Pro Se Stories

The Florida Supreme Court Access to Justice Commission has requested that the United Way reach out to Florida residents to gather their stories about pro se litigants. The United Way has in turn reached out to FALDP to help meet the request. We need your pro se stories - successes and failures. Do you know a pro se litigant whose access to the legal system was hindered by not having an attorney? Do you know a pro se litigant who succeeded without any help from anyone? Do you know a pro se litigant who succeeded in their case with the help of a document preparer?

We need specific stories with contact information. Consumers will have control over how their contact information and name are used.

Paraphrased from the Supreme Court's request:

"How will we use the information people share with us? First, we might use the bare facts, without names, in outreach materials explaining the needs the Commission is addressing. Second, we would write stories about the cases or shoot videos. Third, we might provide the names and phone numbers to reporters who are interested in doing stories about improving access to civil justice. Of course, we would do nothing without the permission of each and every person we talk to.

But first we need to find some people willing to talk to us."

Please send your stories to staff@faldp.org - this is huge, the Supreme Court is listening.

Legalese versus Readability

To a writer, the struggle between readability and gobbledygook is as important as the struggle between good and evil. The battle for dominance is particularly important to legal writers. Gobbledygook has long been the evil king – readability the rebel. Legal writers writing court pleadings and contracts for other lawyers and judges are content to uphold the status quo – stick with the legalese and jargon. Keep the unlawyers out. Other legal writers, who write for consumers are translators, translating the arcane and obscure words into everyday language.

I plugged the following paragraphs into Dr. G. Harry McLauglin's SMOG calculator. SMOG is an acronym for: Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. The SMOG calculator was developed in 1969 (imagine!) and back then you had to do the math yourself. It is based on the number of syllables in each word, number of words in each sentence, and number of letters in each word. Dr. McLaughlin states on his SMOG website,

“My readability formula SMOG estimates the years of education needed to understand a piece of writing. SMOG is widely used, particularly for checking health messages”.

The Federal Trade Commission requires that health messages for the public be written at no higher than a fifth grade reading level. I believe there should be a similar requirement for legal messages.

The following paragraphs are an excerpt from the instructions for the Petition for Simplified Dissolution of Marriage, Florida Supreme Court approved form 12.901(a), which was published on 1/2015:

When should this form be used?

This form should be used when a husband and wife are filing for a simplified dissolution of marriage. You and/or your spouse must have lived in Florida for at least 6 months before filing for a dissolution in Florida. You may file a simplified dissolution of marriage in Florida if all of the following are true:

You and your spouse agree that the marriage cannot be saved.

You and your spouse have no minor or dependent child(ren) together, the wife does not have any minor or dependent children born during the marriage, and the wife is not now pregnant.

You and your spouse have worked out how the two of you will divide the things that you both own (your assets) and who will pay what part of the money you both owe (your liabilities), and you are both satisfied with this division.

You are not seeking support (alimony) from your spouse, and vice versa.

You are willing to give up your right to trial and appeal.

You and your spouse are both willing to go into the clerk’s office to sign the petition (not necessarily together).

You and your spouse are both willing to go to the final hearing (at the same time).

If you do not meet the criteria above, you must file a regular petition for dissolution of marriage.

This petition should be typed or printed in black ink. Each of you must sign the petition in the presence of a deputy clerk (in the clerk’s office), although you do not have to go into the clerk’s office at the same time. You will need to provide picture identification (valid driver’s license or official identification card) for the clerk to witness your signatures.

The results were:

Readability Consensus

Based on 8 readability formulas, we have scored your text:

Grade Level: 10

Reading Level: standard / average.

Reader's Age: 14-15 yrs. old (Ninth to Tenth graders)

According to the Florida Literacy Coalition:

"One in Five Florida Adults Lacks Basic Literacy Skills:

More than 2.6 million adults in Florida— or 20 percent of those 16 and older — lack even the most basic reading skills, according to estimates released Thursday by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Florida, with its large immigrant population, has the third lowest adult literacy level of all the states, behind California and New York. The state experienced a 33% increase over ten years in the percentage of people who fall in the lowest literacy skill level, with rates ranging from a low of 7 percent in St. John’s County to 52 percent in Miami-Dade."

