A SITUATION WHERE
THEY DECIDE WHAT EQUITY REQUIRES WITH RESPECT TO
RESIDUAL FUNDS TOWARD THE LEGAL
SERVICES OR FLORIDA BAR
FOUNDATION?>>TO SUGGEST THAT IS
APPROPRIATE, TO GIVE THEM
COMFORT IT IS NOT INAPPROPRIATE
TO DO THAT AND IT IS OUR BELIEF THE CLASS ACTIONS ALWAYS
INVOLVE A GROUP OF CLASS
CLAIMANTS WHO WOULD NOT BE ABLE
TO INDIVIDUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE BECAUSE OF THE NATURE
AND SIZE OF THE CLAIM AND
COLLECTIVELY THROUGH THE
CLASS-ACTION PROCESS THEY ARE ABLE TO GET THAT AND BY THE
VERY PREMISE THE CLASS ACTIONS,
RESIDUALS, ARE APPROPRIATE TO
BE GIVEN TO LEGAL AID TO HELP ACCESS JUSTICE.
>>HOW IS THIS CHANGING THE
STATUS QUO?
>>WE DON’T THINK IT IS CHANGING THE STATUS QUO BUT IT
IS GIVING COMFORT AND AUTHORITY
THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DO
THIS, IT IS NOT MANDATING ANY AWARDS BE GIVEN IN ANY OTHER
STATES, THEIR COURT RULES MUCH
LIKE THIS RULE ACTUALLY MANDATE
A PERCENTAGE OF RESIDUALS. WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT.
>>CAN YOU ADDRESS WHY IT IS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROPOSED
RULE TO INCLUDE THE FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION?
>>WE INCLUDE THE FLORIDA BAR
FOUNDATION BECAUSE THE FLORIDA
BAR FOUNDATION WE BELIEVE IS UNIQUELY SITUATED TO PROVIDE
HELP IN THIS REGARD.
ONE REASON THEY ARE LISTED AS
THEY DON’T PROVIDE DIRECT LEGAL SERVICES BUT THEY ARE A
STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION WHO
PROVIDES GRANTS TO OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS.>>THERE ARE MANY ORGANIZATIONS
THAT PROVIDE AID TO INDIGENT
INDIVIDUALS SO WHY SHOULD THIS
ORGANIZATION BE SELECTED.>>IN SOME CLASS-ACTION
CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THERE HAS
BEEN A CHALLENGE TO THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL ENTITY IT IS BECAUSE
THEY DIDN’T HAVE THE GEOGRAPHIC
BANDWIDTH TO DO IT AND WE
BELIEVE THE FOUNDATION IS THE ONLY STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION
THAT HAS THE BANDWIDTH TO
PROVIDE FUNDS TO ANY OF THE
LEGAL AID ORGANIZATIONS IN FLORIDA OR TO CREATE SPECIFIC
GRANT PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THE
NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CLASS
CLAIMANTS WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THAT
CLASS-ACTION IS.
AN EXAMPLE OF AN ORGANIZATION
DOESN’T MANDATE THE MONEY GOES TO THE FOUNDATION, AND UNIQUELY
SURFACED TO PROVIDE THE
GEOGRAPHIC BANDWIDTH TO OTHER
LEGALLY GRANTEES IN THE STATE OR TO CREATE SPECIFIC PROJECTS
OR IF THAT PARTICULAR CASE
DEMANDED IT.
>>YOU ARE ALSO CONSUMING REBUTTAL TIME HERE.
WHEN THAT RED LIGHT GOES ON YOU
HAVE GONE BEYOND THE INITIAL
TIME.>>UNLESS THERE ARE FURTHER
QUESTIONS WE BELIEVE THE RULE
DOES NOT ABROGATE THE RIGHTS OF
THE PARTIES AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE ISSUES FOR THE SUMMARY
AWARDS.
>>MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS LISA TELL HIM. I WILL DO THREE THINGS WITH OUR
TIME BASED ON THE AGREEMENT,
REQUESTED 5 MINUTES FOR
REBUTTAL. I WILL RESPECT THE WISHES OF
THE OPPONENT.
