The Florida Bar v. Savitt
| Decision Date | 12 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 54658,54658 |
| Citation | 363 So.2d 559 |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner, v. Richard S. SAVITT and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, Respondents. |
Bernard H. Dempsey, Jr., Chairman of Standing Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, Orlando, and H. Glenn Boggs, II, Asst. Staff Counsel-UPL, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
William H. McBride, Jr., of Holland & Knight, Tampa, for respondents.
This action was initially brought by The Florida Bar pursuant to Article XVI of the Integration Rule, to obtain an injunction restraining respondents from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida. The petition alleged that respondent Stroock & Stroock & Lavan ("the firm"), an interstate law firm having its principal office in New York, opened an office in Miami on or about April 1, 1977, and that respondent Savitt, a partner of the firm not admitted to the practice of law in Florida, was assigned to supervise the operation of the Miami office. It was further alleged that respondent Savitt, in the course of his supervisory activities, engaged in conduct which constituted the unauthorized practice of law in this state.
We issued a Rule to Show Cause on July 25, 1978, commanding respondents to answer why the requested injunction should not be entered against them. In the meantime, the parties conducted negotiations on the matter, resulting in an agreement which has now been submitted to us for approval. Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion and Stipulation of Settlement, it is hereby ordered that the following terms are adopted and approved for the resolution of this controversy 1. The following activities constitute the unauthorized practice of law and may not be carried out in Florida by Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, its partners and associates, and Richard S. Savitt and such firm and Richard S. Savitt are perpetually restrained and enjoined from:
(a) allowing any of its members, associates or employees who are not admitted to The Florida Bar to engage in any professional activities in Florida (other than those hereinafter set forth) subject to the following limitations: participation as co-counsel in litigation before state and federal courts in Florida only to the extent permitted by applicable rules of temporary admission; transitory professional activities "incidental" (See, e. g., Appell v. Reiner, 43 N.J. 313, 204 A.2d 146 (1964)) to essentially out-of-state transactions; and professional activities that constitute "coordinating-supervisory" activities in essentially multi-state transactions in which matters of Florida law are being handled by members of The Florida Bar (See, e. g., In re The Estate of Waring, 47 N.J. 367, 221 A.2d 193 (1966));
(b) operating as an interstate law firm in the State of Florida unless it continues to remain a full, bona fide partnership that operates according to a partnership agreement which does not provide that profits and losses are shared among its members solely on the basis of the proportionate business either generated or handled by its Florida office;
(c) operating the Florida office without a partner or partners of the firm, each of whom is a member of The Florida Bar, assuming on a continuing basis responsibility for the supervision of the operations of the Florida office;
(d) allowing any of its members, associates or employees who are not members of The Florida Bar to exercise supervisory control over any associate operating on a permanent basis out of the Florida office who is a member of The Florida Bar with respect to matters essentially involving Florida law for persons residing in Florida or business enterprises having their principal place of business in Florida;
(e) allowing any applicant for admission to The Florida Bar in any way affiliated with the firm to operate in the Florida office on a permanent basis in any manner other than the traditional "law clerk" role under the direct supervision and control of a member of The Florida Bar; and
(f) engaging in such other professional activities and in such manner as may be prohibited hereafter by reason of any court decision, or rule or regulation of the Florida Supreme Court or custom or practice which may hereafter be promulgated or accepted by this Court in respect to the unauthorized practice of law in the State of Florida.
2. Pursuant to the foregoing provisions of this order, the above named firm and its members, associates...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AMENDMENTS REGULATING BAR-ADVERTISING
...and did not meet the requirements of our most recent pronouncement with respect to the interstate practice of law. See The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559 (Fla.1978).[5] . . . Accordingly [the New York attorney at issue] is hereby enjoined from any advertising by newspaper, television ......
-
Yormak v. Yormak (In re Yormak)
...were lawful and permissible pursuant to federal exceptions, pro hac vice admission exceptions, and the dictates of The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1978). (Id. at 38-39.) The Court concludes that Steven is incorrect. The Bankruptcy Court previously found that Steven's activiti......
-
In re Peterson, Bankruptcy No. 91-50868. No. 34.
...an office in any other state. Cf. Cowen v. Calabrese, 230 Cal.App.2d 870, 872-73, 41 Cal.Rptr. 441, 442-43 (1964); The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559, 561 (Fla.1978). Moreover, as noted, he advised his clients with respect to Connecticut law. Under the facts of this case — to which my......
-
Kossoff v. Felberbaum
...the product of, a member of The Florida Bar for which the Florida Bar member takes professional responsibility." The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla. 1978).Restitution for Kossoff's work for FFA is not barred by public policy because the work Kossoff performed for FFA falls o......
-
The interstate practice of law: are you crossing the line?
...litigation work. But the latter seems more clearly proper than the overt transactional work in Catoe. (48.) See Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559, 560 (Fla. 1978) (even where out-of-state lawyer's work in Florida would ordinarily constitute practice of law, that work is permissible as lo......
-
Multijurisdictional Practice of Law: Its Prevalence and Its Risks
...Brookens v. Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, 538 A.2d 1120 (D.C. App. 1988), contempt and injunction; Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So.2d 559 (Fla. 1978), injunction. 9 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 51-88(a) (Supp. 2000). 10 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 51-88(b) (Supp. 2000). 11 CONN. GEN. STAT. § 51-88(......
-
Access to courts and the unauthorized practice of law: 10 years of UPL advisory opinions.
...requirement." Yanakakis, 668 So. 2d at 184. And, while the court in Yanakakis reaffirmed its ruling in The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1978), that out-of-state lawyers who are members of a multistate law firm may perform certain functions in Florida, the activities performed......
-
Rules regulating The Florida Bar.
...is intended to affect the ability of non-members of The Florida Bar to practice law in Florida. See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Savitt, 363 So. 2d 559 (Fla. The terms qualified and legally disqualified are imported from the Professional Service Corporation Act (Chapter 621, Florida Statutes).......