I plugged in the first two paragraphs of this blog post into the SMOG calculator and received the following results.

Readability Consensus

Based on 8 readability formulas, we have scored your text:

Grade Level: 8

Reading Level: fairly difficult to read.

Reader's Age: 12-14 yrs. old (Seventh and Eighth graders)

 I think its ironic that I am not making any attempt to write at any grade level. I'm only trying to make the words I write as clear and concise as I can. And the State of Florida, who should be striving to make the language on the pro se form instructions easy to read, are more difficult to read than my writing.

Access to Civil Justice - Florida Supreme Courts

A conference call was held today (3/11); and two more are scheduled for this week. These are open to the public, and actually fascinating. I will be writing up my notes from today's conference call and including them in the FALDP Newsletter which is published mid-month every month.

A second conference call was held on 3/12 which focused on funding. I was able to listen to a short portion of it. If you were on the call, please comment as I would love to know what I missed.

The next call is tomorrow. Again, I don't know if I will be on the call, please listen if you can.

The Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice: Access to and Delivery of Legal Services

DATE AND TIME: Friday, March 13, 2015, 3:00 p.m. Eastern time

PLACE: To hear the meeting please dial 1-888-376-5050 and enter the following participant pin: 3422772243#

GENERAL SUBJECT MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda focuses on discussing Florida funding in relation to other states as well as other Commission's funding strategies and accomplishments to date.

A copy of the agenda may be obtained by contacting: Francisco-Javier Digon-Greer at 1-800-342-8060 ext. 5793 or email: flaccessjustice@flabar.org.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations to participate in this workshop/meeting is asked to advise the agency at least 2 days before the workshop/meeting by contacting: Francisco-Javier Digon-Greer at 1-800-342-8060 ext. 5793 or email flaccessjustice@flabar.org. If you are hearing or speech impaired, please contact the agency using the Florida Relay Service, 1(800)955-8771 (TDD) or 1(800)955-8770 (Voice). 

Access to Civil Justice Commission - Administrative Order

The following order was signed by Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Jorge Labarga on November 24, 2014.

WHEREAS, the American and Florida judicial systems are founded upon the fundamental principle that justice should be accessible to all persons, the advancement of which is of profound interest to the Supreme Court of Florida; and

WHEREAS, access to civil justice for lower income and disadvantaged persons is a critical challenge for the legal system, especially in difficult economic times; and

WHEREAS, the number of self-represented litigants has increased significantly over the past decade with the majority of family law matters in most states now including at least one unrepresented party, some of whom are unable to prepare court documents and effectively present their positions in court proceedings; and

WHEREAS, the population that is eligible for Legal Services Corporationfunded legal services has grown dramatically in recent years while at the same time federal funding for the Legal Services Corporation declined approximately seventeen percent from 2010 to 2012; and

WHEREAS, the Florida Interest on Trust Accounts Program also provides funds in support of legal assistance for the poor but is experiencing severely reduced revenue as a result of historic low interest rates; and

WHEREAS, the Florida state courts have diligently endeavored since the 1990’s to develop forms, instructions, and other self-help resources in order to afford fair and timely resolution of cases involving self-represented family law litigants; and

WHEREAS, other entities in the Florida justice system have likewise endeavored within their respective scope of authority to improve the availability and delivery of judicial and legal services to lower income, disadvantaged, and self-represented individuals; and

WHEREAS, despite these noteworthy and substantial efforts, Floridians continue to encounter barriers when seeking meaningful and informed access to the civil justice system; and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of Florida recognizes the importance of responding to the unmet legal needs of low and moderate income Floridians, the increasing complexity of civil legal services delivery, the importance of access to civil justice in the proper functioning of our democracy, and the need for leadership and effective coordination of access to civil justice efforts in Florida; and

WHEREAS, approximately thirty states and the District of Columbia have established access to justice commissions for the general purpose of collectively identifying and removing barriers to civil justice for low-income and disadvantaged persons; and

WHEREAS, many organizations throughout the state share a commitment to improving access to justice and, as the head of the judicial branch, the Supreme Court of Florida is the logical entity to create a commission to study access and serve as the umbrella organization for efforts to enhance access to civil justice in Florida.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice is hereby established to study the remaining unmet civil legal needs of disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians. In conducting its work the Commission should consider Florida’s legal assistance delivery system as a whole, including but not limited to staffed legal aid programs, resources and support for self-represented litigants, limited scope representation, pro bono services, innovative technology solutions, and other models and potential innovations. The Commission should encompass the viewpoints of multiple constituencies and stakeholders and not be limited to those of any one particular institution.

