FALDP Conference Update - 9/13/14 - Conference Info, Specials, and More

The Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers is now well into our fourth year! Formed in May of 2010, this trade association continues to grow, adding new members, and assisting pro se litigants statewide. FALDP - Empowering the People.

The Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers – FALDP – is proud to announce our Fifth Annual Conference. This year we are hosting our conference In Daytona Beach, Florida - "The World's Most Famous Beach" on Saturday, September 13, at the Fountain Beach Resort, located at 313 S. Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach.

Since our last press release many exciting plans have come together.

CONFERENCE AGENDA

9:00 - Ruth Tick, Director - Introduce the Day; FALDP Mission;

Morning Break

10:00 - Guest Speaker - Frank S. Adamo, author and motivational speaker -“Discover the 3 Top Secrets to Smartly Achieve your Goals,”   - followed by discussion

11:00 - Guest Speaker -Circuit Court Judge John Alexander, Seventh Circuit Administrative Judge who oversees family court judge in the Seventh Judicial Circuit ~ "What Florida family law judges want pro se litigants to know."

12:00 - Lunch - provided by FALDP at no charge

1:00 - Ruth Tick - Guided Discussion - Serving the Under Served and Finding your Niche in the Marketplace

2:00 - Guest Speaker - Jennifer Milne, Esquire "Pro Se Empowerment ... The Thing That Keeps Attorneys Up at Night"

Break

3:00 - Ruth Tick - A Look Ahead - New Developments, Opportunities, and Courses

4:00 - Awards, Prizes and Giveaways

FALDP Trivia ~ Business card drawing ~  Who traveled the farthest prize ~

Member of the year award ~ And more!

Please visit our Conference Info Page for more detailed information about our conference.

SPEAKER'S BIOS

Guest Speaker ~ Circuit Court Judge John Alexander

Circuit Judge John M. Alexander was elected to the bench in 1996. He earned an undergraduate degree from the University of Florida and a juris doctor from Ohio Northern University. His past judicial assignments include criminal, civil, probate, juvenile and domestic relations. The administrative judge for St. Johns County, Judge Alexander currently presides in the unified family court at the Richard O. Watson Judicial Center in St. Augustine. In addition to being the administrative judge for St. Johns County, he also serves as the administrative judge for all the family law judges in the entire 7th Judicial Circuit.

Guest Speaker ~ Jennifer Milne, Esquire

Jennifer H. Milne, attorney-founder of South Florida Legal Rescue, LLC.  attended the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law and is licensed in two states, Hawaii and Florida.  She is also a member of the Florida Bar Family Law Section.  The primary goal of SFLR, LLC is to protect the parental rights of both fathers and mothers who are threatened with losing time-sharing/custody of their children.  Her practice and approach with child time-sharing/custody cases has been distinctly shaped by her own personal experience. Several years ago, she and her husband fought for custody of her stepson.  Like too many parents out there, her husband was unjustifiably denied access to his child for months.   Absent exceptional circumstances, Ms. Milne strongly believes that a child needs both parents.

Guest Speaker ~ Frank S. Adamo

Since 2002 Frank S. Adamo has been receiving enthusiastic reviews for his workshops, presentations, coaching and training in the United States and as far away as Georgia in Eastern Europe and Indonesia in Southeast Asia.

Frank is a communications skills specialist; an international instructor, trainer, and coach; a published author of 31 Tips to Becoming an Effective Presenter; a contributor to three books, Discover your Inner Strengthswith Brian Tracy, Ken Blanchard, and Stephen Covey; Yes You Can! with Dr. Warren Bennis and Jim Rohn; as well as Heart of a Toastmaster; and a writer of several articles.

He completed his latest book this year, Smartly Track your Goals to Superior Achievements with Ease. Frank began this book because he had a heart attack and stroke in January 2011 which prevented him from achieving most of his goals for that year. During the process of completing his book, Frank discovered three secrets to getting back on track and achieving his goals. Frank is now available to reveal these top secrets in a presentation called “Discover the 3 Top Secrets to Smartly Achieving your Goals.”

Amazing Conference, Online Courses,and Membership Specials

~~~ New Membership/Conference Special~~~

Amazing Special #1: We still have space for more dedicated document preparers at our Fifth Annual FALDP Conference. Special Offer for New Members ~ only $125 ~ for the Conference Fee & Annual Membership Fee combined. This represents a $25. savings, off of our regular $75. membership + $75. conference fee. Our Fifth Annual Conference is a full day event on September 13, in Daytona Beach, Florida.  Please visit our conference page for more details. This special will continue as long as we have space available in our meeting room; we expect to run out of seats around August 15. So hurry!

~~ Three Course Bundle = FreeConference + Free Membership ~~

Amazing Special #2: Three Course Bundle includes conference fee and membership at no additional charge - savings of $150+. Our course bundles represent a per course savings already, and with this amazing special, you can save even more. Our three course bundle is $459. - choose any three of our online courses.

         Courses include:

• Parental Responsibility
• Debt Defense
• Post-Conviction Document Preparation
• Introduction to Preparing Florida Legal Documents
• Immigration
• Becoming a Successful Landlord Landlord/Tenant
• Preparing Florida Divorce Documents
• Living Trusts & Estate Planning Document Preparation
• Bankruptcy Basics - Chapter 7 Personal Bankruptcy

Graduates of Florida paralegal programs benefit from our online courses because our courses are specific to preparing the exact documents most needed by pro se litigants. Frequently, consumers are overwhelmed by the amount of detailed information they must learn in order to complete their legal task. It is common for a consumer to purchase a forms packet from the clerk of court, only to put it aside in frustration, and then seek out a legal document preparer for help.

~~~~~ Turn Key Bundle includesConference ~~~~

Amazing Special #3: The Turn Key Business Bundle always offers an expansive package of business services. The FALDP Turn Key Business Bundle always includes annual membership -- but now and until further notice -- also includes free entry into the Fifth Annual Conference on September 13, 2014 in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Turn Key Business Bundle, for a flat price of only $499. offers all of the tools you'll need to start a legal document preparation business. Can't find a job? Create one!

The Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers is at the forefront of helping consumers access the legal system, empowering consumers to pursue their cause or defend themselves. We proudly serve the under served. If you're a document preparer and want to be part of something bigger than all of us, join our association and attend this important conference.