I AM HERE IN FAVOR OF ACCESS TO
JUSTICE. I WILL INTRODUCE MYSELF AND
GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT AS TO WHY
I AM HERE AND TALK TO THE RULE
AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
I’M A NATIVE FLORIDIAN OF
SEVERAL GENERATIONS.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE BAR. I’M CURRENTLY RETIRED.
I HAVE BEEN IN ACTIVE OR
RETIRED FOR OVER A DECADE.
I HAVE NO PLANS TO ACTIVELY PRACTICE.
I’M HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS A
CITIZEN, AS A RESIDENT, AS A
TAXPAYER IN A PROPERTY OWNER. SPECIFICALLY, THE RULE HAS COME
TO MY ATTENTION, INVOLVED IN
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.
THE MOST RECENT SPATE OF ACTIVITY WHICH SOME PEOPLE CALL
MY SOLAR FARM I HAD NEVER BEEN
SUED BEFORE.
THE ONLY TIME I HAD BEEN SUED IS BY BANK OF AMERICA DURING
THE CRISIS.
>>PLEASE DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS
THE PROPOSAL BEFORE THE COURT.>>WILL DO.
>>IF YOU DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS
TO THAT, IT WOULD BE GOOD.
>>I HAVE BECOME ENGAGED, WITH APPELLATE LAW.
THERE IS SOME KNOWLEDGE OF THE
LAW, AND YOUR ORIENTATION
TOWARD THE RULES IN GENERAL IS THERE ARE TOO MANY AND TOO
CUMBERSOME.
>>WOULD YOU AGREE SUBSTANTIVE
LAW GENERALLY WOULD ALLOW UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY
LAW A JUDGE TO EXERCISE THE
SENTENCE IN THE PROPOSED RULE?
>>I BELIEVE IN THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT IF THAT IS YOUR
QUESTION.
THAT IS — I PRAISE THE CONCEPT
OF EQUITY AND UNDER THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
THAT MUST BE DETERMINED BY A
COURT AND CANNOT BE ALLOCATED
ANYWAY BUT THE JUDGE. I’M NOT HERE TO ARGUE AS TO
WHETHER IT IS THE LEGISLATURE
OR THE COURT.
>>GENERALLY A JUDGE COULD EXERCISE DISCRETION.
>>NOT ONLY TO I BELIEVE THAT I
BELIEVE THAT IS THE ROLE OF A
JUDGE, TO FIND EQUITY. AND TO FIND JUSTICE.
THAT IS IN THE DISCRETION
BECAUSE THE ROLE OF A COURT IS
TO ENSURE OUR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION
WHICH THE LEGISLATURE CANNOT
DO.
THAT IS NOT MY ARGUMENT. MY ARGUMENT IS THE RULE, THE
RULE IS SUBSTANTIVE.
A SUBSTANTIVE RULE DOES NOT
BELONG IN A RULE OF COURT. THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE CASE.
>>PRIOR TO THE ENTRY OF ANY
JUDGMENT ON THE SUBDIVISION THE
COURT SHALL DETERMINE THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAYABLE TO CLASS
MEMBERS, ETC. DATE WHERE THE
PARTIES SHALL REPORT TO THE
COURT. IT IS ALL A TIMING PROCEDURE.
THE FIRST PART WOULD BE
PROCEDURAL.
>>I WOULD HAVE LESS OF AN ISSUE WITH THE ADMIN ASPECT OF
IT.
I DON’T THINK MOST JUDGES HAVE
PRACTICE PREFERENCES AND IT IS BASED ON THE WORK WITH THE
PARTIES TO FIND JUSTICE.
I’M IN FAVOR OF LESS
RESTRICTIONS ON JUDGES, EXERCISING THEIR DISCRETION
WITH RESPECT TO THESE SORTS OF
MATTERS BUT AS A TECHNICAL
MATTER I WOULD BE HARD-PRESSED TO SAY THAT IS NOT
ADMINISTRATIVE AND TO SEE
THERE’S AN INTERESTING
MANDATING, THERE IS NO DISCRETION, THAT IS A SEPARATE
ISSUE.
THAT IS A SEPARATE
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BUT IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE.
THE REST OF THE RULE IS
SUBSTANTIVE.