During its term, the Commission shall perform the following tasks:

1. Provide a forum for discussion among the judicial branch, legislative branch, executive branch, the civil legal services and pro bono community, Bar leaders, funders, the business community, and other interested stakeholders, about issues affecting access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

2. Identify and examine barriers that impede access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

3. Determine how to promote coordination of legal services delivery to low income Floridians, for optimum efficiency and effectiveness.

4. Consider and evaluate components of a continuum of services for the unrepresented, taking into account consumer needs and preferences. Such components might include interactive forms; unbundled legal services; the involvement of court, law, and public libraries; and other innovations and alternatives.

5. Examine ways to leverage technology in expanding access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

6. Identify and build partnerships among the courts, members of the private bar, providers of legal services, and other stakeholders who are engaged or interested in expanding access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

7. Examine how available resources might be maximized and identify how additional resources might be procured in order to provide stable funding in support of services that enhance access to civil justice for disadvantaged, low income, and moderate income Floridians.

The Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice shall submit an interim report to the Court no later than October 1, 2015, and a final report and recommendations to the Court no later than June 30, 2016. Copies of the interim and final reports should also be provided to the Governor of Florida, the President of the Florida Senate, and the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives. In its final report, the Commission should include recommendations on the need for the establishment of a permanent access to justice commission in Florida.

Members have been selected based upon their experience within the Florida justice system and their anticipated commitment. These individuals offer a diversity of perspectives and expertise that will enable the Commission to meet its overall mission and specific objectives. The following persons are hereby appointed to the Commission for terms that expire on June 30, 2016:

The Honorable Jorge Labarga, Chair
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Florida

From the Florida Supreme Court - Strategic Planning Survey

The Florida Supreme Court is seeking comments from non-attorneys involved in law suits. The survey will be available through January 30, 2015. The following information is posted on the Florida Supreme Court's website.

Take the Survey

Strategic Planning Surveys

The Florida Supreme Court would like to hear from you about the Florida Court System. We are updating the strategic plan for the state courts system and need you to tell us how we are doing, what you think works well, and what may need to be improved. Your opinions are important to us, and they will affect the plans and choices that we make.

Please take a few minutes to leave your comments and help us make our state courts system more effective at providing justice for all.

NON-ATTORNEY COURT USER SURVEY:
Party to a Lawsuit or Legal Action / Defendant / Victim / Witness

If you have been involved in a case or court action recently either as a party to a lawsuit or legal action, a victim, a witness, or a defendant, please click on the image below to take the survey for non-attorney court users.

The Florida Court System is Seeking Comments

The Florida Supreme Court’s Long Range Strategic Planning Workgroup would like to hear from you about the Florida Court System. We are updating the strategic plan for the state courts system and need you to tell us how we are doing, what you think works well, and what may need to be improved. Your opinions are important to us, and they will affect the plans and choices that we make. Please take a few minutes to submit your comments and help us make our state courts system more effective at providing justice for all. 

All responses are completely anonymous; they will be compiled together and analyzed as a group. No one’s answers will be singled out or reported in any way that would allow identification of participants. Survey responses are public record, which must be disclosed upon request, but again, without disclosing any identifying information.

Take the Survey

New Document Formatting Required in Florida Courts

Update - it appears that this order applies primarily to formatting of official records. And the only change for now seems to be the 1" margin requirement and page numbering.

Pro Se Litigants and Document Preparers:

The following Clerk Alert was sent out by the Palm Beach Clerks to the legal community to let people know about changes that will soon take effect. At the moment it is not entirely clear whether all counties will be strictly adhering to this order. I called the Pro Se Help Desk in Sarasota County and the representative was not aware of new formatting requirements, even after he conferred with his supervisor. However, my associate in Palm Beach County who first brought this to my attention was told by the clerk's office that in Palm Beach County the new formatting requirements apply to all documents filed in that circuit. 

