Tag: 上海夜网TO

Proposed board actions

first_imgProposed board actions Proposed board actions Pursuant to Standing Board Policy 1.60, the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar hereby publishes notice of intent to consider or take final action at its August 15-16, 2002 meeting on the following items. These matters are additionally governed by Rule 1-12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, where applicable. Most amendments to the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar that are finally acted upon by the board must still be formally presented to the Supreme Court of Florida, with further notice and opportunity to be heard, before they are officially approved and become effective. To receive a full copy of the text of any of these proposed amendments call (850)561-5600, ext. 6802 — please reference any requested proposal by its title or item number and date of this publication. RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR Chapter 1 General Subchapter 1-3 Membership 1. 1-3.8 Right to Inventory Summary: Within subdivision (a), broadens the applicability of the rule to include the use of court-appointed inventory attorneys in cases involving “involuntary leave of absence due to military service, catastrophic illness or injury”. Chapter 3 Rules of Discipline Subchapter 3-7 Procedures 2. Rule 3-7.1 Confidentiality Summary: Reorganizes current rule greater clarity; adds new provisions that confirm the public nature of records and files not otherwise referenced in current rule. 3. Rule 3-7.6 Procedures Before a Referee Summary: Within subdivision (o) relating to taxable costs, deletes current $750 administrative fee and adds reference to new fee scale elsewhere within rules, in proposed rule 3-7.11(j). 4. Rule 3-7.10 Reinstatement and Readmission Procedures Summary: Within subdivision (m) relating to taxable costs, deletes current $750 administrative fee and adds reference to new fee scale elsewhere within rules, in proposed rule 3-7.11(j). 5. Rule 3-7.11 General Rule of Procedure Summary: Within subdivision (f), provides that a respondent may be cited for contempt by way of a petition for contempt petition filed with the court rather than a petition for order to show cause; revises subtitles accordingly; clarifies that appellate review of such contempt matters is governed by Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and that any record on appeal shall be forwarded to the Supreme Court of Florida; adds new subdivision (j) relating to administrative fees charged in discipline cases, creating a sliding scale from $1000 to $5000 for various levels of progression through the process. Subchapter 3-8 Florida Bar Grievance Mediation Program 6. Rule 3-8.1 Florida Bar Grievance Mediation Program Summary: Deleted; provisions moved and merged with various proposed revisions in chapter 14 fee arbitration rule, to be retitled “Grievance Mediation and Fee Arbitration Program.” Chapter 4 Rules of Professional Conduct Subchapter 4-1 Client-Lawyer Relationship 7. Rule 4-1.2 Scope of Representation Summary: Within subdivision (c), if otherwise permitted by law or rule, clarifies that a lawyer and client may agree — preferably in writing — to a limited scope of legal representation if reasonable under the circumstances; in such instances, would require client notice of rule prohibiting communication with a represented person; provides additional commentary on agreements for limited representation, and amends comment subheadings as appropriate; amends title, to read “Objectives and Scope of Representation.” The proposed amendment is subject to change, but separately noticed and completely printed in legislative format elsewhere in this publication. 8. Rule 4-1.5 Fees for Legal Services Summary: Within subdivisions (a) & (b) and commentary relating to excessiveness versus reasonableness of fees, codifies that an attorney’s costs also must be reasonable; establishes criteria to determine reasonableness of costs; provides safe harbor for written cost disclosures; amends title, to read “Fees ‘and Costs’ for Legal Services.” Subchapter 4-3 Advocate 9. 4-3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal Summary: Amends commentary to conform with current rule text regarding remedial measures when false evidence has been given to the court, eliminating outmoded references to a lawyer’s duty to disclose to “the other party” evidence of the client’s deception. Subchapter 4-4 Transactions With Persons Others Than Clients 10. 4-4.2 Communication With Person Represented by Counsel Summary: Adds language that would allow an attorney to communicate with another lawyer’s client in order to meet the requirements of any “court rule”; restyles existing rule text, as amended, as new subdivision (a); adds new subdivision (b), to address instances when persons are being provided, or have been provided, limited legal representation in accordance with proposed revisions to rule 4-1.2. The proposed amendment is subject to change, but separately noticed and completely printed in legislative format elsewhere in this publication. 11. 4-4.3 Dealing With Unrepresented Persons Summary: Restyles existing rule text, as new subdivision (a); adds new subdivision (b), to address instances when persons are being provided, or have been provided, limited legal representation in accordance with proposed revisions to rule 4-1.2. The proposed amendment is subject to change, but separately noticed and completely printed in legislative format elsewhere in this publication. Chapter 6 Legal Specialization and Education Programs Subchapter 6-3 Florida Certification Plan 12. 