I DON’T THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GUIDE IN RULES FOR THE
COMMON LAW BUT THE FACT OF THE
CASE.
THERE WAS AN ERROR MADE, IT DOES NOT ONLY APPLY IN
SITUATIONS WITH CONSENT BY ALL
PARTIES BECAUSE IT ALSO APPLIES
IN THE CASE OF TRIAL AND THE TRIAL BY ITS NATURE, A TRIAL
JUDGMENT IS NOT MEAN THERE IS
CONSENT.
THAT IS MY READING. MY READING OF THE IS THAT
FAVORS TRIAL FOR SETTLEMENT.
THAT PUTS INDIVIDUALS AT A
DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE MOST INDIVIDUALS INCLUDING MYSELF IS
NOT A TRIAL LAWYER.
BY THEIR NATURE — IT IS NOT
ACCESS TO JUSTICE.>>ANY EXPERTISE IN CLASS
ACTIONS IN GENERAL?
>>I’VE BEEN INVOLVED IN
SETTLEMENTS OF CLASS-ACTION.>>AS A PARTICIPANTS, CLASS
MEMBER?
>>AS A REPRESENTATIVE?
>>AS AN EXECUTIVE. I LEFT THE LAW MANY YEARS AGO
IN MY CAPACITY, MY SPECIALTY
WAS ACQUISITIONS.
WHEN YOU DO MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS YOU HAVE TO LOOK
AT LITIGATION.
>>THE MINORITY REPORT, DON’T
REMEMBER IF THIS WAS YOUR POSITION, TOOK THE POSITION
THAT THIS RULE WAS
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE FUNDS
BELONG TO CLASS MEMBERS.>>I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
IT IS NOT ALWAYS CONSENT AS
MISTER DIAMOND INDICATED.
IF IT IS A TRIAL ORDER THAT SAYS IT IS THE DEFENDANT OR THE
PLAINTIFF GROUP, WHO IS IN THAT
GROUP MAY OR MAY NOT BE
CONSENTED TO. IF YOU ARE DEEMED TO BE IN THE
CLASS IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE
CONSENTED.
WHETHER IT IS THE DEFENDANT OR THE PLAINTIFF, THAT IS A MATTER
FOR THE CASE.
WE CAN ALL BEEN A CERTAIN WAY.
I CAN ADMIT MY BIAS BUT THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT CORRECT.
THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THERE
IS INDEED A PREFERENCE IN THE
RULE IF NOT A DIRECTIVE FOR A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION.
WITH NO DISPARAGEMENT TO THE
FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION THAT IS
AFFILIATED WITH THE COURT SO IT IS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE
PUBLIC TO BE DIRECTED WHERE
THEIR FUNDS NEED TO GO AND WHY.
THAT IS A MATTER FOR THE CASE. AS AN INDIVIDUAL I BELIEVE
THERE IS A HUGE DISCONNECT
BETWEEN WHAT MEMBERS OF THE BAR
BELIEVE IS ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND WHAT REGULAR HOMEOWNERS,
REGULAR ASSET OWNERS, REGULAR
FAMILY MEMBERS, REGULAR PEOPLE
WITH CLAIMS THAT FIND THEMSELVES NEEDING TO GO GET A
FAIR AND IMPARTIAL DECISION TO
HELP THEM SO THEY ARE NOT
SHOOTING EACH OTHER OR WHATEVER, GET AN ANSWER, IT IS
DIFFERENT FROM WHAT LEGAL, WHAT
LAWYERS THINK OF AS ACCESS TO
JUSTICE. OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS SET UP,
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF JUSTICE.
THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION PROVIDES ACCESS TO JUSTICE.
I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO A
FEDERALISM DEBATE THIS MORNING
BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE STATE COURTS ARE IN GENERAL THE
WINDOW TO JUSTICE FOR 90% OF
PEOPLE.