Contact

staff@faldp.org

800-515-0496

Response from Senator Bill Nelson regarding Net Neutrality

Thank you for contacting me regarding net neutrality.  I share your concern for a fair and open Internet.        On April 30, I sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler asking him to take steps to ensure that the Internet remains open and accessible to all users and content providers.  Specifically, I asked Chairman Wheeler to avoid a framework in the FCC's proposed Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would allow some content providers to sign “paid prioritization" or "fast lane" agreements with Internet Service Providers (ISPs).  This approach could upset the basic concept of an open Internet by creating a "two-tier" system of access that would be very difficult to remedy in the future.        I also asked Chairman Wheeler to carefully consider the current legal framework for ISPs, and seek additional comment on whether it would be beneficial to reclassify ISPs as telecommunications common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act, instead of their current deregulated treatment under section 706 of the Communications Act.        I have a long history of fighting for a free and open Internet and remain committed to this goal.  Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue, and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.                                      Sincerely,                                    Bill Nelson   P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians.  If you'd like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

Warrantless Searches

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

“right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Over the years, court rulings have interpreted the exact meaning of those words. One of the landmark cases is called Mapp v. Ohio which laid the ground work for the exclusionary rule. Fruits of the poison tree. In Mapp v Ohio officers searched a residence without a warrant and found evidence of pornography. 

Facts - Mapp v Ohio:

On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of paper, they broke in the door. Mapp asked to see the “warrant” and took it from an officer, putting it in her dress. The officers struggled with Mapp and took the piece of paper away from her. They handcuffed her for being “belligerent.”

Police found neither the bombing suspect nor the betting equipment during their search, but they did discover some pornographic material in a suitcase by Mapp's bed. Mapp said that she had loaned the suitcase to a boarder at one time and that the contents were not her property. She was arrested, prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced for possession of pornographic material. No search warrant was introduced as evidence at her trial.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned the conviction, and five justices found that the States were bound to exclude evidence seized in violation of the 4th Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Tom Clark declared: “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in a state court…. Were it otherwise…the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].”

Since then, 1957, the times have changed and so have the courts. Subsequent court decisions have eroded the absoluteness of the exclusionary rule, creating exceptions such as Nix v. Williams, 1984 (inevitable discovery rule), and U.S. v. Leon, 1984 (“good faith” exception)

In general a warrantless search must be a consent search. If there is no search warrant and no consent from someone with proper authority to consent, then the search is an illegal search and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In the context of automobile searches, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.  

First, police do not need to obtain a warrant where it is shown that there are exigent circumstances excusing the need to obtain the warrant.

"Exigent circumstances" in this context are defined as follows: A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

However, even if there are exigent circumstances, the police must still have probable cause to undertake the search.  Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 392-93 (1978).  

Second, police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant’s arrest when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search.  Arizona v. Gant, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 1719 (2009).

Third, under the “automobile exception,” law enforcement officers may undertake a warrantless search of a vehicle if there is probable cause to believe that the automobile contains evidence of criminal activity that the officers are entitled to seize.  See Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).  Thus, in United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) and in California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (1991), the Supreme Court held that, under the automobile exception, police officers may undertake a warrantless search of a closed container found in a vehicle when the officers have probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity will be found in the container.  

In a recent Florida Supreme Court case, Florida vs. Thomas, 00-391, the court held that because Thomas had gotten out of the car before he had any contact with police, the officers could not automatically search his car after arresting him. Instead, the court said police must show the search was necessary to protect officers’ safety or to preserve evidence.

In that case, Thomas had arrived at a house where officers were present, and got out of his vehicle. An officer met him and asked to see his driver’s license. A license check showed an arrest warrant for a probation violation. The officer arrested Thomas, and a search of his car shortly afterward found plastic bags containing a substance that police said tested positive as methamphetamine.

There is recent and ample case law that addresses exactly how consent can be given, by whom; whether or not consent was coerced; and the validity of probable cause because of a K-9 alerting to a scent.

Our Bill of Rights is still in place, and it is our duty to know and fight for our rights, lest we lose them all.

Two Mysteries of Florida Family Law Rules

In the course of doing business as a legal document preparer, my customers often ask me questions about procedure and why things are the way they are. I am allowed to provide consumers information regarding procedural rules, timelines, etc.; as long as I refrain from offering legal advice. Most people that contact me do not want legal advice anyway, they just don't know how to fill out the forms. And that's why we're here. The reason for this entire industry is that consumers either don't know how to prepare their own documents, don't have the time, or cannot possibly afford an attorney. A large part of the documents I prepare are family law documents, such as divorces, and supplemental petitions for modification of existing orders.

Mystery Number One:

If a couple is divorcing, they have no children, and they have already split all their assets, why does the State of Florida require a family law financial affidavit?

This is a basic divorce scenario where both parties want to go their separate ways, and have no disputes over anything. In the past couple of years, the requirement for a financial affidavit in a Simplified Dissolution of Marriage (which has never been so simple in my opinion - and I rarely have a request for these forms) changed so that divorcing couples using the simplified process can waive the financial affidavit requirement. However, the huge drawback for couples using the simplified process is that they both must appear in court. And, although, they may not have any disputes over property or children, they still may not want to be in the same room together ever again, and they may not be sure that the other party is going to be completely reliable, and if the other party doesn't show up, then there will be no divorce. And they will very likely have to pay another filing fee to get the divorce completed. So, many couples who qualify for the simplified process, use a petition for dissolution with no children and no property instead. That way, the more motivated party, can make sure he or she is the petitioner, and make sure that the divorce is completed, and the marriage is done and over, regardless of whether the other party cooperates or not. But, these couples are required to file a financial affidavit. Why? Customers ask me all the time. And my only answer is that the State of Florida says so, and beyond that I have no idea.

I recently helped a customer whose ex-husband to be lives in another country. No children, no assets, no debt. She sent him the divorce petition and an answer and waiver of appearance for him to sign. Which he did. But, when she tried to schedule a hearing, the clerk of court refused to schedule it because her husband had not filed a financial affidavit. And then the clerk of court directed her to file a motion to compel him to file a financial affidavit. Since he is in another country how can the State of Florida compel him to do anything? Sounds like a legal question, and I have no idea what the answer is. The bigger question is the central mystery here. Why is it the business of the State of Florida to know the financial information of a consumer, just because they are going through a divorce? If you know the answer, please comment.