6-3.10 Right of Appeal Summary: Adds reference to rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to specify applicable procedures in any judicial review by the Supreme Court of Florida of an appeal of a BLSE ruling or determination. Chapter 10 Rules Governing the Investigation and Prosecution of the Unlicensed Practice of Law Subchapter 10-4 Circuit Committees 13. Rule 10-4.1 Generally Summary: Within subdivision (b), allows for appointment of circuit committee chair by the designated reviewer rather than the board of governors. Subchapter 10-6 Procedures for Investigation 14. Rule 10-6.2 Subpoenas Summary: Within subdivision (a), deletes requirement that a witness subpoenaed to an investigatory hearing must appear only in the circuit where the local UPL committee is located. Subchapter 10-9 Advisory Opinions 15. Rule 10-9.1 Procedures for Issuance of Advisory Opinions on the Unlicensed Practice of Law Summary: Within subdivision (b), revises the requirement that a request for formal advisory opinion state in detail “all” operative facts upon which the request is based, to allow a statement detailing operative facts “to the extent practicable.” Chapter 14 Fee Arbitration Rule Summary: Merges grievance mediation from rule 3-8.1 and fee arbitration program within existing chapter 14, for a common administrative process; similarly relocates revised rules of procedure for mediation and fee arbitration; replaces circuit fee arbitration committees with a pool of arbitrators; establishes a joint standing committee for program oversight; amends chapter title, to read “Grievance Mediation and Fee Arbitration Program.” Current Subchapter 14-1 Jurisdiction and Venue / Proposed Subchapter 14-1 Establishment 16. Proposed Rule 14-1.1 Establishment 17. Current Rule 14-1.1 / Proposed Rule 14-1.2 Jurisdiction 18. Rule 14-1.2 Venue (Relocated) 19. Proposed Rule 14-1.3 Authority of Board of Governors 20. Current Rule 14-1.3 Rules / Proposed Rule 14-1.4 Application of Rules and Statutes Subchapter 14-2 Standing Committee 21. Rule 14-2.1 Generally Current Subchapter 14-3 Circuit Arbitration Committees / Proposed Subchapter 14-3 Certification of Program Mediators and Arbitrators 22. Current Rule 14-3.1 Generally (Deleted) 23. Proposed Rule 14-3.1 Application Required Subchapter 14-4 Institution of Proceedings 24. Current Rule 14-4.1 Generally / Proposed Rule 14-4.1 Arbitration Proceedings 25. Proposed Rule 14-4.2 Grievance Mediation Proceedings Current Subchapter 14-5 Rules of Procedure / Proposed Subchapter 14-5 Effect of Agreement to Mediate or Arbitrate and Failure to Comply 26. Current Rule 14-5.1 Confidentiality (Relocated) 27. Proposed Rule 14-5.1 Effect of Referral to Mediation and Failure to Comply 28. Proposed Rule 14-5.2 Effect of Agreement to Arbitrate and Failure to Comply Proposed Subchapter 14-6 Nature and Enforcement of Award 29. Current Rule 14-5.2 / Proposed Rule 14-6.1 Binding Nature Proposed Subchapter 14-7 Immunity and Confidentiality 30. Current Rule 14-5.3 Immunity / Proposed Rule 14-7.1 Immunity and Confidentiality FEE ARBITRATION POLICIES 31. Rule I Preamble 32. Rule II Selection of Arbitrators 33. Rule III Record of Proceedings 34. Rule IV Hearings 35. Rule V Closing of Hearings 36. Rule VI The Award 37. Current Rule VII Enforcement / Proposed Rule VII Standards for Certification and Training 38. Rule VIII Death or Incompetence of a Party GRIEVANCE MEDIATION POLICIES 39. Rule I Adoption of Policies 40. Current Rule II Grievance Mediation Program Committee (Relocated) 41. Current Rule III / Proposed Rule II Program Mediators 42. Current Rule IV / Proposed Rule III Guidelines for Referrals 43. Current Rule V / Proposed Rule IV Procedures 44. Current Rule VI / Proposed Rule V Cost of Mediation STANDING BOARD POLICIES 100 Series – General Board Policies 45. Standing Board Policy 1.40 Policy for Appointments and Procedure for Elections and Nominations by the Board of Governors Summary: Within subdivisions (c)(4) & (d) — regarding selection or nomination of Bar representatives to judicial nominating commissions, the Judicial Qualifications Commission, Florida Board of Bar Examiners, Commission on Professionalism, ABA House of Delegates, and Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conference — deletes all provisions that might be construed as imposing additional qualifications for those separate offices relating to length of practice, relationship to board members, or term limits; changes remaining subsection numbers accordingly. 500 Series – Committees, Sections and Divisions 46. Standing Board Policy 5.10 Standing Committees Summary: Conforms name changes, additions, or deletions of various committees, and revises existing alphabetical listings as necessary. 47. STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS IN ADVERTISING AND SOLICITATION RULE VIOLATIONS Summary: New standards, as part of the comprehensive Florida Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions, related specifically to violations of advertising and solicitation regulations and intended to further provide guidance for grievance committees, bar counsel, referees, respondents, and the court; organized into categories regarding advertising, direct mail communications, solicitation, information on request, forfeiture of fees (already authorized in the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar), and mitigation and aggravation; suggested sanctions are hierarchical, depending on the isolated or repetitive nature of the conduct, the knowing or unknowing nature of the violation (knowing violations are presumed by any member of the bar who has advertised and participated in the review process before using the alleged offending advertisement), and the level of harm. BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION AND EDUCATION (BLSE) POLICIES 200 Series – Florida Certification Plan Summary: Reorders and renumbers selected policies within current series, with other revisions as noted. 48. 2.04 Applications for Certification – renumbered as new 2.05. 49. 2.05 Annual Cycle – renumbered as new 2.14 50. 2.06 Exam Administration – retitled “Exam Preparation and Administration” and renumbered as new 2.11; adds new subdivision (a) to clarify BLSE’s position on certification exam preparation and/or review courses, to prohibit BLSE members and all certification committee members from participating in such courses in any capacity, and to require review course sponsors to inform attendees that neither the BLSE nor certification committee members have contributed to the development of such review courses, and that course organizers were not privy to any information other than that provided to examinees; revises remaining subdivision entries appropriately; includes other subdivisions transferred from current policy 2.13(a),(b),(c)&(i) re Examinations. 51. 2.07 Professional Ethics & Competence – renumbered as new 2.06. 52. 2.08 Malpractice – renumbered as new 2.07. 53. 2.09 Peer Review – renumbered as new 2.08; deletes subdivision (b)’s requirement of publication of certification applicants’ names in The Florida Bar News for public input; revises remaining subdivision entries appropriately. 54. 2.10 Certification Fees – renumbered as new 2.04. 55. 2.11 Substantial Involvement – renumbered as new 2.09. 56. 2.12 Approved Continuing Legal Education (CLE) – renumbered as new 2.10; adds current policy 2.18 re CLE Overlap as new subdivision (c). 57. 2.13 Examinations – retitled as “Grading, Review, and Petition Process” and renumbered as new 2.12; subdivisions (a),(b),(c)&(i) transferred to new 2.11; remaining subdivisions revised appropriately. 58. 2.14 Review Process for Applicant Denial of Certification or Recertification – retitled as “Applicant Review Process for Certification or Recertification” and renumbered as new 2.13; significant editorial revision of procedures that allow applicants to respond, in writing or by appearance, to a recommendation that certification or recertification be denied or to a notice that such recommendation is under consideration. 59. 2.18 CLE Overlap – transferred to new 2.11(c) 500 Series – Course Approval Summary: Proposes new fee structure for course evaluation; other minor adjustments to various policy provisions to specify credit assignments for educational activities. 60. 5.01 Course Approval Administration – within subdivisions (c) & (d), increases late fee and rush processing fee, respectively; within subdivision (e), proposes one fee schedule based upon sponsor categories rather than credit evaluation selections; deletes subdivision (f) because of redundancy in proposed revisions to (e); revises all following subdivision entries accordingly; within subdivision (g), clarifies fee requirement when programs are sponsored by two or more sponsors; within new subdivision, specifies distribution of evaluation fee revenue to CLER and Certification program budgets; within subdivision (h), revises language and incorporates reliance of staff upon certification committee policies as well as BLSE policies for credit evaluation; within subdivision (i), clarifies content of accreditation notice and staff responsibility; within subdivision (k), adds language to permit on-line courses to receive credit similar to audio video programs. 61. 5.03 Course Approval Standards – revisions are non-substantive; editorial only. 62. 5.04 Credit Approval – within subdivision (d), adds language to also include and clarify entitlement to one-half credit hour for programs devoted to substance abuse and mental illness awareness; within subdivision (e), adds language to clarify amount of credit permitted for trial and appeal demonstrations and moot court participation as equivalent to that permitted for lectures; within subdivisions (f) – (k), substitutes all references to “hours” with the word “credits”; also within subdivision (i), reference to “3-hour” time block is revised to “150 minutes.” 63. 5.05 Credit for Other CLE Activities – substitutes all references to “hours” throughout with the word “credits”; revises all internal references to “1 hour” time blocks, to read “50 minutes”; clarifies all references to reporting cycles, to read “3-year CLER reporting cycle”; within subdivision (a)(6), proposes exclusion of additional credit for preparation of a lecture outline above that granted for delivery of the lecture; within subdivision (d)(5), proposes exclusion of writing credit for CLE handout materials. 64. 5.06 Complimentary Audio Tapes – strikes unnecessary language; eliminates specific January date reference for distribution of complimentary audio tapes; eliminates references to purchases of such tapes at cost.center_img July 15, 2002 Regular Newslast_img read more