THAT IS A FUNCTION OF PRACTICALITY, BEING IN THE
COMMUNITY, THE STRUCTURE OF IT,
THE JUDGES ARE ELECTED TO HELP
UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY AND THE COSTS AND THE REALITY IS A
LOT OF RULES ARE VERY
DISCRIMINATORY AND THIS IS A
PREDICATE TO THAT. I WANT TO MAKE MYSELF CLEAR,
THAT ARE NOT HELPING REGULAR
PEOPLE WHETHER IT IS MONETARY,
OR YOU GOT TO PAY CERTAIN FEES OR WHETHER IT IS TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE GOBBLEDYGOOK IN
THE RULES AS OPPOSED TO GOING
IN AND EXPECTING THE JUDGE IS GOING TO TREAT THEM FAIRLY AND
EQUALLY WHETHER THEY HAVE A
LAWYER OR NOT.
I’M NOT GOING TO ARGUE HAVING AN EXCELLENT LAWYER IS NOT A
GREAT THING.
IT IS A WONDERFUL THING.
HOWEVER IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AND IT IS NOT PRACTICAL.
NOT ONLY BECAUSE THEY DON’T
KNOW IF THEY DON’T EXIST
BECAUSE THERE ARE CULTURE ISSUES, BECAUSE IT IS COST
PROHIBITIVE AND THERE ARE SOME
CASES TO MAKE SENSE OR YOU
OUTLIVE YOUR LAWYERS OR YOUR LAWYER DIES ON YOU OR WHATEVER
HAPPENS.
MY ORIENTATION IS WE SHOULD BE
EMPOWERING INDIVIDUALS AND NOT THE BAR AND NOT CREATING MORE
RULES PARTICULARLY WHERE
DISCRETION OF THE COURT AS
JUSTICE LAWSON HAS POINTED OUT IS ALREADY THERE.
IT IS A COMMON-LAW ISSUE AND
THE MATTER FOR THE CASE.
>>WHAT WOULD YOUR REACTION BE TO PROVISIONS SIMILAR TO THE
CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 384 THAT SAYS
RESIDUAL FUNDS TO A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONAL FOUNDATION THAT
WILL BENEFIT THE CLASS OR
SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS OR
TO PROMOTE THE LAW CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE AND PURPOSES
OF THE UNDERLYING CAUSE OF
ACTION OR NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS WITH CIVIL LEGAL SERVICES TO THE POOR OR
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.
>>MY REACTION IS BETTER BUT
NOT CORRECT.>>THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE
LAW IS.
>>WHAT THE LAW IS WE CAN ARGUE
ABOUT ORIGINAL IS DEMAND NATURAL LAW, WE KNOW WHAT THE
LAW IS, WE’VE SEEN THAT, THE
CONSTITUTION MEANS CHANGES, TO
BE FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE. IT CHANGES.
I’M OPPOSED TO MORE RULES AND
OPPOSED TO ANYTHING WHICH
COMPLICATES FOR AN AVERAGE PERSON, OR THERE IS A CARVEOUT
IN THEIR SO I’M A REGULAR
PERSON IN COURT BECAUSE I GOT
TO ISSUE MY CAR, MY CONTRACTOR, MY EX-BOYFRIEND, MY MOTHER,
WHOEVER IT IS, I GOT TO READ
THIS RULE AND WONDER WHAT IS
THIS, WHY? WHY DON’T I JUST COME TO COURT
AND TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND
THE JUDGE IS THERE TO BE FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL AND DELIVER EQUITY AND DELIVER JUSTICE?
IT DOESN’T DO ANY GOOD.
IT MAKES IT — OVERCOMPLICATE
THE SITUATION WHICH IS WHAT THE BAR DOES CONSTANTLY.
I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE PAGE
COUNT IS FROM 19-67 BUT IT IS
IN THE HUNDREDS I BELIEVE AND I REQUEST THAT I GO AHEAD AND PUT
IT ON THE TABLE.
SOMEBODY AT THE COURT, MAYBE
THE CLERK IN CHARGE OF THE RULES, NEEDS TO START LOOKING
AT THOSE RULES BECAUSE THERE’S
A LOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
THIS IS NOT THE ONLY ONE. I DON’T KNOW IF THERE IS A
MOMENT IN TIME WITH 3 NEW
JUSTICES BUT IF WE ARE SERIOUS
ABOUT ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN THE THIRD-LARGEST STATE IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IT IS
NOT WORKING OUT.
