Justices Go Against Legislature on Expert Witnesses

February 16, 2017/in Lakeland Ledger

Justices go against Legislature on expert witnesses

Pointing to “grave constitutional concerns,” the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a controversial 2013 move by lawmakers to tighten a standard for expert witnesses in legal cases.

By Jim Saunders The News Service of Florida

Posted Feb 16, 2017 at 8:46 PM

TALLAHASSEE — Pointing to “grave constitutional concerns,” the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a controversial 2013 move by lawmakers to tighten a standard for expert witnesses in legal cases.

The 4-2 ruling blocked the use of a standard backed by business groups but opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys and The Florida Bar Board of Governors.

Testimony from expert witnesses can play a crucial role in complicated civil lawsuits and in criminal cases that involve scientific evidence. While the Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott approved the revamped standard in 2013, the Supreme Court has constitutional authority to determine rules and procedures for the court system.

The debate focused on lawmakers’ decision to move to what is known in the legal world as the “Daubert” standard, which is more-restrictive than the state’s longstanding expert-witness standard. Federal courts use the Daubert standard, but opponents of using it in Florida courts said it make cases more expensive and time-consuming — effectively making it harder for people to pursue lawsuits.

In Thursday’s ruling, the Supreme Court majority pointed to arguments by opponents that raised “grave constitutional concerns.”

“Those concerns include undermining the right to a jury trial and denying access to the courts,” said the ruling by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and Justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince. “While the (Supreme) Court does not address the constitutionality of a statute or proposed rule within the context of a rules case, the fact that there may be ‘grave concerns about the constitutionality of the amendment’ has been a basis previously for the (Supreme) Court not adopting an amendment to the evidence code to the extent it is procedural.”

But Justice Ricky Polston, in a dissent joined by Justice Charles Canady, said the federal-court system and other states have successfully used the Daubert standard.

“Has the entire federal court system for the last 23 years as well as 36 states denied parties’ rights to a jury trial and access to courts? Do only Florida and a few other states have a constitutionally sound standard for the admissibility of expert testimony? Of course not,” Polston wrote.

Justice Alan Lawson, who joined the court at the end of December, did not take part in the ruling.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a legal group aligned with businesses, echoed Polston’s dissent Thursday.

“The Florida Supreme Court seems to be implying the entire federal court system for the last 23 years has been denying a citizen’s right to a jury trial and access to the courts, through the use of the federal Daubert standard,” Large said in an email. “If that is the case, why has the Florida Supreme Court been citing federal courts for constitutional precedent for the past 23 years?”

Supporters of the Daubert standard have argued it can help prevent the use of “junk science” in court cases. The standard includes a three-part test in determining whether expert testimony can be admitted. That test involves whether the testimony is “based upon sufficient facts or data;” whether it is the “product of reliable principles and methods;” and whether a witness has “applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”

That is more restrictive than a test long used in Florida courts, known as the “Frye” standard.

http://www.theledger.com/news/20170216/justices-go-against-legislature-on-expert-witnesses

Business Community Opposition Mounts to ‘Prejudgement Interest’ Bill Pending in Florida Senate

February 16, 2017/in Florida Business Daily

Business community opposition mounts to ‘prejudgement interest’ bill pending in Florida Senate
Florida Business Daily Reports | Feb 16, 2017

Business community opposition is mounting to legislation being considered in Tallahassee that would require Florida courts to include prejudgement interest in any final lawsuit award.

Currently, in personal injury cases in Florida, a jury will award an amount, and then interest will be added until the payment is made. Senate Bill 334, introduced by state Sen. Greg Steube (R-Sarasota), will require a court to include prejudgement interest in an award from which the plaintiff recovers both economic and non-economic damage. It also requires a court to include that same interest on attorney fees and costs.

The proposed legislation will effectively mean juries and courts would calculate, and add, all interest from the time of the injury.

Opponents of the measure, including the Florida Justice Reform Institute (FJRI), say the legislation will prove costly for Florida employers, possibly putting Sunshine State jobs at risk.

William Large, president of FJRI, which advocates for lawsuit reform, said the plaintiffs’ bar is driving the efforts to pass this legislation.

“Effectively it will be another cost driver for businesses in Florida,” Large told Florida Business Daily. “And it is patently unfair because in a tort situation, any potential losses might be speculative in nature. It is unfair for a business to pay for losses not yet identified, not tangible.”