Mystery Number Two:

This second mystery is much worse. Frequently, when unwed parents part company the mother (usually) files for child support through the Florida Department of Revenue. The father receives a notice in the mail that he must appear for the child support hearing and to bring all his pay stubs and proof of income. Many fathers are happy to go because they think that they can also request child visitation (timesharing) at the same hearing. Au contraire mon frere! However, most of the time these hearings are held before a General Magistrate, not a Judge. A General Magistrate also called a Hearing Officer is usually an attorney appointed by the Chief Judge to hear uncontested family law matters. So when the parties go in front of the General Magistrate, the court's assumption is that there is no dispute. The father owes child support, and that's the end of it. The General Magistrate is not allowed to hear any disputes, not allowed to hear anything related to child visitation, and the fathers come out of those hearings with their heads reeling. When the father tries to bring up child visitation or custody, the General Magistrate refuses to hear it. Most often the General Magistrate does not explain to the father why he can't hear it (because he's not allowed to); and doesn't tell the father what he can do to make sure that he has the legal right to see his own children and not be treated like an ATM.

Why does the State of Florida persist in allowing the fathers to be treated this way? If you know the answer as to the why, please comment.

There is a solution, however, and I truly hope this is helpful to someone. If you are caught in the situation described above: File a Petition to Determine Paternity and Related Relief; and a proposed Parenting Plan. The outcome will be an order naming you as the legal father, with the legal right to spend time with your children. The Parenting Plan is the schedule of visitation.

It IS Rocket Science

I like to say - only building a space ship is rocket science - I know that my statement isn't entirely true. Spaceships and rockets are completely different. My point, however, is the obvious one, that only certain things are so complicated they cannot be figured out by an intelligent and motivated layman. Rocket science being one of those too complicated for most of us to figure out.

Unfortunately, all too often, another one of those things too complicated to figure out is our legal system. Some judges and lawyers smirk at the challenges pro se litigants face -- others are helpful and sympathetic. The fact is most pro se litigants would prefer to hire an attorney, but cannot afford the price. Eat and pay rent; or pay an attorney? Some court clerks seem to take pleasure in saying - sorry, I can't answer that, I cannot give you legal advice. This cryptic response is often given to pro se litigants in answer to even the simplest procedural question. Baffling to consumers who thought the clerks job was to help them.

Suppose you had to build a house. It isn't your idea to build a house, you must build it because the government said to. And you need to build it to protect yourself from the enemy. If you don't build it and soon-- there will be adverse consequences, they promise. If you are a construction person, builder, contractor, carpenter, or handyman exclude yourself from this scenario. You know you could do this if need be. I'm talking to everyone else, all of you -- servers, salespeople, doctors, lawyers, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, and even rocket scientists. What if you were not only told you must build the house -- but you were given no tools at all, were given a strict deadline, and were given no information whatsoever about the rigorous specifications required. On top of that you are met with hostile adversaries at every turn, maybe an irate neighbor, telling you that they've had enough of the noise. And maybe a building inspector continually over your shoulder demanding that you adhere to rules you never heard of. The enemy alternately lurks waiting to feed on your mistakes; or attacks full on at the slightest whiff of your weakness.

You're allowed to research online to your heart's content. And you do so, feverishly, repeatedly, until late at night and, long past the point of comprehending the meaning of the court cases which may as well be written in Swahili. You're allowed to ask friends and family for help and advice. And your family and friends do their best to help, but they don't know any more about building than you do. You're even allowed to pay someone to build it for you. To your dismay, however, you quickly discover that the only people that really know how to build a house are really expensive. And they seem to relish giving half answers to your questions; watching you make amateur mistakes; and finally smirking at the result. The building inspector threatens to fine you if you don't build it just right exactly according to his invisible plans. And he tells you quickly hurry up now, lest you fall behind schedule. The endlessly irate neighbor comes calling at least once a day to tell you to please be quiet already and don't forget to clean up the debris before it blows all over the street.

Building a house may prove too difficult for most motivated laymen. So much easier to start with a doghouse, birdhouse, or shed first. And the same is true for legal do it yourselfers. Small claims, the people's, court, can be a good place to start, where the rules are somewhat relaxed and the judges expect pro se litigants to do their best and muddle through. But, pro se litigants don't always have the luxury of choosing to start their legal do it yourself education with something manageable like small claims court. And even there, with an attorney as an adversary, a pro se litigant can be quickly out played.

All rocket science. Just like pro se litigants are totally lost and overwhelmed by the obstacles they encounter in trying to handle their legal matter on their own, so would you non-construction people face similar challenges in building a house. May as well build a spaceship.

New Florida Alimony Law Goes Into Effect July 2013 -- Oops! Not so fast ...

This bill was vetoed - update:
Governor Scott vetoed the alimony reform bill on 5/1/2013. Back to the drawing board. No Happy Dance yet.

The following is my original post:

For many Florida divorced men, its almost time for the HAPPY DANCE! Alimony reform is coming, and will go into effect July 1, 2013. Although technically called “spousal support” and admittedly there was a mini trend of women paying out alimony during the recent economic down turn, the vast majority of alimony payors are men. The playing field is soon to be leveled. And not a minute to soon.

I wrote about Florida alimony before, back in October, 2012 -

Florida Permanent Alimony – Permanent. – Really?

“But when you hear the stories of the men in nursing homes having their social security checks garnished for alimony – come on. I have to wonder what became of that former wife's self respect, not to mention her humanity, that she would accept those alimony payments. And I also have to wonder how collecting permanent alimony can help a woman ever achieve economic equality. Fair is fair. “

The new law which is to go into effect in July of this year will abolish permanent alimony. Wow. The life sentence is over, amnesty, pardon, freedom, absolution, and on and on. Most people do not mind paying child support. And some people do not mind paying a reasonable amount of alimony for a reasonable duration. But every single man I've met who is paying permanent alimony, regardless of the amount, feels mistreated and abused by the system.

