Petition of Florida State Bar Ass'n et al. Supreme Court of Florida, en Banc. June 7, 1949.

• Position: Integration of the Florida Bar - Transcript

Petition of Florida State Bar Association and others, praying for a rule integrating the Florida Bar. Petition granted. BARNS, J., dissenting.

On petition for integration of Florida Bar, Supreme Court concluded that Bar integration was good public policy and calculated to serve the best interests of the bar, and therefore, in exercise of its inherent power, granted petition.

Robert J. Pleus, President, Florida State Bar Association, Orlando, Jas. D. Bruton, Jr., Chairman, Florida State Bar Assn. Committee on Integration of the Bar, Plant City, Chas. S. Ausley, Tallahassee, E. Calvin Johnson, Tampa, Miller Walton, Miami, Robert R. Milam, Jacksonville, E. A. Clayton, Gainesville, Frank D. Upchurch, St. Augustine, Wm. H. Rogers, Jacksonville, Clara Floyd Gehan, Gainesville, for petition.

H. O. Pemberton, Tallahassee, J. B. Hodges, Lake City, Hal W. Adams, Mayo, James H. Finch, Marianna, and Evan T. Evans, Jacksonville, against petition.

TERRELL, Justice.

December 2, 1948, the Committee on Bar Integration, Florida State Bar Association, exhibited its petition, praying for a rule integrating the Florida Bar. A similar petition was filed in 1937, praying for the adoption of rules to regulate procedure and integrate the bar. Our opinion in response to the latter petition is reported in 134 Fla. 851, 186 So. 280, but the question of integration as treated here was not considered.

The petition in this case alleges that in September 1947, the Florida State Bar Association made a complete roster of the Florida Bar, which was found to contain the names of 2,700 lawyers. Letters containing the following ballot were mailed to each name on the roster, requesting their vote on the question of bar integration.

Bar Integration Ballot I am in favor of the integration of the Bar of the State of Florida which will require every member of the Bar of Florida to belong to the integrated bar and the payment of $5.00 annual dues and the supervision of the Bar's disciplinary action by direct review of the Supreme Court. (If you favor this, mark an X in the box) () (If you do not favor integration of the Bar mark an X in the box) ()

You may sign your name here if you care to, but signature is not necessary to have your vote counted.

Of the 2,700 ballots mailed to the members of the bar, 1,631 were voted and returned. Of the returned ballots 1,131 voted in favor of integration and 500 voted against integration. The opponents of bar integration challenge the number 2,700 as being an accurate count of the practicing attorneys in the State but our investigation reveals no support for this challenge. We are of the view that the referendum was fairly conducted.

On January 18, 1949, the petition to integrate was argued pro and con, the argument being directed to these points: (1) Has this court inherent power to integrate the Florida Bar? (2) Has this court the power to require the payment of a membership fee as an incident to its power to integrate? (3) Would integration best serve the interest of the bar and the public? The gist of the opposition to integration was directed to these points: (1) That if accomplished at all it should be done by legislative act rather then by rule of court. (2) Bar organization should be voluntary, the integrated bar is a coerced organization. (3) Bar integration contemplates discipline by police methods rather than by judicial process. (4) The integrated bar will not eliminate the unethical lawyer, and (5) Integration will convert the bar into a closed shop.

The integrated bar movement was initiated in this country about 35 years ago by the American Judiciature Society and since that time at least 27 States have adopted it. None of them have returned to the old system of voluntary organization, but all commend the integrated bar highly. Letters received from the States in which the integrated bar has been tested, recommend it as a vast improvement over the voluntary organization and proclaim that they would under no circumstances return to the old system.

[1][2] When we say the bar is integrated we mean that every lawyer within a given area has membership in a cohesive organization. An organization of less than all the members of the bar in a given area would not be an integrated bar. The area may be the state, the county or the city. The integrated bar has also been defined as the process by which every member of the bar is given an opportunity to do his part in performing the public service expected of him, and by which each member is obliged to bear his portion of the responsibility. Annotation 114 A.L.R. 161. Another claim to merit is that it provides a fair and equitable method by which every lawyer may participate in and help bear the burden of carrying on the activities of the bar instead of resting that duty on a voluntary association composed of a minority membership.

So the purpose of bar integration is in no sense punitive and there is not a case on record in which it has been employed as a legal straight jacket for disciplinary purposes. In some states it has no part whatever in disciplinary measures. In the states where bar integration has been adopted its major energies are directed to projects designed to improve the administration of justice, projects that awaken an interest in the science of jurisprudence, that stimulate professional interest and that give the bar a just concept of its relation to the public. In some states the question of unlawful practice of the law, educational qualification for admission to the bar, and the discipline of members for unprofesional conduct, have been included in the integration agenda, but they are incidental to the major energies of the integrated bar.

The integrated bar of California has promulgated the best pattern for an integrated bar program to which our attention has been directed. The Bar of California was integrated in 1927 by legislative act, St. 1927, p. 38, and is...