The Florida Bar in re: Amendment to Integration Rule (Confidentiality), 67568
| Decision Date | 26 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67568,67568 |
| Citation | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 287,490 So.2d 937 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 287 THE FLORIDA BAR IN RE: AMENDMENT TO THE INTEGRATION RULE (CONFIDENTIALITY). |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Howard L. Garrett of Garrett and Garrett, and George W. Phillips, Tampa, for petitioners.
Patrick G. Emmanuel, President, The Florida Bar, Pensacola, Joseph J. Reiter, President-elect, The Florida Bar, West Palm Beach, John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, Chandler, R. Muller, Winter Park, and Thomas W. Ervin, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondent.
Twenty-five members of the Florida Bar have petitioned this Court for an amendment to article XI of the integration rule. The proposed amendment would provide confidentiality in disciplinary proceedings regarding an attorney's voluntarily seeking, receiving, or accepting treatment for alcoholism or alcohol abuse, unless waived in writing by the subject attorney. The board of governors opposes the petition.
During oral argument, the board's representative stated that in February the board had established a bar-funded, nonprofit corporation to provide counseling for attorneys with drinking problems. Although the corporation is not under the board of governors' direct control, the board appoints the corporation's board of directors. The board of governors' representative outlined the three purposes of the corporation as: 1) providing counseling and referral services to lawyers with drinking or drug-related problems, 2) providing limited intervention services and suggesting treatment when a lawyer's problem is recognized by others, and 3) supervising probation as directed by this Court. * He also stated that the board of governors and the corporation had signed a contract providing that confidentiality would be maintained regarding any attorney's contact with the corporation or use of its services. Therefore, according to the board of governors, the instant proposal should not be adopted because the board has already addressed the problem, and confidentiality should be limited to those attorneys who deal with the bar-funded corporation and its counselors.
We agree with the board of governors and the petitioners that some Florida attorneys have alcohol-related problems, that such attorneys should be encouraged to seek help, and that confidentiality should be extended to attorneys who seek or receive help with such problems. We disagree with the board of governors, however, that confidentiality should be available only to those attorneys who avail themselves of the services provided by the bar-funded corporation. Other organizations and people, for example, Alcoholics...
To continue reading
Request your trial