The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors unanimously voted to reject proposals that would have allowed people who are not lawyers to own law firms and share legal fees.
The Nov. 8 vote rejected recommendations made by a special committee created by the state's Supreme Court. The decision runs counter to the trend seen in states such as Arizona, Utah and California, which are supportive of proposals to make legal systems less costly and easier to access for consumers.
But a key part of the proposal, establishing a type of legal laboratory to try out some of the recommendations, is still a possibility in Florida. John Stewart, chairman of Florida's Special Committee to Improve the Delivery of Legal Services, said when the report was originally submitted in late-June, the only technical task was for the court to send it back and allow additional time to make finishing touches, and that the ultimate recommendation revolved around the legal lab.
“When you’re talking about the Board of Governors being opposed to non-lawyer ownership of law firms and sharing fees with non- lawyers, etc., in our report we said clearly that conceptually we support these ideas, but we did not recommend any rules changes at the time because our recommendation was to put together the legal lab,” Stewart said.
The legal lab idea, modeled after efforts in Utah, is designed to get data to ensure consumers aren’t being hurt and that their needs are being met.
This would allow people the opportunity to apply for programs, platforms or services that would serve a need that had not been met and to get a waiver of certain rules.
“At the end of the day, the challenge and a lot of the criticism that we get and that we got in this case is that there’s no data to support that these types of recommendations will meet the intended purpose, which is to provide more legal services,” Stewart said.
“I know these people well, they’re hard workers, they’re my friends, I respect their opinions, but to me, it’s really kind of premature because the vote right now is kind of saying we’re opposed to the idea without sufficient data,” Stewart said. “Not to be flippant about it, but I think all that you’re saying is that you’re against learning. Let’s allow the process to continue in a controlled environment, let’s collect data and you may be right, it may be a terrible idea but then the data will reflect that and we shouldn’t do it.”
Stewart estimated a final court decision would likely not come until the first quarter of 2022, allowing the board time to first take up issues with the proposal.