
    In the Matter of THE FLORIDA BAR, Petitioner.
    No. 34786.
    Supreme Court of Florida.
    March 16, 1966.
    Clarification of Opinion March 30, 1966.
    
      Fletcher G. Rush, Orlando, Chesterfield H. Smith, Bartow and Marshall R. Cassedy, Robert M. Ervin, Tallahassee, President, for The Florida Bar, petitioner.
   PER CURIAM.

•The Florida Bar petitioned this court-to amend Section 1 of Article VIII of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 31 F.S.A., by striking the symbols and figures, to-wit, “$25.00” where it appears one time only therein and substituting, in lieu thereof the symbols and figures, to-wit, “$50.00”.

The effect of this amendment would be to authorize The Florida Bar to increase the annual dues of its members from $25.00 to $50.00. The petitioner contends that additional duties' and responsibilities have been placed on it, namely, that The Florida Bar assembled at the . last annual convention held in June, 1965, authorized and directed the establishment of a Clients’ Security Fund in Florida. In its petition The Florida Bar, among other things, says:

'“The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has concluded from its study that in order to maintain its pre-eminence and continue to do a high quality job, • in addition to its unauthorized practice of law program and the clients’ security fund, it must improve and expand its programs and services in other areas, such as public relations and improving the image of lawyers; judicial reform including more equitable judicial compensation ; constitutional revision; improving the economic conditions of lawyers; improving the disciplinary system, strengthening legal education; and broadening the continuing legal education program. The Board of Governors has further concluded that substantial additional funds will be needed to dp this.”

Due notice having been given, oral argument was subsequently presented. All parties interested thus having had an opportunity to'be heard, and the court being advised in the premises, it is our opinion, and we so hold, that the petitioner has made a prima facie showing for authority to increase the annual dues from $25.0.0 to $37.-50, but that the final authority for so doing should come from the members of The Florida Bar in convention assembled.

It is therefore ordered that Section 1 of Article VIII of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar be amended to read as follows:

“On or before January 1st of each year every active member of The Florida Bar shall pay annual dues to The Florida Bar in such an amount as shall be set at an annual meeting, and shall also file with the Executive -Director a statement setting forth his business and residential addresses and any other information that may be required by the Board of Governors, provided that at no annual meeting shall. the dues be fixed at more than' $37.50 per annum, provided further that dues for active members who are on active duty with any of the Armed Services of the United States shall not be fixed at more than $10.00 per annum. The amount of dues payable shall be determined by the status of the members on January 1 of each year.”

Provided, however, that such amendment shall not become effective except,- unless and until it be approved by a majority of the members of The Florida Bar present and voting at its 1966 annual convention, such vote to be taken at or near noon on Friday, June 17th, at the Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood Beach, Florida, and after due notice of the conducting of such plebiscite has been given in at least one issue of The Florida Bar Journal and in the published program of the Florida Bar Convention, preceding such convention.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS and CALDWELL, JJ., concur.

O’CONNELL, J., concurs specially with opinion.

ERVIN, J., concurs specially with opinion.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, J., concur with ERVIN, J.

MASON, Circuit Judge, dissents with opinion.

O’CONNELL, Justice

(concurring specially).

It is my view that the petition of The Florida Bar requesting that Section 1, Article VIII of the Integration Rule he amended to permit the members of the Bar to raise the annual dues to a sum not exceeding $50.00 per year should be granted. I concur in the order permitting an increase to $37.50 because it is the only order to which a majority will agree.

Although every person who would practice law in this State is required to be a member of The Florida Bar, this Court has no authority to require that dues in any amount be paid. While as a practical matter the duties imposed upon the Bar by this Court, and others accepted and performed voluntarily by the lawyers of Florida through the Board of Governors, require the collection and expenditure of dues this Court does not determine the amount of the dues, only the maximum that may be charged. The Integration Rule requires that the dues to be paid be set by vote of the membership of the Bar at its annual meeting.

Notice of hearing on the instant petition was published in the November 1965 issue of The Florida Bar Journal. In that issue the President’s Page was devoted to a discussion of the need for increase in dues which would be permitted if the petition be granted.

Following this notice, this Court received almost a hundred letters and resolutions from individual lawyers, firms and voluntary associations of lawyers. The Board of Governors of the Junior Bar Section, The Florida Bar, filed a resolution urging approval of the petition.

All but five of the letters urged granting of the petition. Two voluntary associations opposed it by resolution.

At argument on the petition before this Court only counsel for the Florida Government Bar Association appeared to argue against granting the petition. This group argued that no increase in dues should be permitted except upon a referendum of all members of the Bar to be taken by mail. This suggestion, like true democracy, is appealing, but it is not a practical course.