Start reading Proposed board actions

UK pledges stricter regulation of growing master trust market

first_imgUK master trusts will soon be subject to stricter regulation, following seemingly successful lobbying by the Pensions Regulator (TPR).Harriett Baldwin, economic secretary to the Treasury, told the House of Commons that plans for further regulation were in the works and would be published “as soon as practically possible”.Baldwin indicated the regulation had already been drafted, saying the government had considered attaching the new rules to the Bank of England and Financial Services Bill currently being scrutinised by MPs, but that it would have been “very late” in the parliamentary process to introduce further amendments.She pledged that the new rules would be included in the next appropriate bill but did not provide any concrete details of the reforms. The government’s commitment comes after months of comments from TPR on the unequal regulatory landscape facing insurance-based pension providers compared with master trusts, which include providers such as Now Pensions, the People’s Pension and schemes set up by Legal & General Investment Management and consultants Aon and Willis Towers Watson.Lesley Titcomb, TPR’s chief executive, previously said the regulator and government were in discussions about the entry requirements for master trust operators, and hinted that a currently voluntary master trust assurance framework could become mandatory.“We need to think very hard about how we prevent more master trusts coming into the market.” – Andrew Warwick-ThompsonSpeaking to IPE in late January, Andrew Warwick-Thompson, executive director for regulatory policy at TPR, noted the “regulatory asymmetry” facing providers regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) compared with the regulation of master trusts by TPR.Asked if stricter regulation could see the master trust assurance framework become mandatory, he argued it would be a matter for the UK Parliament to decide.He added: “There is certainly a risk we perceive, and have perceived for some time, that while automatic enrolment is hugely successful in bringing new members and new contributions into the market, some of the master trusts in the market now may not be sustainable.”Warwick-Thompson also hinted that the growing number of master trust providers should be halted.“We need to think very hard about how we prevent more master trusts coming into the market, and what we do with those that struggle to reach any kind of sustainable level of business in the next year or so,” he said. Now Pensions suggested several years ago that the government should have assessed new pension providers by licensing them.According to TPR’s own figures, master trusts have been taking in more than three-quarters of members, nearly 4m, to be automatically enrolled.Steve Webb, former UK pensions minister and now director of policy at Royal London, said it was “good news” the government was considering tightening the rules around master trusts.He added: “Reports of potential conflicts of interest, poor governance and financial instability among small new master trusts are a source of grave concern.”But others were quick to caution the government against onerous new regulation. Helen Ball, head of defined contribution at law firm Sackers, welcomed the government’s acknowledgement of the role played by master trusts.“It will be interesting to see how those drafting the new legislation will strike a balance between consumer protection – which is crucial – and the practical challenges faced by master trusts of significant scale,” she added.“In an ideal world, the final rules will protect members against weak or fraudulent trusts but avoid stifling high quality and innovative arrangements.”Read more about the challenges associated with regulating the UK master trust market in the current issue of IPElast_img read more

