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
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida circuit court judge ordered a Legal Services attorney to be dismissed from representing a child and parent in a juvenile delinquency case, claiming federal restrictions prohibited him from handling such matters. The District Court of Appeal held that the trial judge exceeded his authority, as only the Florida Supreme Court has jurisdiction to regulate attorney practice, and a client has the right to be represented by any bar-admitted attorney.
The trial court exceeded its authority and acted in departure from essential requirements of law. A trial court cannot prohibit a member of the Florida Bar in good standing from representing a client who has designated that attorney. Only the Florida Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law, and eligibility for legal services is a federal matter for federal agencies to resolve.
[1] A court cannot prohibit a member of the Florida Bar in good standing from representing a client who has engaged them.
[2] A judge may not pass judgment on the eligibility or authority of an attorney in good standing to represent a client before the court.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Article V, § 15 of the Florida Constitution of 1968, vests the Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law.”
Establishes that only the Florida Supreme Court, not trial courts, has authority over attorney regulation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael R. Masinter, a member of the Florida Bar in good standing, was employed by Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. and was designated to represent …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
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 Mas-inter, 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 authorization, either state or federal, permits judicial inquiry into a client’s eligibility for representation in a Florida Court by an attorney who is a member of the Florida Bar in good standing who has been designated by the client. Where the federal government makes legal services available under congressional authority, eligibility for rendering and receiving such legal services is a matter for resolve by the federal agencies which make such services available.
Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted and the order entered February 20, 1975, by the respondent judge is quashed.
McNULTY, C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., concur. . See, B(2) (b)(3) of Community Action Memorandum #79, dated January 15, 1968, from Office of Economic Opportunity.
. Cf. Weintraub v. Adair, 331 F.Supp. 148 (S.D.Fla.1971), wherein court enjoined a Justice of the Peace from preventing legal services attorneys from representation of clients before that court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Paul Fire & Marine INS. Co. v. Marina BAY Resort Condo. Assoc., Inc., 794 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…CA 1985) (granting a petition for writ of certiorari and quashing an order requiring petitioners to appear only through counsel on grounds, inter alia, that the “record does not support denial of the right to self-representation”); 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 “depart from the essential requirements of law and thus cause material injury to the petitioner throughout…1 / 2
-
Julianne Holt v. Honorable Tracy Sheehan, 122 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…state or federal, permits judicial inquiry into a client’s eligibility for representation in a Florida Court by an attorney who is a member of the Florida Bar in good standing who has been designated by the client.” State ex rel. T.J.M. v. Carlton, 314 So. 2d 593, 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Rather, “Article V, § 15 of the Florida Constitution of 1968, vests the Supreme Court with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law.” Id Judge Sheehan’s order violated clearly established principles of law in…
-
Outlaw v. Douglas, 378 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…zation, either state or federal, permits judicial inquiry into a client’s eligibility for representation in a Florida Court by an attorney who is a member of the Florida Bar in good standing who has been designated by the client. State v. Carlton, 314 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1975). Petitioner’s eligibility to receive free legal services is an administrative decision to be made by the agency rendering the services, consistent with established guidelines, and is not within the purview of the trial court. We…