State ex rel. T. J. M. v. Carlton, 75--245
| Citation | 314 So.2d 593 |
| Decision Date | 11 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--245,75--245 |
| Parties | The STATE of Florida on the relation of T.J.M., a child, by and through his mother, J.D., and J.D., Relators, v. Charles T. CARLTON, as Judge of the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Hendry County, Florida, Juvenile Division, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
The question presented here is whether the trial court's order dismissing Michael R. Masinter, a member of the Florida Bar in good standing, from representation of the relators in a juvenile delinquency proceeding pending before the respondent judge, was a departure from the essential requirements of the law to the irreparable prejudice of relators. We hold it was and on petition for rehearing, we grant certiorari.
Relators filed a suggestion for a writ of prohibition or in the alternative for a writ of certiorari directed to an order entered by the respondent judge. The order dismissed Michael R. Masinter from further representation of the relators in a juvenile delinquency matter on the grounds that he is employed by Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. and as such is prohibited by Federal Statute 42 U.S.C. § 2809(a)(3) from defending persons proceeded against for criminal offenses. By reason of this restriction on the scope of the services which legal services attorneys are permitted to render, the trial judge concluded attorney Masinter was prohibited from representing the relators in juvenile delinquency matters.
Relators have filed memoranda indicating that legal services attorneys are expressly authorized to provide representation in juvenile delinquency matters; 1 but it is unnecessary to even reach that question. The more fundamental question is whether a court can prohibit attorney Masinter, or any other member of the Florida Bar, in good standing, from representing any client who has engaged him. 2 Put another way, did the respondent judge act beyond the scope of his authority by passing judgment on the eligibility or authority of an attorney to represent a given client before his court.
Article V, § 15 of the Florida Constitution of 1968, vests the Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law. No one questions Attorney Masinter's authority to practice. No...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gulf Homes, Inc. v. Gonzales
...Mayfield v. District Court in and for the City and County of Denver, 182 Colo. 132, 511 P.2d 490 (1973); Florida ex rel T.J.M. v. Carlton, 314 So.2d 593 (Fla.Dist.App.1975); see also, Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 913, 98 S.Ct. 2254, 56 L.Ed.2d 414......
-
Martens v. Hall, 77-8144-Civ-CF.
...it appears that said attorney is in good standing and qualified to represent the plaintiff in this cause. See State ex rel. T.J.M. v. Carlton, 314 So.2d 593 (Fla.2d D.C.A.1975). Finally, defendants' motion may be read to attack the determination by Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. that pl......
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. MARINA BAY RESORT CONDOMINIUM ASSOC., …
...counsel on grounds, inter alia, that the "record does not support denial of the right to selfrepresentation"); State v. Carlton, 314 So.2d 593, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (granting a petition for writ of certiorari and quashing an order disqualifying counsel). The order under review does "depar......
-
DeMichele v. Waltham Div. of Dist. Court Dept.
...because the court feels that this is an action in which a legal aid society does not have an interest"); State ex rel. T.J.M. v. Carlton, 314 So.2d 593, 594 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975). As the Code of Federal Regulations explains, the provisions of the Federal statute, which in all material resp......