In Re: Amendment to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 6-10.3 ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Supreme Court of Florida
    No. SC21-284
    IN RE: AMENDMENT TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR
    6-10.3.
    December 16, 2021
    PER CURIAM.
    Earlier this year, the Court amended the Rules Regulating the
    Florida Bar to preclude continuing legal education credit for “any
    course submitted by a sponsor, including a section of The Florida
    Bar, that uses quotas based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion,
    national origin, disability, or sexual orientation in the selection of
    course faculty or participants.” In re Amendment to Rule Regulating
    the Florida Bar 6-10.3, 
    315 So. 3d 637
    , 639 (Fla. 2021). Although
    the amendment took effect immediately, the Court invited
    comments from interested persons. 
    Id. at 638
    .
    Having reviewed those comments, we have decided to modify
    the rule amendment in two limited respects. First, in deference to
    Florida Bar members who planned their 2021 CLE activities in
    reliance on the preamendment status quo, we postpone the effective
    date of the rule amendment until January 1, 2022. Second, we
    amend the text to clarify that CLE credit will be unavailable for
    courses with any sponsor that uses quotas covered by the rule,
    whether course approval is sought by the sponsor or by an
    individual bar member. !
    I.
    The Court amended rule 6-10.3 in response to a “Diversity &
    Inclusion CLE Speaker Panel Policy” that the Business Law Section
    of the Florida Bar adopted on September 1, 2020. For ease of
    reference, we have attached that policy to this opinion as Appendix
    B.
    On its face, the policy “will require” CLE program panels to
    include a minimum number of “diverse” members, depending on
    the size of the panel. And on its face, the policy defines diversity in
    terms of a person’s membership in “groups based upon race,
    ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability and
    multiculturalism.” The Business Law Section has rescinded this
    1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.
    _2-
    policy, but only as a response to our rule amendment. The Section
    informs us that, if the Court were to revoke the rule amendment,
    the Section would reinstate the policy.
    The Business Law Section modeled this policy on a similar
    policy of the American Bar Association. The ABA adopted its own
    policy after finding that ABA entities had “fail[ed] to comply” with
    the organization’s “aspirational policy” that all CLE panels include
    “diverse members of our profession.” Appendix to Comments of the
    American Bar Association, at 98.2 The ABA uses the term “diverse
    members of our profession” to describe “women, racial and ethnic
    minorities, persons with disabilities, and persons of differing sexual
    orientations and gender identities.” Id.
    When we adopted the rule amendment, we described the
    ”
    Business Law Section’s policy as imposing “quotas.” See In re
    Amendment to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 6-10.3, 315 So. 3d at
    637. The label fits: as a matter of ordinary usage, the term “quota”
    includes “[a] number or percentage, especially of people,
    2. See also Comments of the American Bar Association, at 9
    (““Unfortunately, voluntary efforts fell far short of the [2011]
    Diversity Plan’s aspirations.”) (emphasis added).
    _3-
    constituting a required or targeted minimum.” American Heritage
    Dictionary at 1447 (Sth ed. 2011). The Section’s policy requires a
    minimum percentage of “diverse” CLE program panelists. In doing
    so, the policy necessarily caps the allowable percentage of
    nondiverse panelists.
    Our decision also said that “[q]juotas based on characteristics
    like the ones in this policy are antithetical to basic American
    principles of nondiscrimination.” In re Amendment to Rule
    Regulating the Florida Bar 6-10.3, 315 So. 3d at 637. The policy
    treats people differently (i.e., discriminates) based on their
    membership in groups defined by “race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
    ”
    orientation, gender identity, disability and multiculturalism.” Our
    laws consider it presumptively wrong to discriminate on these
    grounds—especially when government does the discriminating, but
    also in many contexts involving discrimination by private entities.
    We reject the notion that quotas like these cause no harm.
    Quotas depart from the American ideal of treating people as unique
    individuals, rather than as members of groups. Quotas are based
    on and foster stereotypes. And quotas are divisive. “It would bea
    sad day indeed, were America to become a quota-ridden society,
    _4-
    with each identifiable minority assigned proportional representation
    in every desirable walk of life.” Grutter v. Bollinger, 
    539 U.S. 306
    ,
    343 (2003) (quoting Nathaniel L. Nathanson & Casimir J. Bartnik,
    The Constitutionality of Preferential Treatment for Minority Applicants
    to Professional Schools, 58 Chicago Bar Rec. 282, 293 (May—June
    1977)).
    In deciding whether and how to address the Business Law
    Section’s policy, we reached two basic conclusions: first, that it
    would be wrong for the Court to turn a blind eye to this sort of
    discrimination; and second, that any regulatory response should
    address the use of discriminatory quotas by any CLE course
    sponsor, regardless of its affiliation with The Florida Bar. This
    Court has limited authority over the policies of entirely private
    entities, and rightly so. But we do have the authority—and, we
    think, a duty—to disassociate The Florida Bar’s CLE infrastructure
    from entities with discriminatory quota policies like the one here.
    This Court is firmly committed to the principles of
    nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all. Consistent with
    that commitment, we support proactive measures to ensure that
    individuals from all backgrounds are afforded fair opportunities to
    _5-
    participate in CLE programs and in the legal profession more
    generally. Inclusivity is a laudable goal, and it can be achieved
    without resorting to discriminatory quotas.
    I.
    With a handful of exceptions, the forty-plus comments the
    Court received in response to the rule amendment were negative.
    But we respectfully disagree with the opponents’ principal
    objections, and we will explain why.
    The Court’s authority to adopt the rule amendment. Some
    commenters characterized the Court as having (improperly) ruled
    on the legality of the Business Law Section’s policy outside the
    context of an adversarial case or controversy. The Court did no
    such thing; we did not act in an adjudicative capacity or purport to
    rule on the legality of any policy.* Instead, we measured the policy
    3. For this reason, commenters’ objections to this Court’s
    “Cf” citations of Grutter v. Bollinger, 
    539 U.S. 306
     (2003), and
    Regents of University of Cal. v. Bakke, 
    438 U.S. 265
     (1978), are
    beside the point. We did not say that the Business Law Section and
    the ABA are state actors, nor did we purport to apply the Equal
    Protection Clause to those groups’ CLE speaker policies. Grutter
    and Bakke are relevant because they illuminate the harm caused by
    race-based quotas and stress the importance of treating people as
    individuals, rather than as members of groups.
    -6-
    against “basic American principles of nondiscrimination,” and we
    acted under our general authority to set the rules that govern The
    Florida Bar. The rule amendment reflects this Court’s policy
    decision to disassociate The Florida Bar’s CLE infrastructure from
    program sponsors that use discriminatory quota policies like the
    one at issue.
    Whether the policy causes harm. Many commenters object to
    our labeling the Business Law Section’s and the ABA’s policies as
    “quota” policies. These commenters further maintain that, labels
    aside, the policies harm no one and are intended to include rather
    than to exclude. We have no doubt that supporters of the policies
    at issue genuinely see things this way.
    But we already have explained why it is correct, as a matter of
    standard English, to describe these policies as imposing quotas.*
    We also have explained our view that quotas harm individuals and
    4. After the Court adopted the rule amendment, the ABA
    added the following language to its policy: “This is a policy of
    inclusion and not exclusion. To that end, if a CLE panel is not
    otherwise diverse, program organizers will add panel participants
    who bring diversity to achieve the goal of this policy.” But the
    policy still requires minimum numbers of “diverse” members on
    CLE panels of three or more. The ABA’s policy is still a quota
    policy.
    society. Again, quotas ignore each person’s uniqueness and innate
    worth; promote stereotyping; and sow division.
    We note that, on their face, the Business Law Section and ABA
    policies make no attempt to connect a person’s “diversity” to the
    subject matter or educational content of the CLE program. The
    ABA’s submission to the Court indicates that it administers its
    diversity requirement this way: “Program planners ask potential
    speakers to voluntarily answer the following question: Do you
    identify yourself as diverse?” Appendix to Comments of the
    American Bar Association, at 123. A person’s answer to this
    question is then used to determine how to categorize a person
    (nondiverse or diverse) for purposes of compliance with the diversity
    policy. This approach smacks of stereotyping or naked balancing; it
    does not invite a “holistic” assessment of whatever unique
    perspective an individual might bring to a panel.
    Importance of the ABA’s CLE programs. Many commenters
    praised the content and value of the ABA’s CLE programming and
    bemoaned the rule amendment’s effect on that programming. Of
    course, our rule amendment does not prohibit anyone from
    attending an ABA CLE program or from partnering with the ABA.
    _8-
    Nonetheless, we acknowledge the concerns of those commenters
    who would like to receive CLE credit for their attendance at ABA-
    sponsored or cosponsored programs. We sincerely hope that the
    ABA will solve this problem by abandoning its quota policy and
    pursuing its diversity-related goals without resorting to
    discriminatory quotas—something that institutions throughout our
    society have shown themselves able to do.
    HI.
    In our decision adopting the rule amendment, we attempted to
    honor Florida Bar members’ reliance interests by providing that the
    amendment would not apply to any course that, as of the effective
    date, had already been approved for CLE credit. Some of the
    commenters indicated that this amount of advance notice was
    insufficient—perhaps because they had already paid their ABA dues
    for the year, or because they had invested time and energy
    preparing a course that had not yet been approved. These are valid
    concerns. Therefore, we give the amendment to rule 6-10.3 a
    revised effective date of January 1, 2022.
    Commenters also expressed uncertainty over the rule
    amendment’s application when an individual bar member, rather
    _9-
    than a course sponsor, submits a course for CLE credit approval.
    As reflected in the attached Appendix A, we amend the rule text to
    clarify that CLE credit will be unavailable for any course with a
    sponsor that uses quotas covered by the rule, whether approval is
    sought by the sponsor or by an individual bar member. New
    language is indicated by underscoring; deletions are indicated by
    struck-through type.
    It is so ordered.
    CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LAWSON, MUNIZ, COURIEL, and
    GROSSHANS, Ju., concur.
    LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion.
    THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER
    THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
    LABARGA, J., dissenting.
    Today, on its own motion, a majority of this Court has
    embarked on a course that will undoubtedly culminate in the
    erosion of the judicial branch’s needed and well-established policy
    of promoting and advancing diversity and inclusiveness throughout
    the branch. Because I cannot agree with this course of action, |
    respectfully dissent.
    -10-
    As noted by the majority, the Business Law Section of the
    Florida Bar, in line with American Bar Association (ABA) efforts to
    diversify Continuing Legal Education (CLE) panels, adopted a
    “Diversity & Inclusion CLE Speaker Panel Policy” that required CLE
    program panels to include a minimum number of “diverse”
    members, depending on the size of the panel. Majority op. at 2-3.
    Because “the policy defines diversity in terms of a person’s
    membership in groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual
    orientation, gender identity, disability, and multiculturalism,”
    under the guise of a dictionary definition of the term “quota,” the
    majority deemed the policy discriminatory and has prohibited its
    implementation. Majority op. at 3-4. However, I am persuaded that
    the policy is not discriminatory because, as illustrated by the sheer
    scope of the policy’s definition of diversity, the intent is to include,
    not exclude, CLE panel participants.
    When rule 6-10.3 was initially amended, this Court invited
    interested persons to submit written comments. See In re Amend.
    to Rule Reg. the Fla. Bar 6-10.3, 
    315 So. 3d 637
    , 638 (Fla. 2021).
    Dozens of comments were filed in response, the overwhelming
    majority of which opposed amending the rule. Representing a
    -ll-
    significant community of attorneys and law firms, voluntary bar
    associations, law school deans, and legal organizations, the
    comments in opposition persuasively objected to the majority’s
    action and its rationale for doing so.
    Of particular relevance are the comments filed by the ABA,
    which argued regarding its policy (after which the Business Law
    Section’s policy was modeled):
    The ABA’s approach is neither a “quota” nor a preference
    system that would fail under the United States Supreme
    Court’s equal protection case law. The essence of the
    Court’s cases is that quotas cannot be used to infringe on
    legally protected interests—and the Diversity & Inclusion
    Policy infringes on no one’s protected interests.
    There are no “set asides” or reserved seats for
    certain categories of individuals. In the rare instance in
    which a panelist who brings diversity could not be
    located, the ABA is empowered to grant a waiver for an
    individual program. More typically, however, an
    individual who brings diversity has been identified—and
    then added to the CLE panel. No panel members are
    displaced or replaced under the Diversity & Inclusion
    Policy’s aegis. There is thus no interest of any individual
    to be protected from the policy.
    Comments of Am. Bar Ass’n at 3-4. The Business Law Section of
    the Florida Bar also explained regarding its now-rescinded policy:
    Any program that has two or fewer panelists does not
    need to consider diversity as a factor. It is only when
    there are three or more panelists on a program that
    -12-
    diversity consideration come[s] into play. And even then,
    if the benchmarks identified in the policy for programs
    with three or more speakers cannot be met, the Section
    may waive the CLE Diversity Policy or make an exception
    to it. Because the policy allows for waivers, appeals,
    exceptions, and is not required for all programs, it is, by
    definition, not mandatory. For all these reasons, the CLE
    Diversity Policy is appropriate, narrowly tailored, and
    served a compelling interest.
    Comments of Bus. L. Section of Fla. Bar at 20 (footnote omitted).
    In addition to these and other persuasive arguments regarding
    the appropriateness of the policy, numerous comments also
    expressed concern that the majority amended rule 6-10.3 on its
    own motion. While the majority today reasserts its authority to do
    so, it is noteworthy that the unilateral action the Court takes here
    is not isolated. Rather, the majority’s decisions of late have ushered
    in a series of drastic changes in civil, criminal, and rulemaking
    contexts, and today’s decision by the majority only furthers this list.
    The Virgil Hawkins Florida Chapter of the National Bar Association
    (VHFCNBA) compellingly argues and echoes the procedural concern
    raised by numerous commenters, and while the Business Law
    Section’s policy was not limited to consideration based on race or
    ethnicity, the organization makes a worthy argument regarding the
    impact of the majority’s action on Black lawyers:
    -13-
    Legislating on matters of diversity that particularly
    and directly impact Black lawyers without lawyers and
    the entire organized bar first discussing, evaluating, and
    proposing the means to incorporate diversity into the
    profession is contrary to public policy and the legislative
    prescription for our judicial system. Black lawyers, who
    historically have been excluded from Florida law schools,
    the judiciary, and Bar participation solely because of the
    color of their skin, should have a real and meaningful
    opportunity to do more than comment on a sua sponte
    rule change that is already the law in Florida without any
    prior notice or an opportunity to be heard.
    Even more, the Court’s rule change comes in the
    absence of a case or controversy challenging the
    constitutionality (or advisability) of the Business Law
    Section’s studied policy and in the absence of a proper
    invocation of the Court’s rule-making authority. Given
    the scarcity of cases in which this Court has sua sponte
    amended Bar rules, one can reasonably ask: Is this the
    policy that should define the Court’s jurisdictional limits
    in matters of bar rules? VHFCNBA urges the Court to
    exercise judicial restraint and to follow the established
    amendment procedure.
    Comment of Virgil Hawkins Fla. Chapter Nat’ Bar Ass’n at 17-18.
    But today, despite various commenters’ extensive input and
    overwhelming recommendations to the contrary, the majority
    reaffirms the amendment to rule 6-10.3. While I wholeheartedly
    agree with the majority’s statement that inclusivity is a laudable
    goal, I also agree with the ABA that the CLE diversity policy in
    question here is neither a quota nor a preference system that would
    _14-
    run afoul of existing equal protection case law, and I agree with the
    Business Law Section that the policy is appropriate because it is
    narrowly tailored and serves a compelling interest.
    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
    Original Proceeding — Florida Rules Regulating the Florida Bar
    Gary L. Sasso and Nancy J. Faggianelli on behalf of Carlton Fields,
    P.A., Tampa, Florida, and Rae T. Vann on behalf of Carlton Fields,
    P.A., Washington, District of Columbia; Joanne Fanizza of Law
    Offices of Joanne Fanizza, P.A., Melville, New York; Andrew S.
    Berman of Young, Berman, Karpf & Karpf, P.A., Miami, Florida;
    Twyla Sketchley, Tallahassee, Florida; Nancy Cayford Wear, Coral
    Gables, Florida; Brian L. Tannebaum on behalf of the Association of
    Professional Responsibility Lawyers, Miami, Florida; Tricia “CK”
    Hoffler of The CK Hoffler Firm, on behalf of the National Bar
    Association, Atlanta, Georgia; Kellye Y. Testy, Angela C. Winfield,
    and Leanne M. Shank on behalf of the Law School Admission
    Council, Newtown, Pennsylvania; Rosemary N. Palmer, Tallahassee,
    Florida, Ronald S. Flagg on behalf of the Legal Services Corporation,
    Washington, District of Columbia; Brandon S. Peters, Williston,
    Florida; E. Thomas Sullivan on behalf of the American Bar
    Foundation and the American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois;
    Karin J. Orlin of Karin J. Orlin, P.L., New York, New York; Trelvis D.
    Randolph on behalf of the Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. Bar Association,
    Miami, Florida, and Christopher M. Lomax on behalf of the Wilkie
    D. Ferguson, Jr. Bar Association, Coral Gables, Florida; A.B. Cruz
    HI and Edgar Chen on behalf of the National Asian Pacific American
    Bar Association, Washington, District of Columbia, Hannah Choi of
    Lee Law Group, PLLC, on behalf of the Asian Pacific American Bar
    Association of Tampa Bay, Tampa, Florida, Guy Kamealoha Noa on
    behalf of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of South
    Florida, Miami, Florida, Onchantho Am on behalf of the Greater
    Orlando Asian American Bar Association, Orlando, Florida, and
    Vivile R. Dietrich of Glazier, Glazier & Dietrich, P.A., on behalf of
    the Jacksonville Asian American Bar Association; Jacksonville,
    -15-
    Florida; Michael J. Gelfand of Gelfand & Arpe, P.A., West Palm
    Beach, Florida; Hon. Blaise Trettis, Public Defender, Eighteenth
    Judicial Circuit, Melbourne, Florida; Jane W. Muir on behalf of the
    Miami-Dade County Bar Association, Miami, Florida; Anthony C.
    Musto on behalf of the Public Interest Law Section of The Florida
    Bar, Hallandale Beach, Florida; William Hodes of The William Hodes
    Law Firm, The Villages, Florida; Adam R. Maingot on behalf of the
    Health Law Section of The Florida Bar, Temple Terrace, Florida;
    William C. Hubbard and William H. Neukom on behalf of World
    Justice Project, Washington, District of Columbia; Jason B. Blank
    on behalf of Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar, Fort
    Lauderdale, Florida, and Warren William Lindsey on behalf of
    Criminal Law Section of The Florida Bar, Winter Park, Florida;
    James D. Wing, Mount Dora, Florida; Mariane L. Dorris of Shuker
    & Dorris, P.A., on behalf of the Business Law Section of The Florida
    Bar, Orlando, Florida, and Dineen Pashoukos Wasylik of DPW
    LEGAL, on behalf of the Business Law Section of The Florida Bar,
    Tampa, Florida; Hon. Jessica J. Yeary on behalf of the Florida
    Public Defender Association, Inc., Tallahassee, Florida; James M.
    Meyer and Ana M. Barton on behalf of The Florida Bar International
    Law Section, Miami, Florida; Morris Weinberg, Jr. and Marcos E.
    Hasbun on behalf of Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Tampa, Florida; Hon.
    Carlos J. Martinez on behalf of the National Association for Public
    Defense, Miami, Florida; Kristin R.H. Kirkner on behalf of the
    Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, Tampa, Florida, Jack A.
    Moring on behalf of the Family Law Section of The Florida Bar,
    Crystal River, Florida, and Heather L. Apicella on behalf of the
    Family Law Section of The Florida Bar, Boca Raton, Florida;
    Kimberly E. Hosley and Jenny Sieg on behalf of the Florida
    Association for Women Lawyers, Orlando, Florida, and Kristin
    Drecktrah Paz on behalf of the Miami-Dade Chapter of the Florida
    Association for Women Lawyers, Miami, Florida; Patricia Lee Refo,
    on behalf of the American Bar Association, Chicago, Illinois, Elliot
    H. Scherker, Brigid F. Cech Samole, and Bethany J. M. Pandher of
    Greenberg Traurig, P.A., on behalf of the American Bar Association,
    Miami, Florida; Monica Vigues-Pitan on behalf of the Florida Civil
    Legal Aid Association, Miami, Florida; Sean Domnick and Navan
    Ward on behalf of the American Association for Justice,
    Washington, District of Columbia; Deborah S. Corbishley and Anna
    -16-
    T. Neill on behalf of Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami, Florida; Denise
    A. Mutamba on behalf of the F. Malcolm Cunningham, Sr. Bar
    Association, Riviera Beach, Florida; Deborah Hardin Wagner,
    Tampa, Florida, Daniel J. Staudt on behalf of the Intellectual
    Property Owners Association, Washington, District of Columbia;
    Zack Smith on behalf of Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation,
    Washington, District of Columbia; Aurora Austriaco on behalf of the
    National Conference of Bar Presidents, Chicago, Illinois;
    Christopher Buerger on behalf of the National Legal Aid & Defender
    Association, Washington, District of Columbia; Michael T. Davis of
    Kuehe Davis Law, P.A., on behalf of the Virgil Hawkins Florida
    Chapter National Bar Association, Inc., Miami, Florida, and Noel G.
    Lawrence of Law Offices of Noel G. Lawrence, P.A., on behalf of the
    Virgil Hawkins Florida Chapter National Bar Association, Inc.,
    Jacksonville, Florida; Andrew A. Harris of Harris Appeals, P.A., on
    behalf of the Florida Justice Association and the Palm Beach
    County Justice Association, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida; and
    William C. Hubbard on behalf of Law School Deans — Christopher J.
    (C.J.) Peters, Alicia Ouellette, Roger A. Fairfax, Jr., Marc L. Miller,
    Ronald Weich, Diane Ring, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Michael T.
    Cahill, Aviva Abramovsky, Erwin Chemerinsky, Kevin R. Johnson,
    David L. Faigman, Bryant G. Garth, Jennifer L. Mnookin, Reynaldo
    Anaya Valencia, Anita K. Krug, Verna L. Williams, Lee Fisher, Lolita
    Buckner Inniss, Eboni S. Nelson, Joshua P. Fershée, Andrew L.
    Strauss, Jelani Jefferson Exum, Renée McDonald Hutchins, Daniel
    M. Filler, Luke Bierman, Dayna Bowen Matthew, William Treanor,
    LaVonda N. Reed, Colin Crawford, Camille A. Nelson, Danielle
    Holley-Walker, Karen E. Bravo, Mary J. Davis, Lee Ann Wheelis
    Lockridge, Madeleine M. Landrieu, Donald B. Tobin, Garry W.
    Jenkins, Patricia W. Bennett, Susan H. Duncan, Barbara Glesner
    Fines, Anthony Niedwiecki, Richard E. Moberly, Scott P. Brown,
    Sergio Pareja, Anthony W. Crowell, Martin H. Brinkley, Browne C.
    Lewis, Felicia Epps, James R. Hackney, Cassandra L. Hill, José
    Roberto (Beto) Juarez, Jr., Horace Anderson, Jr., Michael Hunter
    Schwartz, Danielle M. Conway, Hari M. Osofsky, Paul L. Caron,
    Fernando Moreno-Orama, Gregory W. Bowman, Rose Cuison-
    Villazor, Michael A. Simons, William P. Johnson, Henry C. (Corky)
    Strickland, III, Robert Schapiro, Michael J. Kaufman, William C.
    Hubbard, John K. Pierre, Andrew T. Guzman, Camille M. Davidson,
    _17-
    Craig M. Boise, Douglas A. Blaze, Robert B. Ahdieh, D. Benjamin
    Barros, David D. Meyer, Lyn Suzanne Entzeroth, Elizabeth Kronk
    Warner, Jane H. Aiken, Carla D. Pratt, Richard A. Bierschbach,
    Amelia Smith Rinehart, Allen K. Easley, James McGrath, Sudha N.
    Setty, Brian R. Gallini, Daniel P. Tokaji, Columbia, South Carolina,
    Responding with comments
    -18-
    APPENDIX A
    Rule 6-10.3. Minimum Continuing Legal Education Standards
    (a)- (c) [No Change]
    (d) Course Approval. Course approval is set forth in policies
    adopted pursuant to this rule. Special policies will be adopted for
    courses sponsored by governmental agencies for employee lawyers
    that exempt these courses from any course approval fee and may
    exempt these courses from other requirements as determined by
    the board of legal specialization and education. The board of legal
    specialization and education may not approve any course
    withsubmited by a sponsor, including a section of The Florida Bar,
    that uses quotas based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national
    origin, disability, or sexual orientation in the selection of course
    faculty or participants.
    (e)- (g) [No Change]
    -19-
    APPENDIX B
    ': SEPTEMBER 1. 2020
    MP COMMITTEE
    {: JOINT IMF/FLORIDA BAR DIVERSITY & INCLUSION COMMITTEE STUDY GROUP
    bers of Study Group:
    » Florida Bar Diversity & Inclusion Committee
    iane Dorris Michael Andriano
    1 Dorris David Brunell
    Julian Jackson Fannin
    ‘LS DIVERSITY & INCLUSION CLE SPEAKER PANEL POLICY (“CLE DIVERSITY POLICY”):
    The Business Law Section (“BLS”) expects all Continuing Legal Education (CLE)
    ‘aims sponsored or co-sponsored by the BLS to meet the goals of the Diversity Committee
    zgic Plan of eliminating bias, increasing diversity and implementing tactics aimed at
    iting and retaining diverse attorneys. These goals are furthered by having the faculty include
    bers of diverse groups based upon race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,
    tity and multiculturalism.
    CLE Diversity Policy:
    For these reasons, the Study Group recommends the following CLE Diversity Policy. This
    y applies to CLE programs with three or more panel participants, including the moderator.
    tive January 1, 2021, the following guidelines will apply: (a) individual programs with
    ry of three or four panel participants. including the moderator, will require at least 1 diverse
    ber: (b) individual programs with faculty of five to eight panel participants, including the
    rator, will require at least 2 diverse members: and (c) individual programs with faculty of
    or more panel participants, including the moderator, will require at least 3 diverse members.
    BLS will not sponsor, co-sponsor, or seek CLE accreditation for any program failing to
    hy with this policy unless an exception or appeal is granted.
    Implementation:
    The Inclusion, Mentoring & Fellowship Committee (“IMF”), will be responsible for the
    umentation and enforcement of the CLE Diversity Policy. As such, any question of
    hance with the CLE Diversity Policy will be determined by the IMF Committee. If a
    wed CLE panel does not comply with the CLE Diversity Policy and cannot be granted an
    tion, as defined below, then the BLS will mot sponsor the CLE. All applications for
    rams seeking CLE accreditation and BLS sponsorship shall be submitted to the IMF
    mittee at least seven (7) days prior to the date the program is scheduled to occur.
    At the discretion of the IMF Committee and the Chair of the Section, either of the following
    mstances may constitute grounds for an exception from the CLE Diversity Policy:
    -290-
    Previously confirmed diverse speakers or moderators for the CLE cancel, withdraw or
    become unable to attend and participate in the CLE and insufficient time exists to
    replace them and maintain a diverse panel.
    After a diligent search and inquiry, the proponents of the CLE have affirmed they have
    been unable to obtain the participation of the requisite diverse members of the CLE
    panel.
    Niverse Speaker Directory:
    n order to assist in the implementation of the CLE Diversity Policy, IMF will create and
    _a Diverse Speaker Directory (“Directory”). The Directory will provide a database of legal
    that self-identity from a race, ethnicity. gender and gender identity, sexual orientation,
    y and multicultural perspective. In addition to the above. individuals who register with
    ztory shall identify their geographical location, willingness to travel. speaker fees if any,
    s of expertise/interest. in addition toa CV.
    -21-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SC21-284

Filed Date: 12/16/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/16/2021