Besides abolishing permanent alimony the new law makes other changes:

• Eliminates consideration of the standard of living established during the marriage as a factor in
  determining alimony.
• Creates presumptions for earning ability imputed to an obligee.
• Requires written findings justifying factors regarding an alimony award or modification.
• Creates evidentiary thresholds for certain awards of alimony or modification.
• Creates a presumption that the parties will have a lower standard of living after divorce.
• Limits alimony based on formulas that take into account relative incomes and the length of the
  marriage.
• Provides that alimony terminates upon the obligee reaching retirement age.
• Shifts the burden of proof regarding the need for alimony to the obligee in certain circumstances.
• Prohibits modification of alimony based solely on a reduction in child support.
• Allows bifurcation of a dissolution case if pending more than 180 days, and requires bifurcation if pending over 365 days.
• Allows modification or termination of existing alimony awards.
• Provides a schedule for review of existing awards of alimony.

And as far as future modifications of alimony, the new law provides:

• Provides that the court must reduce or terminate the alimony award because of the supportive
  relationship, except upon a showing by "clear and convincing evidence" that the need for
  alimony has not been reduced by the relationship.
• Removes the requirement that the obligee spouse is residing with the other person.
• Provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that any modification or termination based on a
  supportive relationship is retroactive to the date of filing the petition.
• Adds a provision for attorney's fees in the event of unreasonable requests for modification of an
  existing award.

I have some problems with the new law – bifurcation of dissolution, and the clear and convincing evidence standard. But, all in all, it seems to be a positive step toward making life more livable for many divorced men. The women have not been sold out, either. Alimony remains entirely possible for either spouse, when the need exists. It is, however, no longer a free ride.

Neurologists in a GP World

We posted a survey on our site in September 2012 to collect information about pro se litigants. The reason we did so, is because although there are bits of information here and there no one is very diligent about tracking the habits of Florida pro se litigants. No one in the government anyway. So we, at the Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers have taken it upon ourselves to find out who these customers are and why they came to us.

This is only the first in a series, and we immediately admit that despite our best efforts there are some flaws in our research design. We allowed respondents to choose “other” too often, and in most cases we don't know what “other” means. And we did not include questions about respondents' education levels, and now wish we had asked for that information. However, we collected some interesting information, and will be offering a new survey very soon.

Our Findings

According to our survey, pro se litigants are most likely to be males between the ages of 50 and 65. I found the age and gender somewhat surprising, as I would have guessed at mostly women as pro se litigants; and mostly younger people in general as the most likely to proceed pro se. Not surprisingly, 70% of respondents are representing themselves and 73% initiated their court case. The fact that the respondents selected themselves explains these numbers, these pro active pro se litigants are also the most likely to visit our site in the first place.

In answer to: “Why are you representing yourself”? Eighty percent chose – cannot afford an attorney. The other 20% was equally divided between consumers who could afford an attorney, but chose not to; and consumers who believed their legal matter was simple enough to do it themselves.

In answer to: “Did you do any of the following before deciding to represent yourself”? -

Twenty-six percent chose “research online”. Only 6% asked at the Pro Se Help Desk at the courthouse; another 5% called or visited a legal aid center; and another 4% called the Florida Bar referral line. Those three things are supposed to be consumers first (and sometimes only) choice for legal assistance other than hiring an attorney. But as we can see, consumers are seeking help and information from google before going to the government. Could it be that consumers are so accustomed to getting nowhere and receiving no help that they automatically try the do it yourself way first? Is it because Americans, by nature, are independent and prefer to do it themselves?

In more answers to that same question, another 11% visited a law library; 10% consulted with an attorney; and 12% asked the clerk of court. “Other” was chosen 16% of the time, and unfortunately we do not know what other means. And can't imagine.

In answering the related question: “What did you find most helpful in deciding to represent yourself”? Fifty percent chose “educating myself online”.

Regarding the most difficult part of self representation, 30% chose “understanding procedures and rules; and 20% chose “finding someone to answer a question about legal procedure”. Most consumers believe that it is the clerk of court's job to answer questions about legal procedure. Unfortunately for most consumers many clerks of court disagree. Finding legal information and understanding legal information accounted for an additional 30% of responses combined. And that pesky “other” accounted for 17%. And again, we apologize for not knowing what “other” means.

Seventeen percent of survey respondents chose either a judge or a clerk of court to be the most helpful to them as a pro se litigant. However, 43% chose “other” as the most helpful to them as a pro se. We hope that in this case, “other” means legal document preparer, but we can't be sure. We also found that survey respondents were just about evenly split as to whether or not they were using a legal document preparer.

What is the most difficult part of representing yourself?

Comments:

The favoritism and inequitable access to the Court enjoyed by opposing counsel. Also, the extreme prejudice most judges and court personnel exhibit against self-litigants.

The prejudice against pro se litigants by the judiciary in Florida.

Getting the judges, general magistrates, and court personnel in general to recognize I have the right to represent myself. And the biggest problem that I face is scheduling hearings with the court, basically because the other side has an attorney. The court system does not handle pro se cases very will when an attorney is involved. This is especially true for Duval County, Fl.

I use a prepaid legal service and a para legal and I look at other case history to understand how to make the presentation. Attorneys are expensive and take too much time. sourcing the case history takes time and knowledge. I have to know the rules and how to proceed to get to the judge and be prepared and specific with facts. understanding what are facts and what is considered hearsay. Many attorneys I found are handling many cases and are very spread thin. That means lack of quality because of quantity.

JUDGES. AND LAWYERS WHO LIKE FULL BLOWN CIVPRO OVER SMALL CLAIMS RULES. THEY'RE NEUROLOGISTS IN A GP WORLD.

The comments are verbatim from the survey. 

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009

Ever since boom went bust, residential tenants have suffered as collateral damage. Many Florida families have become suddenly homeless through no fault of their own, when their landlords lost their rental homes to foreclosure. Imagine. It's the middle of the month. You paid your rent on the first. You just paid your utilities. The kids are happy in school. You're getting settled into a new job. Finally! And then the sheriff comes to the door and tells you that you have 24 hours to move.