The Florida Bar operates between its annual meetings through a Board of Governors elected directly by the lawyers of Florida under an apportionment formula that might well satisfy the federal courts. At the annual meetings every lawyer who will do so has the opportunity of participating directly in the business of the Bar, including the determination of dues to be imposed by the members on themselves. .Moreover, under procedures approved by this Court publication of and hearings on the budget of the Bar, and therefore on the expenditures of dues collected, are required to be held with full opportunity for all to be heard. All of this seems to guarantee the lawyers of Florida more direct participation in the affairs of the Bar than our representative democracy affords to us as citizens. To require a referendum on the matter of dues would deny this. If one ought to be required in this matter it ought to be also required in all other decisions- of importance. This would destroy the effectiveness of The Florida Bar.

In the instant petition the Bar points out that at the annual meeting in 1965, the membership present by their vote directed the Board of Governors to proceed with the implementation of a client’s security fund; that the Bar now has the duty of investigating the unauthorized practice of law; that it has been called upon to perform increased functions in promoting improvement in the administration of justice in a number of efforts which entail considerable expense; that the expense involved in the disciplinary program has increased to the figure of $57,143.17 in 1965 which was about 25% of the total revenue from dues in that year; and that although 'almost self-supporting the widely acclaimed program of continuing legal education still requires some assistance from the genera'*-— Revenues of the Bar.

. Moreover, it is shown that the increase in dues due to addition of new members during the last five years averaged only $7,324.00, 'and a goodly portion of this increase is absorbed by the services rendered directly to the new members.

The Florida Bar neither specifies the projected cost of the new programs, the increased cost of existing ones, nor the figure which it will recommend that the membership adopt as dues for the 'year 1967. This is understandable since these are matters which the Board of Governors should develop in its budget and present to the membership at the time of voting on the increase. If the Board does not demonstrate a need for any increase it is safe to assume none will be voted. But if a need is shown there is every reason to believe that the lawyers of Florida will act to meet it. This Court should not deny them the right to do so.

It is therefore my opinion that the petition should be granted and that the members of The Florida Bar should have the power, acting in convention and after due notice, to fix annual dues in an amount not to exceed $50.00.

ROBERTS, J., concurs.

ERVIN, Justice

(specially concurring).

I would not object to the proposed authorization for an increase of Bar dues not to exceed $50.00, provided the Florida Bar members were afforded overall opportunity on due notice to vote in referendums in advance of the Florida Bar Convention at Bar meetings duly called and held in each judicial circuit and, in addition, provided .those members who did not vote on the proposal at the judicial circuit Bar meetings were afforded opportunity to vote thereon at the Florida Bar Convention pursuant to due notice of a specified time and place for such balloting at the Florida Bar Convention.

I reluctantly concur in the foregoing increase of $37.50 in order that the Bar may receive the financial support necessary to provide for its current and authorized budget requirements, which support clearly appears to be needed, although I think it would have been better had the $37.50 increase also been made subject to the referendum suggested above. The need for the proposed increase to $50.00 is not equally clear; hence, it appears to me the more comprehensive referendum as suggested in the first paragraph above would be advisable in order to determine if this proposal would meet with the approval of a majority of the Bar membership.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, J., concur.

MASON, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

I would have no objection to authorizing the increase to the extent necessary, provided such increase were first submitted in a general referendum of the Bar.

CLARIFICATION OF OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The concluding paragraph of the Court opinion filed March 16, 1966, reads as follows:

“Provided, however, that such amendment shall not become effective except, unless and until it be approved by a majority of the members of The Florida Bar present and voting at its 1966 annual convention, such vote to be taken at or near noon on Friday, June 17th, at the Diplomat Hotel in Hollywood Beach, Florida, and after due notice of the conducting of such plebiscite has been given in at least one issue of The Florida Bar Journal and in the published program of The Florida Bar Convention, preceding such convention.”

Re-examination of the opinion suggests that the language quoted is subject to an interpretation which was not intended. It was the intention of the Court to amend Section 1, Article VIII, of the Integration Rule of The Florida Bar, 31 F.S.A., in words and figures set out in the opinion. It was not intended that the effectiveness of the amended rale be conditioned upon a plebiscite of the Bar. It was, however, intended that the actual amount of the annual dues should be approved at the annual convention consistent with the provisions of the rale as amended by the Court’s opinion. In order to clarify the matter, the paragraph first above quoted is hereby stricken from the opinion and in lieu thereof, the following is substituted, to wit:

“It is contemplated by this opinion that the amount of the annual dues not to exceed $37.50, shall be subject to approval by a majority of the members of The Florida Bar present and voting on Friday at the 1966 annual meeting of the Bar at a specific time and place announced by notice in at least one issue of The Florida Bar Journal published preceding the annual meeting and also, in the published program of such annual meeting.” It is so ordered.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

MASON, Circuit Judge, dissents with opinion.

MASON, Circuit Judge

(dissenting).

I would have no objection to authorizing the increase to the extent necessary, provided such increase were first submitted in a general referendum of the Bar.  