This has potential to be a huge ongoing mess. The Supreme Court published new family law forms [Financial Affidavits and Petition for Simplified Dissolution] which are also effective on 1/1/15, but they are not formatted according to the new requirements. So which is it?

The first line of the appendix to the order below, states "Electronic Filing Mandatory". As far as I know, electronic filing is not mandatory for pro se litigants. So does that mean that these format changes do not apply to pro se litigants?

The appendix to the order posted below, paragraph (1) states that it applies to official documents. Are pleadings like petitions and motions official documents? I don't think so. 

The new formatting requirements seem to require that every document filed needs to have the 3"x 3" square at the top right blank, the space to be reserved for the clerk's stamp. This format is required in probate forms and has been for some time. Also the new formatting requires a 1"x 3" square to be left blank in subsequent pages in the same document.

A 1" margin on all sides is to be left blank.

Pages are to be numbered consecutively, centered at the bottom of the page: Page 1; Page 2; etc.

Document preparers please check with your local clerk of courts to find out how they are handling these formatting changes. Consumers and pro se litigants, please be aware of these changes and know that, unfortunately, the changes were not made with you in mind.

Supreme

Court of Florida

____________

No. SC14-721

____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 2.520.

[November 26, 2014]

PER CURIAM.

We have for consideration an out-of-cycle report proposing amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.520 (Documents) filed by The Florida Bar’s Rules of Judicial Administration Committee (Committee). See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.140(e). We have jurisdiction and adopt these noncontroversial amendments as proposed.

BACKGROUND

According to the Committee’s report, the more significant amendments address format requirements for paper documents filed with the court and the use of margins by the clerks of court, which are issues of great concern to the clerks.

The proposed amendments were approved by the Committee by a vote of 36-1 and were unanimously approved by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar. The Committee did not publish the proposals before filing them with the Court. The Court published the proposals for comment after they were filed. But, no comments were filed.

AMENDMENTS

The more significant amendments are to subdivisions (b) (Type and Size) and (d) (Recording Space) of the rule. In order to make it easier for clerks to scan paper documents, subdivision (b) is amended, as proposed, to require paper documents filed with the court to be legibly typewritten or printed, on only one side of letter-sized white recycled paper with one-inch margins and consecutively numbered pages. Subdivision (b) also is amended, as proposed, to clarify that all documents electronically filed must be filed in a format capable of being electronically searched consistent with state and federal accessibility requirements. Subdivision (d) (Recording Space) is amended, as proposed, to add a one-inch margin requirement and format, location, and font-size requirements for the date and time stamp on electronically filed documents.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we amend the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. New language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 2015, at 12:01 a.m.

It is so ordered.

LABARGA, C.J., and PARIENTE, LEWIS, QUINCE, CANADY, POLSTON, and PERRY, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

RULE 2.520. DOCUMENTS

(a) Electronic Filing Mandatory. All documents filed in any court shall be filed by electronic transmission in accordance with rule 2.525. “Documents” means pleadings, motions, petitions, memoranda, briefs, notices, exhibits, declarations, affidavits, orders, judgments, decrees, writs, opinions, and any other paper or writing submitted to a court. (b) Type and Size. Documents subject to the exceptions set forth in rule 2.525(d) shall be legibly typewritten or printed, on only one side of letter sized (8 1/2 by 11 inch) white recycled paper with one inch margins and consecutively

numbered pages filed on recycled paper measuring 8 ½ X 11 inches. For purposes of this rule, paper is recycled if it contains a minimum content of 50 percent waste paper. Xerographic Reduction of legal-size (8 1/2 by 14 inches) documents to letter size (8 1/2 by 11 inches) is prohibited. All other documents filed by electronic transmission shall comply with rule 2.526 and be filed in a format

capable of being electronically searched and printed in a format consistent with the

provisions of this rule. (c) Exhibits. Any exhibit or attachment filed with pleadings or papers to

any document may be filed in its original size. (d) Recording Space and Space for Date and Time Stamps.