IT IS TOO COMPLICATED. THE LINE ABOUT YOU CAN’T ASK A
CLERK A QUESTION ABOUT A BASIC
THING PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHAT
THEY NEED TO DO SO THEY ARE NOT CONSTANTLY GETTING DEFAULTED
OUT OF THEIR LIVES OR HAVING
THEIR LIVES TAKEN OVER BY
LAWYERS, JUSTICE BRANDEIS, WELL-INTENTIONED PEOPLE WHO
DON’T UNDERSTAND ARE THE
GREATEST THREAT TO OUR LIBERTY.
A LOT OF LAWYERS DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW HARD IT IS FOR
REGULAR PEOPLE TO COME TO COURT
AND ANY DIRECTIVE TO PREFERENCE
ONE ORGANIZATION, THE FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION WOULD BE A ROCK
STAR, THE BEST IN THE STATE
RIGHT NOW.
THAT DOESN’T MEAN THEY WILL BE BEST IN THE STATE TOMORROW.
SO BAKING IT IN IS
INAPPROPRIATE.
I REST MY CASE.>>VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR.
THIS IS A PRACTICAL ISSUE.
I’VE BEEN DOING CLASS ACTIONS
FOR 25 YEARS. THE END OF A CLASS-ACTION
DESPITE EVERYONE’S BEST EFFORTS
AND GOOD INTENTIONS SOMETIMES
THERE IS MONEY LEFT OVER.>>I’M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
WHEN JUSTICE LAWSON READ THAT
PROVISION ABOUT RESIDUAL FUND
GOING TO GROUPS THAT ADVANCE THE ISSUES UNDERLYING THE
LAWSUIT OR PROMOTE THE
INTERESTS OF CLASS MEMBERS,
THERE WAS THE THIRD CATEGORY WHICH IS LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE
POOR THAT SEEMS DIFFERENT FROM
THE FIRST TWO IN THE SENSE THAT
WITH THE FIRST TWO THERE IS THE CLEAR NEXUS TO THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE LAWSUIT, THIS
SEEMS TO ME LIKE MORE
SUBSTANTIVE JUDGMENT THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD SOCIALLY
DESIRABLE USE OF THESE FUNDS TO
HOPE ACCESS LEGAL SERVICES.
WHY SHOULD THAT BE BAKED INTO THE RULE?
>>THERE IS A CLOSE CONNECTION
BETWEEN THE CONCEPT OF
CLASS-ACTION AND ACCESS TO JUSTICE SO AT THE TOP LEVEL OF
THIS THE CONCEPT IS TO GIVE
GUIDANCE TO THE COURT FOR
PERMISSIBLE RECIPIENTS OF THESE FUNDS, ORGANIZATIONS THAT
PROMOTE —
>>SEEMS LIKE IN THE FIRST TWO
INQUIRIES THE FIRST TWO CATEGORIES, THERE IS, YOU HAVE
TO GO THROUGH THIS
CASE-BY-CASE, THOUGHTFUL
ANALYSIS TO SEE WHAT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SPECIFIC
LAWSUIT AND RECIPIENTS, THIS IS
MORE JUST SAYING ANY
CLASS-ACTION SORT OF BY DEFINITION HAS THIS CONNECTION
TO LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE POOR
WHICH JUST DOESN’T SEEM TO BE
THE CASE NECESSARILY.>>THIS IS GUIDANCE AS TO ONE
POSSIBLE OUTCOME BECAUSE IT
DOES CONNECT THE CONCEPT OF THE
CLASS-ACTION MECHANISM BUT THIS DOESN’T —
>>WHY SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN
THEIR AT ALL.
>>TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO PARTIES. THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE ISSUE IN
THIS RULE AS ORIGINALLY
PROMULGATED AS MANDATORY WAS
REJECTED BY THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE YOU CAN’T FORCE PEOPLE
TO DO IT.
>>IT ORIGINATED IN TRUST LAW
WHERE YOU HAD A SPECIFIC REQUEST AND FIND SOMETHING AS
CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THAT.
WHEN PEOPLE BRING CLASS ACTIONS
OVER WHATEVER THE SUBJECT AREA MAY BE THEY ARE NOT DOING IT
OUT OF A MOTIVATION TO PROVIDE
LEGAL SERVICES TO THE POOR
WHEREAS THEY MIGHT BE IF IT IS SOME PRIVACY RELATED THING
MAYBE THERE IS A CONNECTION
THAT DOES THAT.