In short, Large argues, it is burdensome, complicated and it takes away discretion from both judge and jury. It is much more simple for an award to be handed down and then interest to be charged to discourage delays in payments.

The threat of post judgment interest encourages the losing party to pay the damages quickly, which is good public policy, according to an FJRI fact sheet on the bill.

“Florida courts have repeatedly said that prejudgment interest is not appropriate in personal injury cases and other lawsuits where the amount of damages is not defined but entirely speculative until a jury determines the amount of damages owed,” the briefing paper continued.

The bills before the legislature require incredibly burdensome, time-consuming calculations, according to FJRI.

“In a case with, for example, hundreds of physical therapy treatments, the jury will have to indicate which treatments are compensable, beginning on what date and for what individual amounts,” said Large. “Then, the court will be required to calculate prejudgment interest through the date of the judgment for each medical expense.”

In the past, prejudgement interest was awarded as a penalty for the defendant’s “wrongful” act of fighting a meritorious claim.

However, Florida courts began to reject this position some 15 years, instead recognizing that prejudgment interest may be a part of a damages award only when there is a defined amount of monetary damages. These include breach of contract cases and tort cases involving a property loss.

A hearing on the bill will take place Tuesday, February 21, 2017 in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which Sen. Steube is chair. Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto (R-Ft. Myers) is vice chair of that committee.

A similar bill was filed in the House and is sponsored by Rep. Shawn Harrison (R-Tampa).

http://flbusinessdaily.com/stories/511082712-business-community-opposition-mounts-to-prejudgement-interest-bill-pending-in-florida-senate

Justices Go Against Legislature on Expert Witnesses

February 16, 2017/in News Service of Florida

JUSTICES GO AGAINST LEGISLATURE ON EXPERT WITNESSES

By JIM SAUNDERS
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA

THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, February 16, 2017……… Pointing to “grave constitutional concerns,” the Florida Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a controversial 2013 move by lawmakers to tighten a standard for expert witnesses in legal cases.

The 4-2 ruling blocked the use of a standard backed by business groups but opposed by plaintiffs’ attorneys and The Florida Bar Board of Governors.

Testimony from expert witnesses can play a crucial role in complicated civil lawsuits and in criminal cases that involve scientific evidence. While the Legislature and Gov. Rick Scott approved the revamped standard in 2013, the Supreme Court has constitutional authority to determine rules and procedures for the court system.

The debate focused on lawmakers’ decision to move to what is known in the legal world as the “Daubert” standard, which is more-restrictive than the state’s longstanding expert-witness standard. Federal courts use the Daubert standard, but opponents of using it in Florida courts said it make cases more expensive and time-consuming — effectively making it harder for people to pursue lawsuits.

In Thursday’s ruling, the Supreme Court majority pointed to arguments by opponents that raised “grave constitutional concerns.”

“Those concerns include undermining the right to a jury trial and denying access to the courts,” said the ruling by Chief Justice Jorge Labarga and justices Barbara Pariente, R. Fred Lewis and Peggy Quince. “While the (Supreme) Court does not address the constitutionality of a statute or proposed rule within the context of a rules case, the fact that there may be ‘grave concerns about the constitutionality of the amendment’ has been a basis previously for the (Supreme) Court not adopting an amendment to the evidence code to the extent it is procedural.”

But Justice Ricky Polston, in a dissent joined by Justice Charles Canady, said the federal-court system and other states have successfully used the Daubert standard.

“Has the entire federal court system for the last 23 years as well as 36 states denied parties’ rights to a jury trial and access to courts? Do only Florida and a few other states have a constitutionally sound standard for the admissibility of expert testimony? Of course not,” Polston wrote.

Justice Alan Lawson, who joined the court at the end of December, did not take part in the ruling.

William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a legal group aligned with businesses, echoed Polston’s dissent Thursday.

“The Florida Supreme Court seems to be implying the entire federal court system for the last 23 years has been denying a citizens’ right to a jury trial and access to the courts, through the use of the federal Daubert standard,” Large said in an email. “If that is the case, why has the Florida Supreme Court been citing federal courts for constitutional precedent for the past 23 years?”

Supporters of the Daubert standard have argued it can help prevent the use of “junk science” in court cases. The standard includes a three-part test in determining whether expert testimony can be admitted. That test involves whether the testimony is “based upon sufficient facts or data;” whether it is the “product of reliable principles and methods;” and whether a witness has “applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.”