Start reading UK pledges stricter regulation of growing master trust market

Miller: I’m hoping the Cubs’ long title drought continues

first_imgThe Chicago Cubs ending the franchise’s 108-year World Series drought would be a great story.But I can think of one story that would be even better: The Cubs’ drought reaching 109 years.Unless you’re a fan of the team, why would you pull for such a torturously wonderful and wonderfully torturous tale to suddenly vanish? What’s the point of pain if the rest of us can’t find delight in the suffering of others? Newsroom GuidelinesNews TipsContact UsReport an Error Think about it. You never read heart-wrenching, collar-drenching essays about “short-suffering fans.”This is the reason I was pulling for Golden State in the most recent NBA Finals. I wasn’t against LeBron James winning. But I was for LeBron James not winning, thus extending for another season his delicious struggle to secure a championship for beleaguered Cleveland.Remember, this is sports, not love. Here, absence makes the heart grow harder, and Cleveland fans are famous for possessing tickers of Teflon. Historically, it wasn’t like they had any other choice.James and the Cavaliers won, of course, and now here we are, just four months later, and Cleveland is right back in the title hunt again. This time, it’s the Indians chasing ghosts that retain their invisibility, but, thanks to LeBron, have been stripped of their invincibility.Cleveland’s baseball team hasn’t won a World Series since 1948, the sort of futility trumpeted in “Major League,” a movie that itself is now so old that, at the time it was filmed, Charlie Sheen was still considered moderately normal.It was English writer Sir Arthur Helps who once observed, “Strength is born in the deep silence of long-suffering hearts; not amid joy.”In that case, fans of the Indians, Cubs, Dodgers and Blue Jays should have enough combined strength to bench press Burbank.Baseball’s current final four has gone a total of 227 years without winning a World Series. That’s two-plus joyless centuries, the kind of monotonous, unforgiving reality typically reserved for things like communist oppression.Placed in that context, it almost sounds like the only reliable source for those latest box scores would be the New Testament.Old Sir Arthur died in 1875, meaning he wasn’t alive for the Cubs’ most recent championship. Then again, who was around back in 1908?Emma Morano was, for one, the Italian woman considered to be the oldest living human being today at age 116. It’s pretty well known, however, that Emma is a hockey fan.As you are certainly aware, the Cubs haven’t won in a long time, a long time being the same year baseball adopted the sacrifice fly rule.When the Cubs last claimed a World Series, spitballs were still legal and major league teams nicknamed the Naps, Doves and Superbas were playing.They didn’t sing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame” during the seventh-inning stretch of the 1908 World Series because the song hadn’t yet been released. It is quite possible, though, that Harry Caray was singing something somewhere.This is the mountain of soul-aching nostalgia against which the Dodgers will be leaning over the next several days. This, plus the fact they’re representing a franchise that hasn’t won since 1988.There’s a real sense that the Dodgers have something special happening. The “Win for Vin” movement remains alive, as does the notion that this bunch is operating with 25 hearts but only one heartbeat.Also undeniable is the way the Dodgers have persevered through a season that can rightly be described as “next man down,” an unending series of injuries depleting a roster of its depth but not its talent.As Dodgers fans know, the waiting is supposed to be the hardest part. But the losing isn’t exactly easy, either.So, a drought will end over the next couple weeks, while three droughts continue. I have my rooting interest, the story of the Cubs so much better if they pay proper homage to their depressing past.Everyone knows their history. Here’s hoping — 103 regular-season wins and all — they’re now groomed to repeat it.center_img The Red Sox going 8 1/2 decades without a title was much more interesting than the Red Sox winning three titles in one decade.Likewise, I think most Dodgers fans would agree that watching the Giants fail year after year for more than 50 years was preferable to watching them win the World Series three times in five years.In fact, I think most Dodgers fans would agree that anything would have been preferable to that, including the application and subsequent removal of a misspelled tongue tattoo.In this business, we root for stories, not teams, and the better story always will be the continued push against agony and angst in the pursuit of a championship that simply won’t be caught.That’s how it is in our nightmares, right? Running, crawling, reaching and stretching toward something that somehow, someway remains just beyond our desperate grasp?last_img read more

Start reading Miller: I’m hoping the Cubs’ long title drought continues