(1) On all papers and documents prepared and filed by the court or by any party to a proceeding which are to be recorded in the public records of any county, including but not limited to final money judgments and notices of lis pendens, a 3-inch by 3-inch space at the top right-hand corner on the first page and a 1-inch by 3-inch space at the top right-hand corner on each subsequent page shall be left blank and reserved for use by the clerk of court.

(2) On all documents filed with the court, a 1-inch margin on all sides must be left blank for date and time stamps.

(A) Format. Date and time stamp formats must include a single line detailing the name of the court or Portal and shall not include clerk seals. Date stamps must be eight numerical digits separated by slashes with two digits for the month, two digits for the date, and four digits for the year. Time - 5 - stamps must be formatted in twelve hour time frames with a.m. or p.m. included. The font size and type must meet the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

(B) Location. The Portal stamp shall be on the top left of the document. The Florida Supreme Court and district courts of appeal stamps shall be on the left margin horizontally. Any administrative agency stamp shall be on the right margin horizontally. The clerk’s stamp for circuit and county courts shall

be on the bottom of the document.

(e) Exceptions to Recording Space. Any papers or documents created by persons or entities over which the filing party has no control, including but not limited to wills, codicils, trusts, or other testamentary documents; documents prepared or executed by any public officer; documents prepared, executed,

acknowledged, or proved outside of the State of Florida; or documents created by State or Federal government agencies, may be filed without the space required by this rule.

(f) Noncompliance. No clerk of court shall refuse for filing to file any document or paper because of noncompliance with this rule. However, upon request of the clerk of court, noncomplying documents shall be resubmitted in accordance with this rule.

E-Filing for Florida pro se litigants - Be Careful What you Wish For.

As of June 21, 2014, Florida pro se litigants can e-file their court documents in all counties and circuits throughout the state. E-filing has been in place for attorneys for some time, and this move may level the playing field for pro se litigants. Or it may prove to be yet a new barrier to court access. Only time will tell.

In the past, pro se litigants have struggled to meet the requirements of court filings. A few circuits have active pro se help desks that benefit consumers by making sure that their documents are complete and correct. However, in many other circuits pro se litigants' access to the legal system is effectively obstructed by clerks of court who reject pro se litigants documents for errors or missing forms. It remains to be seen how this will play out with e-filing.

Even worse, in the past, pro se filings sometimes languish in legal limbo due to a deficiency. Frequently, pro se litigants experience immense frustration when dealing with the court system. Consumers are often met with a non-answer from a court clerk - "We are prohibited from giving legal advice". Fair enough, however, when the clerks select forms for pro se litigants by refusing to accept their documents for lack of a form, is that not also legal advice according to the Florida Bar UPL rules?

I don't mean to sound negative, and am trying to keep an open mind. Any step forward in court access for consumers is a good thing. I only hope that the automated e-filing system doesn't create additional barriers. To learn more about e-filing for pro se litigants go to www.myflcourtaccess.com.

If you have already used the pro se e-filing system, please comment.

Substantial Change in Child Custody

"Substantial change" relative to child custody is a phrase that we often hear, but do you know what it really means? Apparently it means a lot of things ...

A Single Factor Might Not Constitute "Substantial Change"

In reviewing child custody cases it seems that a combination of several change factors is most likely to constitute a substantial and material change in circumstances. In Ogilvie v Ogilvie, 954 So 2d 698 (1st DCA 2007) the Court held that the parties failure to communicate; or the relocation of one or both of the parties; are factors that are each insufficient, by themselves, to constitute substantial or material change. However, the Court noted that “parental alienation” by itself may be sufficient to prove substantial and material change. Similarly in Morales v Morales, 915 So 2d 247 (5th DCA 2005), the Court found that, an acrimonious relationship alone, between former spouses is not substantial change.

The pertinent part of the Florida Statutes is as follows:
61.13 Support of children; parenting and time-sharing; powers of court.--

• (3) For purposes of establishing or modifying parental responsibility and creating, developing, approving, or modifying a parenting plan, including a time-sharing schedule, which governs each parent's relationship with his or her minor child and the relationship between each parent with regard to his or her minor child, the best interest of the child shall be the primary consideration. Determination of the best interests of the child shall be made by evaluating all of the factors affecting the welfare and interests of the minor child, including, but not limited to:
  

• (a) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship, to honor the time-sharing schedule, and to be reasonable when changes are required.
  