 

It happens everyday. It isn't supposed to happen anymore, but it does. The not so new federal law, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, has upset long standing practice that foreclosure will almost always extinguish an existing lease. Some states, being proactive, began enacting legislation that would offer tenants protection prior to 2009. Not so in Florida. Florida has not been able to enact a single new law that would protect tenants in foreclosure. Several bills died in committee. Nothing has been accomplished. 

  

If a residential tenant does not have a lease and the property goes into foreclosure after he moves in, the tenant has 90 days to leave the property. If the tenant has a lease and the lease went into effect before the foreclosure began, before the lis pendens, was served, the lease remains in full force for the entire remaining time on the lease.

 

SEC. 702. EFFECT OF FORECLOSURE ON PREEXISTING TENANCY.
(a) In General- In the case of any foreclosure on a federally-related mortgage loan or on any dwelling or residential real property after the date of enactment of this title, any immediate successor in interest in such property pursuant to the foreclosure shall assume such interest subject to--

2. the rights of any bona fide tenant, as of the date of such notice of foreclosure--
   (A) under any bona fide lease entered into before the notice of foreclosure to occupy the premises until the end of the remaining term of the lease, except that a successor in interest may terminate a lease effective on the date of sale of the unit to a purchaser who will occupy the unit as a primary residence …
   

(B)(b) Bona Fide Lease or Tenancy- For purposes of this section, a lease or tenancy shall be considered bona fide only if--
(1) the mortgagor or the child, spouse, or parent of the mortgagor under the contract is not the tenant;
(2) the lease or tenancy was the result of an arms-length transaction; and
(3) the lease or tenancy requires the receipt of rent that is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property or the unit's rent is reduced or subsidized due to a Federal, State, or local subsidy.

SEC. 704. SUNSET.

This title, and any amendments made by this title are repealed, and the requirements under this title shall terminate, on December 31, 2014.

In researching this issue, I could not find any Florida cases that relied on the PTFA. At first, I couldn't understand why, and imagined that it is only because the system is slow to respond to new laws. However, I found an article by Tony Guo (2011), “Tenants at Foreclosure: Mitigating Harm to Innocent Victims of the Foreclosure Crisis”. He states: “However, since the passing of the federal legislation in 2009, Florida's reaction has been one of minimum compliance, and has not been particularly tenant friendly.” (Guo:23).

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

RELAUNCH - site, courses, and start-up package.

We, at The Florida Association of LegalDocument Preparers (FALDP) are proud to announce exciting changes throughout our organization. We have refined and redesigned our courses in anticipation of our site-wide RELAUNCH. Many legal document preparers spend years in paralegal studies programs only to discover, upon graduation, that there are no paralegal jobs available. Or, even worse, many discover that the paralegal jobs that are available don't pay enough to justify their years of academic training. So, many would-be paralegals discover that its time to use their entrepreneurial skills and open up shop as legal document preparers. As small business owners they soon discover that they are their own favorite boss of all time. Once their legal document preparation business takes off -- they never look back.

We've added value to our popular Turn Key Business Bundle. Our start up package now includes even more tools to help you build a successful business. We have worked long and hard to develop a business start-up package for a legal document preparation business.

Turn Key Business Bundle

$878.00 Value for Only $499.00

• A Limited Liability Company, documents prepared and ready to file with the state - $89.00 Value

• One year Premium Membership into FALDP - $65.00 Value

• Online Course - Introduction to Florida Legal Document Preparation - $99.00 ValueOnline Course - your choice - Preparing Florida Divorce Documents; OR Bankruptcy Chapter 7; OR Living Trust & Estate Planning Documents – up to $220.00 Value

• A custom website and top-level domain - a $330.00 Value
• One month of unlimited mentoring – a $50.00 Value

• A press release written for you to announce your new company - priceless.

• Marketing - our Gorilla Baby package, two weeks internet advertising on eight of the most popular online portals - $25.00 Value.
  

                                  Online Courses - Descriptions

Our courses can be part of the Turnkey Business Bundle or taken one at a time. They are targeted primarily towards legal document preparers who want to increase their business income by adding services. People who are new to the industry and want to learn how to prepare Florida legal documents must begin with the INTRO course. Likewise, people who are coming in from other states, even those with experience, must enroll in the INTRO course before joining our association. Consumers are also invited to take our courses.

INTRO to Florida Legal Document Preparation - $99.00 (INTRO-310)
Preparing Florida Divorce Documents - $220.00 (DOM - 202)

Living Trusts & Estate Planning - $99.00 (LT - 312)
Bankruptcy Basics – Chapter 7 Personal Bankruptcy - $149.00 (BK – 127)

Free Basic Membership with paid tuition for INTRO -310 – a $40.00 Value. This special membership fee, for new members only, is available until December 31, 2012. So hurry. All memberships renew on June 1.

Introduction to Florida Legal Document Preparation (INTRO) discusses the legal document preparation industry - including business structure, name choice considerations; and various business models and structures . No prior paralegal training is required. INTRO also stresses compliance and avoiding the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).There are required assignments, but no exam. INTRO is mandatory for inexperienced document preparers, and for document preparers relocating to Florida from other states, who seek FALDP membership. Tuition - $99.00

Preparing Florida Divorce Documents (DOM -202) is a nuts and bolts course based on Florida Supreme Court approved forms for pro se litigants. Each of the different types of divorce situations is discussed. Upon successful completion, students receive a Course Completion Certificate. Entirely self-paced, students work around their own work and family schedules. Tuition - $220.00

Living Trusts and Estate Planning (LT-312) is appropriate for both document preparers and consumers. For a limited time, consumers who purchase a Living Trust document package through our site, after successfully completing LT-312, will be rebated 100% of their tuition. We know that informed consumers are the best customers; we strive to help consumers make informed decisions. We offer a revenue sharing plan for FALDP members who successfully complete LT-312. - $99.00

Bankruptcy Basics - Chapter 7 Personal Bankruptcy (BK-127) shows consumers and document preparers how to start over with a clean financial slate. This foundation course introduces learners to bankruptcy terminology; types of bankruptcy; eligibility; Florida exemptions; means test; and do's and don'ts for Bankruptcy Petition Preparers. BK-127 is completely self-paced, and is appropriate for consumers and legal document preparers. Tuition - $149.00

Due to the dismal economy many consumers cannot comfortably afford attorneys fees for routine legal matters. The services of legal document preparers are becoming increasingly more acceptable as our industry gains credibility. The services of legal document preparers are now considered a “perfectly acceptable legal solution” rather than just a good enough, or, better than nothing, legal solution.