THIS SEEMS LIKE A VERY DIFFERENT SORT OF SUBSTANTIVE
VALUE JUDGMENT.
>>NO ONE INVOLVED IN
CLASS-ACTION LAWS GIVES A NICKEL TO ANYONE.
THIS HAPPENS WITH MONEY LEFT
OVER THAT OTHERWISE IN TERMS OF
PROVIDING SOME GUIDANCE, THE IDEA WAS TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO
HELP FOLKS DO THIS, ONE OF THE
REASONABLE RECIPIENTS PROMOTES
ACCESS TO JUSTICE LIKE THE CLASS-ACTION MECHANISM.
THIS DOESN’T PRECLUDE ANYBODY
FROM SAYING WE LIKE THE
INVESTOR RIGHTS CLINIC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI BECAUSE
THEY DEAL WITH INVESTOR RIGHTS
AND THE CLASS-ACTION LIFE FIRM
SAYS THAT IS WHAT WE DO WITH THE MONEY.
INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES AT THE
END OF THEY, MONEY LEFT OVER
BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO COST MORE TO DISTRIBUTE THAN WE HAD
LEFT AND WAS GIVEN AS THE
REWARD FOR THE INVESTOR RIGHTS
CLINIC WHICH PERFECTLY JIBED WITH PURPOSES OF THE UNDERLYING
PROCESS OF FULFILLING INVESTOR
RIGHTS BUT IN THE CASE WHERE
MORE GENERALLY SPEAKING YOU ARE FULFILLING THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE
WHO CAN’T AFFORD TO LITIGATE TO
GAIN ACCESS TO THE COURTS,
THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH GIVING SOME GUIDANCE TO THE
COURT TO SAY ANOTHER THING THAT
GIVES ACCESS TO THE COURTS, THE
FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION, THIS IS A MECHANISM FOR ALLOWING MONEY
TO BE DISTRIBUTED THAT GIVES
FOLKS ACCESS TO THE COURT WHICH
WAS THE PURPOSE OF BEING REQUESTED TO DRAFT THIS RULE IN
THE FIRST PLACE AND IT IS
PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO HAVE
THAT OPTION TO PRECLUDE MORE SPECIFIC —
>>I DON’T KNOW THIS IS
RELEVANT TO THE PROCEDURAL
THING BUT IT SEEMS THE WHOLE GENESIS OF COMING UP WITH THIS
PROPOSAL IS NOT SO MUCH TO
IMPROVE THE RULES IN A
TECHNICAL SENSE BUT TO ADVANCE THE SUBSTANTIVE GOAL OF GETTING
MORE MONEY FOR THESE GROUPS,
WHATEVER THE MERITS, I DON’T
THINK ANYONE IS CONTESTING MERITS.
IT SEEMS THE MOTIVATION FOR
THIS RULE WAS TO GET MORE MONEY
FOR THESE GROUPS.>>THE MOTIVATION TO GIVE
GUIDANCE TO CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
EXIST, THEY MAY NOT KNOW IT AND
ONE REASON THE RULE WAS REQUESTED, THERE WERE LITIGANTS
WITH THE MECHANISM.
THIS WOULD MAKE THEM FAMILIAR
WITH A MECHANISM THAT EXISTS IN THE LAW TOGETHER AND OF ALL
THESE FOLKS GOT TOGETHER AND
AGREED TO THIS, THE JUDGE
APPROVED THAT THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT YESTERDAY WITHOUT THIS
RUIN THE IDEAS TO PROVIDE
GUIDANCE.
>>THERE IS A LOT OF CLASS-ACTION.
>>THE FIRST CLASS ACTION, I
KNOW A LOT MORE AFTER MY 10TH
ONE OR MY FIRST ONE OR JUDGES BUT NEVER DEALT WITH ONE
BEFORE, AND THAT HAPPENS.
>>THE LAW REVIEW ARTICLE OR
PRESENTATION.>>MORE FREQUENTLY THAN LAW
REVIEW ARTICLES, THE GOAL WAS

>>I WILL READ YOUR LARGE ARTICLE.