• (b) The anticipated division of parental responsibilities after the litigation, including the extent to which parental responsibilities will be delegated to third parties.
  

• (c) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to determine, consider, and act upon the needs of the child as opposed to the needs or desires of the parent.
  

and act upon the needs of the child as opposed to the needs or desires of the parent.

• (d) The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.
  

• (e) The geographic viability of the parenting plan, with special attention paid to the needs of school-age children and the amount of time to be spent traveling to effectuate the parenting plan. This factor does not create a presumption for or against relocation of either parent with a child.
  

• (f) The moral fitness of the parents.
  

• (g) The mental and physical health of the parents.
  

• (h) The home, school, and community record of the child.
  

• (i) The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
  

• (j) The demonstrated knowledge, capacity, and disposition of each parent to be informed of the circumstances of the minor child, including, but not limited to, the child's friends, teachers, medical care providers, daily activities, and favorite things.
  

• (k) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to provide a consistent routine for the child, such as discipline, and daily schedules for homework, meals, and bedtime.
  

• (l) The demonstrated capacity of each parent to communicate with and keep the other parent informed of issues and activities regarding the minor child, and the willingness of each parent to adopt a unified front on all major issues when dealing with the child.
  

• (m) Evidence of domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect, regardless of whether a prior or pending action relating to those issues has been brought.
  

• (n) Evidence that either parent has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding any prior or pending action regarding domestic violence, sexual violence, child abuse, child abandonment, or child neglect.
  

• (o) The particular parenting tasks customarily performed by each parent and the division of parental responsibilities before the institution of litigation and during the pending litigation, including the extent to which parenting responsibilities were undertaken by third parties.
  

• (p) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to participate and be involved in the child's school and extracurricular activities.
  

• (q) The demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to maintain an environment for the child which is free from substance abuse.
  

• (r) The capacity and disposition of each parent to protect the child from the ongoing litigation as demonstrated by not discussing the litigation with the child, not sharing documents or electronic media related to the litigation with the child, and refraining from disparaging comments about the other parent to the child.
  

• (s) The developmental stages and needs of the child and the demonstrated capacity and disposition of each parent to meet the child's developmental needs.
  

• (t) Any other factor that is relevant to the determination of a specific parenting plan, including the time-sharing schedule.
  

Citizen Journalists - Take Note

I am sometimes asked whether it is legal to record court proceedings. I never had an answer better than I don't know. Recently, when I heard that question again, I started looking for the answer.

I did some research and arrived at a site operated by Carlos Miller of - Photography is Not a Crime  . I think the video makes its oh so valid points with humor and panache. Take a minute and watch the video. It turns out, cameras are allowed in Florida court rooms - who knew? Evidently not the attorneys. And the judge was not fully informed either.

I would never suggest that anyone disrupt a courtroom or create a distraction .. but if you're there, and you're waiting for your case to be called. Be ready. Be ready to make a video of the proceedings. According to the video posted here, and the laws that I found, you don't need prior permission as long as you're not creating a distraction.

So, ladies and gentlemen. Please let's start documenting some of the goings on in our courtrooms today. If you see the party in front of you being bull dozed by the system, take pictures. If the pro se litigant called ahead of is told, sorry you need an attorney if you want to be speak; or we don't want to listen to you, we're going forward despite your arguments.  These incidents are rampant in foreclosure court, family court, circuit civil -- come on. Let's take our country back. The people need to know what is really going on.

Here is the actual rule in place today…..Florida Rules of Judicial Administration -

RULE 2.450. TECHNOLOGICAL COVERAGE OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (a) Electronic and Still Photography Allowed. Subject at all times to the authority of the presiding judge to: (i) control the conduct of proceedings before the court; (ii) ensure decorum and prevent distractions; and (iii) ensure the fair administration of justice in the pending cause, electronic media and still photography coverage of public judicial proceedings in the appellate and trial courts of this state shall be allowed in accordance with the following standards of conduct and technology promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida.