Whether you are new to the legal document preparation industry or want to expand your services, the Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers is here to help. Registration for our online courses is open. Please visit:  http://www.faldp.org/

Call today - Toll Free

800-515-0496

                                                          
We, the members of the Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers, deeply believe that it is the right of all American consumers to have access to the legal system, regardless of income or education. It is our mission to deliver well researched legal information to consumers.

The FALDP mission embodies our quest and our goals. We offer legal information; and document preparation assistance. We hope that by educating consumers about their legal rights -- we will have done our part to give others hope.

The FALDP mission is a journey. We have only begun, there is much to do. We hope that the confidence gained through education and knowledge will empower consumers, so they may have a fighting chance to enforce or pursue their rights in a court of law.

Vision or Mirage?

The following is displayed on the Florida Supreme Court's website:

Mission of the Florida Judicial Branch

The mission of the judicial branch is to protect rights and liberties, uphold and interpret the law, and provide for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

Vision of the Florida Judicial Branch

Justice in Florida will be accessible, fair, effective, responsive, and accountable. To be accessible, the Florida justice system will be convenient, understandable, timely, and affordable to everyone.

To be fair, it will respect the dignity of every person, regardless of race, class, gender or other characteristic, apply the law appropriately to the circumstances of individual cases, and include judges and court staff that reflect the community's diversity.

To be effective, it will uphold the law and apply rules and procedures consistently and in a timely manner, resolve cases with finality, and provide enforceable decisions.

To be responsive, it will anticipate and respond to the needs of all members of society, and provide a variety of dispute resolution methods.

To be accountable, the Florida justice system will use public resources efficiently, and in a way that the public can understand.

Do you believe that Florida's judicial branch makes a continuing and diligent effort to realize the vision? I have my opinion. I want to hear yours. Please comment.

Information Asymmetry – What You Don't Know Can Hurt You.

I see it a lot. Information asymmetry occurs when one person has access to a lot more information than the other person. Auto mechanics, webmasters, realtors, doctors, and yes, lawyers all have access to specific information that is beyond the understanding or reach of the average person. I recently read a court transcript of a final divorce hearing. The former husband brought me the transcript, wanting me to prepare a petition to modify his alimony. We'll call him Joe. His wife had an attorney at the final hearing, Joe did not. As I read the transcript, the neon words flashing in my mind were – sheep to slaughter.

During the hearing Joe expressed in various ways, numerous times that he did not understand what was going on. Joe is mentally competent, English is his native language, but he has no understanding of the law or legal system. Joe is not unusual. Lack of understanding of the law and legal system is common in America. The obfuscation is by design. If we could all understand the law, there would be no reason for lawyers to be.

On Joe's march to slaughter the wife's attorney convinced the judge that Joe should pay over half of his monthly income to his former wife. Joe earns slightly less than the Florida individual median income of around $27,000; and substantially less than the $47,000. household median income. By Joe's estimates, after taxes he ends up with about $4.00 per hour. The wife's attorney also convinced the judge that the alimony should be permanent, because not only was it a long term marriage, but the wife is allegedly unable to work. No medical evidence – not even a scribbled note from a doctor -- was offered to support the wife's assertion that she is unable to work. This lack of any shred of documentation leads us to wonder, if she is unable to work, why doesn't she apply for disability? Joe, who is already almost 60, will, in just a few years, be paying alimony out of his social security.

And it wasn't even that Joe never had legal advice. He did. He hired an attorney when he initiated the divorce. But, Joe's funds ran out right before the final hearing, so he was in court by himself, $3,500 poorer. The money that he spent on his attorney was wasted. Although the legal work was well done and worthwhile, Joe had no understanding of the documents and no use for documents he did not understand. Too bad the attorney bailed right before the final hearing.
Among other things that Joe didn't know before or during the hearing was that maybe he could request the court to order the wife pay for his attorney, and he could have continued to be represented. Maybe Joe's attorney could have suggested it, but he didn't. Joe didn't know to ask his wife to prove she couldn't work. Or if he knew to ask, he didn't know how to ask.

I work hard everyday to educate and inform consumers about their legal system. I carefully walk the tightrope, and gingerly avoid offering legal advice. Instead of legal advice, I offer consumers legal information. And, I teach consumers how to find legal information that is specific to their circumstances. I want the playing field to be level. I want my customers to have a fighting chance. Do your research before you go to court. If you need information – just ask – we're here to help.

Florida Bar Rules Proposal Restricts Citizens Right to Court Access

America, like other democracies is based on a social contract. We agree, at least in theory, to trade some of our freedoms for an orderly society. In short, we agree to the idea of having laws to govern us. And, although, we much rather that the laws govern others, we, in theory, agree that the laws govern us as well. We are bound to follow laws of which we have no knowledge. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, yet it is impossible to know all the laws.

Our lawmakers pass laws at a dizzying rate. We have laws to govern the minutiae of our lives. Some of the laws are bewildering, others simply strange. Some of Florida's peculiar laws are: The state constitution allows for freedom of speech, a trial by jury, and pregnant pigs to not be confined in cages. Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon owner. Florida deals with its prostitution problem by giving prostitutes spending money, a five-year banishment, and a bus ticket out of town.

Although there are many laws and many lawyers, there is precious little low cost legal assistance for middle Americans. Non-profit legal aid societies can only assist some of the citizens who request help. Bound by their by-laws and funding most of the non-profit legal aid centers are overwhelmed, and cannot serve many citizens who qualify simply because the centers do not have the staff. Most legal aid centers are also limited to the types of cases which they accept. And their income guidelines are almost always tied to federal poverty guidelines.

Attorney fees are at an all time high, an anomaly considering the fact that the number of practicing attorneys is also at an all time high. A Florida divorce can easily cost each party between $5,000 to $10,000 in attorney fees; and more if there are many issues in dispute. A conservative estimate of average attorney fees is $200. per hour; and can be as much as $400. 