>>I WILL BE IMPRESSED IF YOU
READ IT.
>>THE PURPOSE OF THIS.>>YOU ARE WAY OVER YOUR TIME.
>>IS THERE TIME PERMITTED?
>>I WILL GIVE YOU SOME TIME.
>>JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPEAKING, TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION, THE PURPOSE OF THE
RULE YOU STATED EARLIER STATUS
QUO, THE STATUS QUO IS THERE IS IGNORANCE THROUGHOUT THE STATE
OF FLORIDA AND THE RULE 1.220
WHEN IT WAS CREATED WAS CREATED
FOR JUSTICE, TO PROVIDE AN AVENUE FOR PEOPLE WHO COULD NOT
OTHERWISE AFFORD TO LITIGATE ON
THEIR OWN IN AN OPPORTUNITY TO
LITIGATE ISSUES AND TO HELP THE ADMINISTRATION JUSTICE IN COURT
WITH ALLOWING A LARGE NUMBER OF
CLAIMS TO BE SETTLED IN A
SINGULAR VEHICLE.>>AS FAR AS THE STATUS QUO,
ANY APPELLATE DECISION IN
FLORIDA THAT IS APPROVED, THE
IDEA THAT RATHER THAN CHOOSING A RECIPIENT OF FUNDING
CONNECTED TO THE ACTUAL LAWSUIT
THAT PER SE LEGAL SERVICES
ORGANIZATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE?>>THERE ARE TWO, 11 SECOND
OPINIONS.
I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO FIND A
STATE COURT CASE, THERE ARE TWO 11TH CIRCUIT CASES THAT IS OF
INDUSTRY TO FLORIDA CASE THAT
OUTLINES AND REITERATES COURTS
HAVE DISCRETION TO DIRECT FUNDS AND IS CONNECTED TO THE
CLASS-ACTION.
>>THE QUESTION ABOUT LEGAL
SERVICES BEING APPROPRIATE. WHICH IS WHAT THIS RULE SAYS.
>>I’M NOT SURE ABOUT THE WORD
PER SE.
>>YOU DON’T HAVE TO, IF THIS RULE WERE AND ACTED THERE WOULD
BE NO NEED TO LOOK AT THIS
SPECIFIC UNDERLYING SUBSTANCE
OF THE LAWSUIT OR THE CLASS. IF IT WAS CLASS-ACTION AND
THERE ARE RESIDUAL FUNDS
REGARDLESS OF THE SUBJECT
MATTER OF THE CASE, IT WOULD NOT BE AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION
FOR THE COURT TO CHOOSE A LEGAL
SERVICES GROUP FOR THE FUNDING.
>>AS THE RULE IS WRITTEN YOU COULD IMPLY THAT BUT IT IS
UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE HAS TO BE
SOME CONNECTION AND THERE ARE
TWO CONNECTIONS TO LEGAL AID THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
THE FIRST CONNECTION IS THE
RULE IS A MECHANISM TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO JUSTICE. LEGAL AID RECIPIENTS, 21 STATES
HAVE ADOPTED A STATUTE OR THE
RULES AND WHAT WE DID WAS TRIED
TO PICK THE STATUTE OR THE RULE THAT WAS LEAST OFFENSIVE AND
THE MOST DISCRETIONARY AND
PERMISSIVE.
THE PURPOSE, THE SECOND REASON WHY LEGAL AID IS RECOGNIZED
AROUND THE COUNTRY AND BAR
FOUNDATIONS ARE RECOGNIZED AS
APPROPRIATE RECIPIENTS IS FOR INSTANCE YOU HAVE A
CLASS-ACTION FOR CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS.
LEGAL AID LAWYERS HAVE CONSUMER PROTECTION UNITS.
IT IS APPROPRIATE TO SAY THIS
CLASS WAS A VICTIM OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION SCHEME OR SCAM OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO SAY IT.
THERE IS NO MORE PERSON
APPROPRIATE, NO MORE
ORGANIZATION APPROPRIATE VAN A PARTICULAR LEGAL AID
ORGANIZATION THAT HAS A
CONSUMER PROTECTION UNIT.