Posted on the First Amendment Foundation's website - http://www.floridafaf.org:

"The First Amendment Foundation is a highly visible and accessible source of authoritative information, expertise, and assistance to the public and news media. It was founded as a non-profit organization in 1984 by The Florida Press Association, the Florida Society of Newspapers Editors, and the Florida Association of Broadcasters to ensure that public commitment and progress in the areas of free speech, free press, and open government do not become checked and diluted during Florida's changing times.

Its purpose is to protect and advance the public's constitutional right to open government by providing education and training, legal aid and information services. Funding is based on voluntary contributions from various organizations and concerned individuals.

According to a 1977 Florida Supreme Court ruling:

"Freedom of the press is not, and has never been a private property right granted to those who own the news media. It is a cherished and almost sacred right of each citizen to be informed about current events on a timely basis so each can exercise his discretion in determining the destiny and security of himself, other people, and the Nation. News delayed is news denied. To be useful to the public, news events must be reported when they occur. Whatever happens in any courtroom directly or indirectly affects all the public. To prevent star-chamber injustice the public should generally have unrestricted access to all proceedings.” 

State ex rel. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. McIntosh, 340 So.2d 904, 910 (Fla. 1977). 

And a comment on The First Amendment Foundation's site by the co-founder of www.faldp.org -

Kenneth Diaz says:

February 12, 2011

"Access to our courts require the freedom of the press and of free speech. Blogging and independent reporting is a modern approach to speech and the press. We understand the value of keeping order and minimizing distractions in open court. Reasonable limits may be necessary, but mind you that the reason cameras are banned from most courtrooms is because of the sounds and flashes that may cause a distraction. As long as general courtroom decorum is maintained, restrictions on any journalists, professional or not, is counter to our values as a free society, and to our constitutional rights as citizens."

On Unauthorized Practice of Law

Citizens and consumers have no idea of the daily struggle we go through to uphold their rights. Legal document preparers serve legal consumers who either choose not to, or cannot afford to hire an attorney. Those who choose not to hire an attorney often feel that, in the past, they did not receive valuable services for their money. Others who can afford to hire an attorney, but who decide not to, that their legal matter is straight forward enough to handle themselves.

Consumers who use legal document preparers because they cannot afford an attorney, are, by far, the largest group to use alternative legal services providers. Pro bono attorney services, and free legal aid services are often unavailable. 

Florida legal document preparers must be careful to avoid even appearing to be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). The rules are not clear. And the rules that exist are rules made up and enforced by the Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court. In Florida, UPL is a third degree felony, that can include jail time and fines. The Florida Constitution grants to the Supreme Court the power to regulate attorneys, in turn the Supreme Court delegates the investigation, regulation, and enforcement of UPL to the Florida Bar. 

The Florida Bar, of all of the states, has the largest budget for UPL prosecution – over 1.5 million annually. Some of those prosecuted are certainly not only guilty of UPL, but also out and out fraud. There are other criminal laws in place for these prosecutions. Certainly, as in any industry, there are individuals who take money from the unsuspecting and disappear; or pretend to be what they are not.

From my personal knowledge, I know of a man who pretended to be an orthopedic surgeon. He operated on my former husband – twice. We only discovered the doctor was fake, by watching a TV investigative report. I once worked at a career college, which trained people to be massage therapists. Only when the director of that college was fired, did it come out that he had been lying the whole time about himself. He never had a massage therapy license. Today, I know of an individual who works for a commercial property management company and claims to be a licensed contractor. She's not. I looked it up. Some of these fraudsters masquerading as something they are not cause harm – or could cause harm. Likewise, people who pretend to be attorneys and are not, can cause harm.

But, let's be clear. There are laws against pretending to hold a professional license. Most Florida legal document preparers (LDP's) try to make it perfectly clear that they are not attorneys. Most LDP's display in all of their advertising that: they are not attorneys; they do not offer legal advice; and they cannot represent someone in court.

I know of several Florida Bar UPL investigations:

In 2008, Katie Vickers, was investigated for UPL after helping a member of her church pursue his worker's compensation claim. The attorney for Ms. Vickers' friend's employer initiated the UPL investigation. The friend was illiterate and indigent, and Ms. Vickers was helping him for free.

