Florida Supreme Court Historical Society’s Post

We cannot stress enough the importance of independence in the judicial system. It is the cornerstone of fairness and an effective administration of justice. Let's take a moment to reflect on the impact of government interference in the US legal system, where the consequences of such actions are all too real for lawyers and the courts. Let's strive to maintain and protect the independence of our judiciary, so that justice can be served impartially and without bias.

An independent legal system is crucial for a democratic society to ensure a fair and free administration of justice. However, the government's move to disband the Law Society of British Columbia and replace it with a new regulatory body is threatening this value. Check out this important read, especially for those outside of the legal profession, to understand the implications of this decision. It seems that the government is pushing for more authority and restriction under the guise of making things cheaper for the average person, but history has shown us how that can backfire (*cough cough* ICBC and No Fault). Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gvbhW9w5

Courts have started applying the amendments to FRE 702, and lawyers need to help judges understand the changes. In my new article, I discuss how courts have reacted to the amendments and suggest some ways litigants can align their arguments with the structure and intent of the new rule. Many thanks to Washington Legal Foundation for publishing this piece and getting the word out. https://lnkd.in/gKreCXhK

Florida Attorneys – Did you know that The Florida Bar has had 5 substantive rule changes in its Rules regarding lawyer discipline from January 2021 and March 2024? This article discusses those changes and an overall view of what the discipline system looks like for Florida lawyers.

Court Watch 01-2024 The Parliamentary Legal Committee's Adverse Report on Virtual Court Hearings In August last year the High Court Rules were amended by SI 153/2023 to allow court papers to be filed and served electronically and cases to be heard virtually. What this means is that court papers are to be filed and served electronically through the Judicial Service Commission’s Integrated Electronic Case Management [IECMS] platform, and civil and criminal cases can be heard by electronic means which allow the judges and parties to see each other even though they are not physically in the same place. If a judge so orders, criminal and civil cases have to be heard virtually even if the parties want a physical hearing. On the 26th February this year, according to the amendments, the High Court became a fully paperless court, “save in exceptional circumstances authorised by a Judge”. In other words, on and after the 26th February all court papers have to be filed and served electronically unless a judge considers there are exceptional circumstances justifying their being filed or served by some other means. On the 1st February the Parliamentary Legal Committee [PLC], however, delivered a report that found many of the operative provisions of the amendments inconsistent with the Constitution and/or the enabling Act, i.e. the High Court Act. https://lnkd.in/dKjfvzeU

The Lord Chancellor, Alex Chalk, has indicated that the 2007 Legal Services Act will undergo a review soon. This follows the conclusion of the justice committee that the current multi-tiered system of legal regulation, established by the act, does not offer a stable long-term framework. To read about the committee's proposed improvements and the Lord Chancellor's response please click below to read the full The Law Gazette article. #legalrecruitment #legalnews #legalservicesact #ThisIsBirchrose

Today, TLABC and CBA-BC released an open letter co-signed by legal organizations across the country collectively voicing our concern to the BC Attorney General about the proposed Single Legal Regulator reform process and its implications. The BC Government is proposing legislation to amalgamate the regulation of lawyers, notaries, and paralegals under a Single Legal Regulator model. However, the BC Attorney General’s approach to this file has generated substantial concern, particularly regarding the transparency of the process and the safeguarding of lawyer independence. The way this reform is proceeding — without real transparency, clarity, or ample consultation with those it will affect most — sets a concerning precedent for future legislative changes within our profession. Read the full open letter here: https://lnkd.in/gYjdjyFK

B.C. NDP Government introduces disturbing Bill 21 to end lawyer independence and politicize the legal system. Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia (TLABC) stands opposed to Bill 21 ( Legal Professions Act 2024) , which was introduced in the legislature by the B.C. NDP Government today. “The B.C. NDP Government introduced a disturbing bill to end lawyer independence and politicize the legal system,” said TLABC President Michael Elliott. “Bill 21 is an egregious assault on the principle of lawyer independence, which is fundamental to the legal professions’ integrity and the justice system at large. Lawyer independence ensures we can serve our clients without government interference, maintaining the trust that is paramount to our work. Bill 21 is about one thing - government control over the legal system and the professions working in it,” said Michael Elliott. Read the full statement: https://lnkd.in/gMQ3kHxy #bcpoli #bclegal

Whether the High Court can dismiss or decide a Criminal Appeal in the absence of counsel of the accused person? The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to issue a notice in an SLP filed by me on the above legal issues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgements has held that in the absence of a counsel of the accused, the Hon'ble courts are required to appoint an amicus curie or advocate from legal aid and then only proceed to hear the case on merit. Here are a few cases. It is well settled that if the accused does not appear through counsel appointed by him/her, the Court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an Amicus Curiae, but cannot dismiss the appeal merely because of non-representation or default of the advocate for the accused.(2021) 20 SCC 642 We are of the opinion that even assuming that the counsel for the accused does not appear because of the counsel's negligence or deliberately, the court should not decide a criminal case against the accused in the absence of his counsel since an accused in a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and in such a situation the court should appoint another counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused. This is because the liberty of a person is the most important feature of our Constitution. Article 21 which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty is the most important fundamental right of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 21 can be said to be the “heart and soul” of fundamental rights. (2011) 4 SCC 729 Some More (2005) 11 SCC 413 1981 Supp SCC 76 (2008) 9 SCC 542 Keshav Khandelwal Naveen Kumar Nidhi Singh Shourajeet Chakravarty Nitesh Bhandari Stuti Bisht Maitreya Ranjan

This is probably one of the most important judgements in 2024 (in a UK context, possibly this century). You will not hear much about it in the majority of the media however. For anyone of an objective, fair minded and democratic disposition ask yourself 2 questions 1) How could this case have been brought in the first place and who is really behind this? 2) Why will only a few media outlets cover this?