Median income in Florida hovers around $40,000. per year, which works out to around $770. per week gross income. So, someone earning Florida's median income could spend over a week's gross pay on about four hours of average priced attorney fees. “Median” income means that half of the population earns more than the median ($40,000); and half earns less. The very lowest earners, and the indigent (those with little or no income) likely qualify for free legal services. The federal poverty income level for a single individual is around $10,000. per year or less. 

 

So, what do all those moderate income Florida citizens do? How do all the people who earn more than nothing, and less than the median, pursue their legal rights, solve a legal issue, or settle a dispute? They have two choices: give up; or do it themselves.

Sadly, many consumers do give up. Many see no way to pursue their rights, so they don't. Others, who have the time and the education, teach themselves how to navigate the court system. They find the correct forms, do their own research, and go it alone. Many consumers, who have the ability to educate themselves about their own legal issues, combine their acquired knowledge with document preparation assistance. Other legal consumers, who need nothing more than assistance in completing forms, also seek out legal document preparers to help them.

The services of a legal document preparer are not a substitute for attorney services. But, the services of an attorney are so far beyond the financial means of many citizens, they have no choice. For self-represented litigants who need nothing more than the correct form, filled out correctly, and filed in the proper way, legal document preparation services are ideal. These citizens, confident of and knowledgeable about their legal rights, need nothing more. These citizens are sophisticated enough to be able to stand up in front of a judge and state their case, with confidence and conviction.

Other citizens, who are neither confident nor knowledgeable about their legal rights and issues, also use the services of legal document preparers. They have no choice. Often their legal issues involve custody of their children; child support; or divorce. Important family issues – private matters that must be sorted out in court.

There are but a few bright line rules that govern the conduct of legal document preparers in Florida. Legal document preparers must not give legal advice. Legal document preparers must not hold themselves out to be attorneys. The Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 15 grants the Florida Supreme Court power and jurisdiction to regulate attorneys:

“ Attorneys; admission and discipline.–The supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of persons admitted.”

Rules that govern “nonlawyer” legal document preparers are in Rule 10 of the Florida Bar Rules. The authority for the Florida Bar to investigate and prosecute cases of the unlicensed practice of law (UPL), are within a series of Supreme Court opinions; Florida Bar Advisory opinions; and the Florida Bar Rules.

In a 1989 U.S. 11^th Circuit court case, Serena Dunn vs. The Florida Bar, 889 F. 2d 1010 (1989), Serena Dunn, who is illiterate, and a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court based on the plaintiffs difficulty in accessing the Florida court system. The plaintiffs stated that they were unable to afford the services of attorneys to assist them; and that they were unable to proceed on their own because of various disabilities including blindness, illiteracy, or lack of English language skills. 

 

The constitutional question was never resolved. Serena Dunn, et al, voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit when the Florida Bar voluntarily agreed to change the rules governing nonlawyers and the unlicensed practice of law. This rule came into effect:

Florida SC 70.502, July 9, 1987

(b) Definition of UPL. The unlicensed practice of law, as prohibited by statute, court rule, and case law of the state of Florida. For purposes of this chapter, it shall not constitute the unlicensed practice of law for nonlawyers to engage in limited oral communications to assist individuals in the completion of legal forms approved by the Supreme Court of Florida. Oral communications by nonlawyers are restricted to those communications reasonably necessary to elicit factual information to complete the form(s) and inform the individual how to file such form(s).

The Serena Dunn Circuit court case and the Florida Supreme Court Opinion both include language further defining and broadening the duties nonlawyers are allowed to perform. Alan B. Morrison, attorney for Serena Dunn, asked the court to make clear, “... that nonlawyers may tell the individuals, for example, how many copies must be filed, what the filing fees are, what is the proper method of payment, how long the typical period is before a hearing will be scheduled, and other matters of a routine administrative nature ...” Similar language was included in the Supreme Court ruling. The only language in the Bar rule that is apparently derived from that specific request is: “...and inform the individual how to file such form(s)”.

The Circuit Court case was brought in the aftermath of the Rosemary Furman debacle. Furman owned Northside Secretarial Services in Jacksonville where she prepared divorce documents for victims of domestic violence. The Florida Bar charged Furman with the unlicensed practice of law; found her guilty of indirect contempt of court; ordered her to close her business; and sentenced her to 60 days in Duval County jail. No consumer ever complained about Ms. Furman's business. In fact, the Florida Bar hired a former FBI agent to track down over 100 of Furman's customers, who all refused to testify against her.

The Florida Bar continued their prosecution of Ms. Furman. She was spared serving jail time only through an eleventh hour pardon signed by Governor Bob Graham. The Governor took action because of the public outcry. Letters poured into Tallahassee, and the media was in a frenzy, because the Florida Bar was going to lock up in jail a 60 year old woman for doing no more than assisting people with their court paperwork. The Florida Bar was unwilling to go through yet another barrage of adverse publicity so they settled with the attorneys for Serena Dunn, et al, in Circuit Court. But, the Circuit Court never resolved the constitutional question that the Serena Dunn case posed. 

 

The Florida Bar rules surrounding the unlicensed practice of law were mostly unchanged for many years. As of April 2011, the following is posted on the Florida Bar's website, www.floridabar.org :

1. It shall not constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to engage in limited oral communications to assist a person in the completion of blanks on a legal form approved by the Supreme Court of Florida. Oral communications by nonlawyers are restricted to those communications reasonably necessary to elicit factual information to complete the blanks on the form and inform the person how to file the form. Legal forms approved by the Supreme Court of Florida which may be completed as set forth herein shall only include and are limited to forms approved by the Supreme Court of Florida pursuant to rule 10-2.1(a) [formerly rule 10-1.1(b)] of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, the Family Law Forms contained in the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, and the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms contained in the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.

The following is the proposed (amended and expanded) rule as of April 2011. The language in bold in this version of the rule, is nearly identical to the language in the 1987 rule. The bold face type is similar to the language of the existing rule -- the underlined portions are especially troublesome.

