In re AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR, 978 So. 2d 91

PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar petitions this Court to consider proposed amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, 15, Fla. Const. The Florida Bar submitted several proposals to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar for its recommendation. The Board approved the proposals. Thereafter, the proposals were published for comment in the March 15, 2006, edition of The Florida Bar News. In that publication, the Bar instructed interested parties to file any comments directly with the Court. On April 26, 2006, the Bar filed the proposals with the Court.

Only one comment, from the Judicial Equality Foundation, was filed with the Court regarding these proposals.

The Bar proposes amendments to rules 1-7.3 (Membership Fees); 3-2.1 (Generally); 3-5.1 (Generally); 3-6.1 (Generally); 3-7.5 (Procedures Before the Board of Governors); 3-7.6 (Procedures Before a Referee); 3-7.11 (General Rules of Procedure); 3-7.16 (Limitation on Time to Bring Complaint); 4-1.5 (Fees and Costs for Legal Services); 4-6.5 (Voluntary Pro Bono Plan); 5-1.1 (Trust Accounts); 6-1.2 (Public Notice); 10-2.1 (Generally); 10-3.1 (Generally); 10-4.1 (Generally); 10-7.2 (Proceedings for Indirect Criminal Contempt); 14-2.1 (Generally); 14-6 (Nature; Enforcement of Award; Effect of Failure to Pay); 14-6.1 (Binding Nature; Enforcement; and Effect of Failure to Pay Award); 17-1.2 (Definitions); and 17-1.3 (Activities).

The Bar also proposes new rule 1-12.2 (Supreme Court Procedures for Review of Proposed Amendments) and amendments to Bylaw 2-7.3 (Creation of Sections and Divisions). After considering the Bar’s petition and the comment, the Court adopts The Florida Bar’s proposals, except as follows. The Bar proposes new rule 1-12.2 (Supreme Court Procedures for Review of Proposed Amendments), which would provide a court “conference and dialogue” process, rather than a “case and controversy” format, as an option for this Court to consider amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.

The Bar asserts that the formality of oral argument, as the exclusive means for considering bar rule amendments, could be occasionally replaced with an informal “dialogue” among Justices, proponents, commentators, and other interested parties. The Bar argues that the “conference and dialogue” approach could be beneficial in addressing changes to the Bar rules, due to the variety of matters that the Bar presents to the Court. This proposal would provide the Court with an alternative to existing Bar rule-making procedures.

However, the proposal raises several issues that must be studied before implementing such a procedure. Therefore, the Court does not adopt the proposal at this time. Because the proposal presents significant unaddressed issues, the Court requests that the Bar undertake and submit a study addressing how, in states where the high courts have procedural rule or Bar rulemaking authority, those courts process their rule amendments. The report should also address the issue of ex parte communication with regard to communications among the Justices, proponents, and commentators.

See Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(B)(7); Rose v. State, 601 So.2d 1181, 1183 (Fla.1992); In re Clayton, 504 So.2d 394, 395 (Fla.1987). In preparing the report, the Bar is directed to work with the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee. Accordingly, the Court adopts the amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. Deletions are indicated by struck-through type, and new language is indicated by underscoring. The amendments shall become effective on March 1, 2008, at 12:01 a.m. It is so ordered.

WELLS, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, QUINCE, CANTERO, and BELL, JJ., concur. LEWIS, C.J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion. . Although adopt the rule requiring the Bar to assist the referee in preparing the record in Bar discipline cases, we hereby task the Bar with monitoring the preparation of these records for a year. At the end of this period, the Bar must file a report with this Court assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of this procedure.