Opinion
No. 47272.
February 26, 1976. Rehearing Denied April 29, 1976.
Case of Original Jurisdiction — The Florida Bar.
James A. Urban, Orlando, and J. Rex Farrior, Jr., Tampa, of The Florida Bar, and Marshall M. Criser and James G. Pressly, Jr., of Gunster, Yoakley, Criser, Stewart Hersey, Palm Beach, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.
Robert M. Ervin and Thomas M. Ervin, Jr., of the law firm of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs Odom, Tallahassee, and Arthur L. Stern, of Nixon, Hargrave, Devans Doyle, Rochester, N.Y., for respondents.
The Florida Bar at the direction of its Board of Governors has petitioned this Court to amend the Code of Professional Responsibility to prohibit interstate law firms from using their respective firm names on offices in this state, unless those named are members of The Florida Bar.
It is requested that we amend Disciplinary Rules 2-102(D) and 2-102(F) as follows:
"DR 2-102(D) — A partnershipshall notmay be formed or continued between or among lawyers licensed in different jurisdictionsunless all enumerations of the members and associates of the firm on its letterhead and in other permissible listings make clear the jurisdictional limitations on those members and associates of the firm not licensed to practice in all listed jurisdictions; however, the same firm name may be used in each jurisdiction.,however, no enumeration of the members and/or associates of the firm on its announcements, letterheads or in any other manner, including permissible listings, shall include any person not admitted to practice in Florida. Similarly, no firm name shall include the name of any person not admitted to practice in Florida, except for deceased or retired members as provided in subparagraph (B).
"DR 2-102(F) — Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a lawyer from using or permitting the use of, in connection with his name, an earned degree or title derived therefrom indicating his training in the law, or his admission to practice in a jurisdiction other than Florida."
[Portions of the present DR shown as being stricken are proposed deletions; portions underlined are proposed additions.]
The present Disciplinary Rules 2-102(D) and 2-102(F) were adopted by this Court as presented by The Florida Bar on June 3, 1970. There is opposition to the proposed amendment by firms interested in the interstate practice of law, some of whom have already opened offices and made necessary commitments including expenditure of funds and movement of personnel for the operation of offices.
We have the inherent and constitutional responsibility under Article V, Section 15, Florida Constitution, to regulate the members of the Bar in order to ensure that the public will have competent and honest legal service available for its use. The Code of Professional Responsibility was adopted to carry out that purpose, and any amendment must have this purpose as its primary objective.
Petitioner contends that an interstate law firm's use of its name on an office in this state, staffed by members of The Florida Bar whose names are not included in the firm name, creates and promotes a deception on the public, since the named members are not present to render legal services. It is our opinion that such use is no different than the staffing of an intrastate branch office or the use of the name of a deceased or retired partner in the firm name. The petitioner in both its brief and oral argument recognized that in order to meet constitutional requirements, this Court might have to review and amend the Disciplinary Rules pertaining to the use of a deceased or retired partner's name. In order to consider such an amendment, full notice would have to be given to all members of the Bar who might be adversely affected.
The petitioner further contends that interstate law firms present jurisdictional disciplinary problems and foster the unauthorized practice of law in Florida by attorneys not admitted in this state. The present Disciplinary Rules were approved by national and state ethics committees as well as the Board of Governors before their submission and final adoption by this Court. No problem was anticipated at that time and, to our knowledge, no actual problems have occurred. Petitioner admits that there has not been the "slightest impropriety in the operation of interstate firms under their national name in Florida." Petitioner has shown no actual incident of public complaint against deception, unauthorized practice of law, or other conduct requiring an immediate review and amendment of the present DR 2-102(D) and 2-102(F).
Accordingly, we are unable to consider favorably the petition in its limited form, and it is therefore denied.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C.J., and BOYD, OVERTON, ENGLAND and HATCHETT, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, J., dissents.
MOORE, J.H., Circuit Judge, dissents with an opinion.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion the proposed amendment to the Code of Professional Responsibility is consistent with the duties and obligations of this Court under Article V, Section 15, Florida Constitution. The fact that adoption of the proposed amendment would have peripheral ramifications should not act as an obstacle to this Court's approval of amendments to the Code of Professional Responsibility which are needed for the Court to completely exercise its responsibilities in disciplining persons admitted to The Bar of Florida. I would approve and adopt the Petition of The Florida Bar.