(a) Supreme Court Approved Forms. It shall not constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to engage in limited oral communication to assist a self-represented person in the completion of blanks on a Supreme Court Approved Form. In assisting in the completion of the form, oral communication by nonlawyers is restricted to those communications reasonably necessary to elicit factual information to complete the blanks on the form and inform the self-represented person how to file the form. The nonlawyer may not give legal advice or give advice on remedies or courses of action. Legal forms approved by the Supreme Court of Florida which may be completed as set forth herein shall only include and are limited to the following forms, and any other legal form whether promulgated or approved by the Supreme Court is not a Supreme Court Approved Form for the purposes of this rule:

1. forms which have been approved by the Supreme Court of Florida specifically pursuant to the authority of rule 10-2.1(a) [formerly rule 10-1.1(b)] of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar;
   
2. the Family Law Forms contained in the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure; and
   
3. the Florida Supreme Court Approved Family Law Forms contained in the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure.
   

(b) Forms Which Have Not Been Approved by the Supreme Court of Florida.

1. It shall not constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to sell legal forms and kits and engage in a secretarial service, typing forms for self-represented persons by copying information given in writing by the self-represented person into the blanks on the form. The nonlawyer must transcribe the information exactly as provided in writing by the self-represented person without addition, deletion, correction, or editorial comment. The nonlawyer may not engage in oral communication with the self-represented person to discuss the form or assist the self-represented person in completing the form.
   
2. It shall constitute the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to give legal advice, to give advice on remedies or courses of action, or to draft a legal document for a particular self-represented person. It also constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to offer to provide legal services directly to the public.
   

The following language from the proposed rule is troublesome.

Legal forms approved by the Supreme Court of Florida which may be completed as set forth herein shall only include and are limited to the following forms, and any other legal form whether promulgated or approved by the Supreme Court is not a Supreme Court Approved Form for the purposes of this rule.

Does this mean that when a self-represented consumer uses forms which have not been approved by the Florida Supreme Court, the self-represented consumer may not seek any assistance from a legal document preparer? And what if, the form that the consumer needs is not on the Supreme Court approved list, and the consumer needs help? 

 

There are many instances when a consumer might need a form which is not on the Supreme Court's approved list. There are very few motion forms --- no motion for telephonic hearing, no motion for continuance, no motion for hearing, no motion to compel, no motion to dismiss. Likewise, there are answers that are not on the approved list – no answer to petition to relocate with children; and, no answer to petition for child support. What if a consumer cannot afford an attorney; and cannot do it himself? Does he go without? Has that consumer just been denied access to the court?

The following language, which refers to unapproved forms, is also troublesome.

The nonlawyer must transcribe the information exactly as provided in writing by the self-represented person without addition, deletion, correction, or editorial comment. The nonlawyer may not engage in oral communication with the self-represented person to discuss the form or assist the self-represented person in completing the form. 
 

This language is a direct contradiction to a rule clarification posted on the Florida Bar site, dated June 1, 2007, which states: 

 

“Bar clarifies policy on nonlawyer help in filling out forms

Spelling and grammar checking immigration forms is OK; giving legal advice is still prohibited

'The Florida Bar will not prosecute a nonlawyer for the unlicensed practice of law for the use of computer software spell-checking, grammar-checking, or proofreading utilities to correct spelling or grammatical errors where the spelling or grammatical error is so obvious that the correction does not require discussions with the customer. This policy does not prohibit The Florida Bar from investigating the activities of a nonlawyer to determine what services are being provided.'” 

 

So is the Florida Bar, in its proposed rule, trying to undo that clarification made four years ago?Does it serve the smooth operation of the court system to support pro se litigants spelling and grammar errors?

According to the Adult Literacy League, as posted on their website:

“One in every five Central Florida adults reads at or below the 5th grade level. For them, simple everyday tasks present real problems. Reading product labels, following street signs or filling out job applications can be difficult and frustrating.” And the average reading level for adults throughout the country is between 8^th and 9^th grade level.

The instructions for the Florida Supreme Court approved forms are written at around a twelfth grade level. Florida has traditionally lagged behind the national average in adult literacy. I suspect there are many present day Serena Dunns. Although Serena Dunn was illiterate, her co-plaintiffs, Wiggs and Evans, were literate.

Attorneys in the Serena Dunn case relied on precedent, including Boddie v Connecticut, which addresses the right of indigent people to access the court system, when the court filing fees are unaffordable. And, Serena Dunn's attorneys, also relied on Johnson v Avery, which addresses the rights of prison inmates to assist other inmates in preparing documents to be filed in court, specifically writs of habeas corpus. 

 

Among other claims, the Serena Dunn case stated the reasons for bringing the suit on behalf of a class of plaintiffs including Dunn, Wiggs and Evans; and other similarly situated individuals, consisting of all present and future residents of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida; and who:

“... presently desire, or in the future may desire, to exercise their fundamental right to obtain a dissolution of marriage;

… are unable to do so without the assistance of another person because they lack the skills, knowledge, familiarity with the court system, self-confidence, and other abilities required to appear pro se;

… are unable to obtain the services of a lawyer because they cannot afford to pay the charges of a lawyer and because no lawyers are available to serve them on a pro bono or reduced fee basis;

… are able to afford the services of persons who, although not members of the Bar, are able to provide them the assistance they need to obtain a dissolution of their marriage and for which they charge members of the plaintiff class an amount which the class members can afford; but who are unable to utilize the services of such lay assistants because of the instructions against lay assistants providing such services which are enforced by defendants.”

Florida legal document preparers often must tread a careful line between providing their services to consumers who want and need their services; and avoiding accusations of violating the laws surrounding the unlicensed practice of law. A conviction for the unlicensed practice of law in Florida is a third degree felony; sentences may include fines and incarceration. 

 

The Florida Bar's infringement on the rights of legal document preparers to earn a living; to enter contracts; and to provide services in the marketplace; is collateral damage. The actual damage in these laws is to the consumer. It is the consumer who would seek assistance in asserting his rights through the court system who suffers. The court system, fraught with jargon, and complicated procedure; can bring dire consequences to people who can find no help at all.

For more information on citizens rights to access the court system; and other similar subjects, please visit The Florida Association of Legal Document Preparers, www.faldp.org . And, remember:

“Bad laws are the worst form of tyranny.”
Edmund Burke

Boddie v Connecticut, 401 US. 371, 91 S. Ct. 780, 28 L. Ed. 2D 113 (1971),

Johnson v Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S. Ct. 757 21 L. Ed. 2D 718 (1969)