A member of The Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers was recently investigated after preparing a motion for civil contempt/ enforcement for family court upon the instructions of her customer. The attorney for the defendant filed a motion to dismiss; and cried UPL. Among other allegations, the attorney claimed that the motion for contempt was a “nullity” because it was prepared by a nonlawyer.

Another LDP received a notice letter from the Florida Bar, UPL investigation committee, stating that she may not display on her website the fact that she earned a Bachelor's Degree in Legal Studies.

Yet another LDP was admonished by the Florida Bar for writing a consumer complaint letter on behalf of a customer. The letter writing was deemed “legal representation” by the UPL committee.

The poster child for UPL in Florida is Rosemary Furman. Her case dates back to the 1970's, when she prepared divorce documents for women who were victims of domestic violence. The women could not receive any police protection from their battering husbands, while still married, so Ms. Furman prepared divorce petitions for them.

None of these incidents caused harm to consumers. The only harm caused was to attorneys, as legal document preparers are perceived to be invaders of attorneys' sacred turf. The Florida Bar has also been known to be so over vigilant as to troll craigslist searching for legal document preparers that make a mistake in their advertising. Florida legal document preparers as per the Florida Bar rules are not allowed to refer to themselves as independent paralegals; paralegals; or legal assistants. Some legal document preparers do so by mistake, and to their peril. The letters from the Florida Bar arrive, demanding that their advertising be removed; stating that the LDP “may be” engaging in UPL; and requesting that the LDP sign a letter acknowledging their mistake. Sometimes the letters escalate into threats of fines and jail. Give it a rest, Florida Bar.

I have a suggestion. The Florida Bar should refrain from investigating and prosecuting allegations of unauthorized practice of law aimed at legal document preparers until definitions are clear. Since there is notoriously no definition for “the practice of law”, then there also cannot be a concise definition of the unauthorized practice of law.

Defining the Practice of Law

Practitioners in every industry, except for the legal profession, can clearly state a definition of their profession. Doctors to ditch diggers; kings to carpenters; only the legal profession is unable or unwilling to clearly define their services. Apparently preferring to remain cloaked in mystery, the definition of the practice of law is either so broad as to be meaningless or so obscure as to be incomprehensible.

According to the American Bar Association, Florida's definition of the practice of law is based on the following case:

State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587, 591 (1962)

Many courts have attempted to set forth a broad definition of the practice of law. Being of the

view that such is nigh onto impossible and may injuriously affect the rights of others not here

involved, we will not attempt to do so here. Rather we will do so only to the extent required to

settle the issues of this case.

It is generally understood that the performance of services in representing another before the

courts is the practice of law. But the practice of law also includes the giving of legal advice and

counsel to others as to their rights and obligations under the law and the preparation of legal

instruments, including contracts, by which legal rights are either obtained, secured or given away,

although such matters may not then or ever be the subject of proceedings in a court.

We think that in determining whether the giving of advice and counsel and the performance of

services in legal matters for compensation constitute the practice of law it is safe to follow the

rule that if the giving of such advice and performance of such services affect important rights of a

person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and property of those advised

and served requires that the persons giving such advice possess legal skill and a knowledge of the

law greater than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the

performance of such services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of

law.

After reading, rereading, and parsing the above, I am no closer to grasping a clear definition of the practice of law.

In a 2002 article, “SCRIVENERS IN CYBERSPACE: ONLINE DOCUMENT PREPARATION AND THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW”, Catherine J. Lanctot, states:

“Indeed, when confronted with the daunting task of giving meaning to this phrase,[the unauthorized practice of law versus the practice of law] most courts also have taken an ad hoc approach, sometimes asserting confidently that, while the phrase is incapable of definition, the particular activities before it nevertheless can be said to meet any such definition.

One wonders whether such judicial default is motivated by Justice Potter Stewart’s most famous utterance about another ineffable legal concept—pornography—and that now- clichéd dictum: 'I know it when I see it.'”

If lawyers, judges, and the legal profession cannot clearly define the practice of law; how can they define the “unauthorized” practice of law? If we don't know what “it” is; then we cannot say what of “it” is unauthorized.