THIS IS CLASS-ACTION INVOLVING HOUSING AUTHORITY OR HOUSING
RIGHTS, OR NAME THE ISSUE.
LEGAL AID ORGANIZATIONS HAVE
DEDICATED DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THAT ADDRESS THE
PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT MOST
CLASS ACTIONS WILL ADDRESS AND
THAT IS WHY LEGAL AID ORGANIZATIONS HAVE BEEN
IDENTIFIED AROUND THE COUNTRY
AS BEING THE APPROPRIATE
RECIPIENTS. THE BAR FOUNDATIONS RECOGNIZED
AS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE THE ONLY
CASE I FOUND THAT HAS
DISQUALIFIED A NINTH CIRCUIT AWARD OUT OF CALIFORNIA.
THE JUDGE MADE THE AWARD TO A
LOCAL LEGAL AID ORGANIZATION
AND THERE WAS FAVORITISM OR IMPLIED FAVORITISM.

>>HOW IS THAT NOT IMPLIED
FAVORITISM HERE. THIS RULE WAS CRAFTED.
IT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES THE
FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION.
HOW IS THAT NOT IMPLICIT FAVORITISM.
>>THE REASON THE BAR
FOUNDATIONS ARE PUTTING THESE
RULES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY ARE THE BAR FOUNDATIONS
TYPICALLY COVER THE ENTIRE
STATE.
>>THIS IS AN INCLUSION OF A SPECIFICALLY NAMED ORGANIZATION
AS OPPOSED TO SAYING YOU CAN
AWARD THE THING DIRECTED TO
ANYTHING THAT HAS A NEXUS OR CONNECTION TO THE UNDERLYING
LITIGATION.
AND THAT IS MY CONCERN, THAT
YOU ARE NAMING THE ONLY ORGANIZATION BEING NAMED HERE,
THE FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION
WHERE THE FLORIDA BAR IS THE
PERSON, THE BAR ORGANIZATION IS THE ONE SUGGESTING THIS RULE.
>>UNDERSTAND THAT AND WHEN WE
DRAFTED THIS RULE WE WERE USING
OTHER STATE LANGUAGES USING THAT AND AS I HAVE WRITTEN DOWN
THE TWO WORDS IN THIS RULE, WE
COULD ALWAYS WRITE THIS RULE
BETTER AND, THE OPTION TO DO THAT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY
CHANGE BOTH INCLUDINGS.
I WOULD CHANGE THE FIRST WORD,
THIS DIRECTLY RELATES TO THE INITIAL COMMENT.
THE FIRST INCLUDING WHICH MAY
INCLUDE, THE SECOND INCLUDING
SHOULD SAY AND OR. THAT TO ME TAKES AWAY THE
IMPLICATION TO A PARTICULAR
ORGANIZATION AND THERE IS
NOTHING IN THIS RULE THAT PROHIBITS A JUDGE.
THE LAW STATES THE PRACTICAL
REALITIES THERE ARE RESIDUAL
FUNDS, A JUDGE HAS GOT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE FUNDS AND
THE LAW IS THE JUDGE HAS TO TIE
IT BACK TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION
IF THEY CAN. IN MOST INSTANCES, THIS WAS A
HOUSING AUTHORITY CASE, A GOOD
CASE FOR LEGAL AID, HOUSING
AUTHORITY LAWYERS. ON BEHALF OF THE PRO BONO
STANDING COMMITTEE AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION. IF YOU NEED TO TAKE ALL THE
FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION IN THIS
ROOM PLEASE DO SO BECAUSE THE
GREATER GOOD IS TO KEEP THIS RULE IN AS GUIDANCE FOR COURTS
TO KNOW THAT THIS IS A VEHICLE
THAT WILL HELP LEGAL AID TO
RECEIVE VALUABLE FUNDING FROM RESIDUAL SETTLEMENTS.
IF THAT HAS TO BE IT, THAT HAS
TO HAPPEN.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION’S CONSENT
ACQUIESCENCE PERMISSION,
WHATEVER IT IS, TO TAKE US OUT.
STATEWIDE GEOGRAPHIC REACH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>>THANK YOU ALL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *