FLORIDA PROFESSIONALISM PANELS NAVIGATE CONFIDENTIALITY, PARTICIPATION CONCERNS

The chairs of Florida’s local professionalism panels said recently they intend to ask the Supreme Court for more guidance on a host of concerns, including the proper role of judges and clearer procedures for maintaining confidentiality.

“If we take the confidentiality literally, the system collapses on itself,” said Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Orfinger. “We have to be able to tell the respondent this is what’s being complained about and from whom.”

Each of Florida’s 20 judicial circuits has an LPP composed of judges and local attorneys who are appointed to review complaints about a lawyer’s perceived unprofessional behavior. The confidential “peer-to-peer mentoring process” often involves a panel member attempting to resolve the complaint informally by phone, or more formally by email or regular mail.

However, some judges are declining to meet with respondents or take an active role in resolving individual referrals, said 15th Circuit LPP Chair Jodi Colton.

“The judges are very concerned and uncomfortable about their role, because they don’t feel like it’s a peer-to-peer relationship, so they keep a much more advisory and hands-off approach,” she said.

Friday marked the second time the chairs have met since a Supreme Court order, In Re: Code for Resolving Professionalism Referrals, 367 So. 3d 1184 (Fla. 2023), required chairs or their designees to meet at least once every other year.

Among other things, the order requires the LPP chairs to review the order and make recommendations for improvement; to review forms used by each circuit; to review procedures the circuits use to maintain uniformity; and to “discuss policies and procedures to facilitate continued enhancement of the program.”

Regular reports the LPPs file list the number of complaints and how they were resolved, but without revealing the names of complainants or respondents. LPPs also report how they are promoting the panels. Sixth Circuit LLP Chair Andrew Sasso told his colleagues that his panel has developed flyers and a script for presentations at local bar functions and other gatherings.

The Supreme Court order requires panels to forward cases that can’t be resolved informally to the Bar’s Attorney Consumer Assistance Program (ACAP) for further action. ACAP Director Shanell Schuyler told the chairs on Friday that those instances have been rare. She could recall only a few cases referred from LPPs.

“Do we notify the respondent that the response is we referred it to ACAP?” asked 11th Circuit LPP Co-Chair Marc Ginsberg.

Schuyler said the panels should notify the respondent and the complainant and forward any records.

However, some chairs expressed a concern that referrals to ACAP would violate confidentiality.

Roy Wolgamuth, the Fifth Judicial Circuit’s general counsel and a liaison to the LPP, said some attorneys are ignoring LPP referrals.

“Did you get any referrals to ACAP on that basis?” he asked.

“There’s not a rule violation for an attorney that doesn’t wish to participate with an LPP panel,” Schuyler said. “We may end up closing that and then referring it back.”