That is more restrictive than a test long used in Florida courts, known as the “Frye” standard.

–END–2/16/2017

https://new.newsserviceflorida.com/app/post.html?postID=24155

Listen to Opponents of Term Limits for Judges: Where We Stand

February 15, 2017/in Orlando Sentinel

Listen to opponents of term limits for judges: Where We Stand

Gavel Judge

February 15, 2017

Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran recently wrote in a guest column for the Sentinel that it wasn’t surprising that judges weren’t “fans” of his proposal to impose term limits on the state’s Supreme Court and appellate courts. But last week, before his proposal cleared a House committee by a single vote, a more unlikely foe emerged.

The Florida Justice Reform Institute is dedicated to fighting “rampant litigation in Florida and the significant social and economic toll it takes on our state,” according to the mission page of its website. Yet its director, William Large, told committee members that the 12-year term limits Corcoran advocates would degrade the quality of applicants to the judiciary and, as a result, diminish the public’s confidence in the courts. He argued talented lawyers would be less likely to interrupt their careers in private practice for a term-limited stint on the bench. “It will insure that the best and brightest rarely, if ever, apply,” Large said.

Criticism from the institute, which is otherwise a good fit with Corcoran’s conservative judicial philosophy, can’t be so easily dismissed by the speaker. After all, Large also echoed a regular refrain from Corcoran during the committee hearing when he called for judges “who can say what the law is, not what it should be.”

Other speakers also registered their opposition to the speaker’s proposal during the hearing, including former Republican Lt. Gov. Jeff Kottkamp, a lawyer who clerked for two federal judges and also represented Fort Myers in the House. Kottkamp argued that higher turnover among judges who are bound by term limits would unsettle the state’s legal landscape with more conflicting opinions.

Corcoran, in his guest column, cited Founding Father Thomas Jefferson’s criticism of lifetime appointments for federal judges. But Supreme Court justices and appellate judges in Florida aren’t given lifetime appointments. They must face voters in the first election after they are appointed by the governor, and every six years hence, and they lose their seats on the bench if they earn less than majority support. They are subject to a mandatory retirement age of 70.

State Rep. Jennifer Sullivan, the Mount Dora Republican sponsoring Corcoran’s proposal in the House, argued that justices and appellate judges aren’t accountable under the current system because none has been unseated by voters since Florida switched to appointing them in the 1970s. But that’s a good indication that the process used to screen judicial applicants — a panel of lawyers and laymen that evaluates their qualifications before forwarding a short list of the best candidates for consideration to the governor — normally yields qualified judges.

And in those instances where sitting judges violate judicial rules of conduct, they face discipline from a commission and ultimately the state Supreme Court. Some appellate judges who ran into trouble this way and might have lost their seats during retention elections resigned before they had to face voters.

Sullivan declared during the committee hearing that Corcoran’s proposal “is about good government and accountability.” Actually, the opposite is true. It would treat good judges and bad judges the same. Both would be kicked off the bench after an arbitrary two-term limit. Voters would lose the power to extend the tenure of the best judges.

Corcoran’s proposal, if approved by three-fifths of legislators in both chambers, would go on the state ballot as a constitutional amendment in 2018. It would need approval of at least 60 percent of voters to be ratified. But as committee members were reminded by a representative of the Florida Bar, which represents all of the state’s lawyers, no other states impose term limits on their appellate judges. In three that proposed the idea – Colorado, Mississippi and Nevada – voters said no.

Even if legislators aren’t inclined to listen to opposition from judges to term limits, they would be wise to give weight to the objections of other knowledgeable observers of the court system, including critics of Florida’s judiciary. The issue is not really that complicated. Regularly purging the ranks of justices and appellate judges in Florida of their most experienced and knowledgeable members is just a bad idea.

This editorial has been updated to correct the name of the Florida Justice Reform Institute.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-term-limits-judges-20170215-story.html

Drive for Assignment of Benefits Reform Picks Up Steam

February 15, 2017/in SaintPetersblog

Drive for assignment of benefits reform picks up steam

MICHAEL MOLINE
Feb 15, 2017, 7:10 pm

The prospect that a national rating firm might downgrade Florida insurance companies because of rising costs linked to assignment of benefits agreements has lit a fire under advocates of reforming those contracts.

“This issue is having a real effect on the pocketbooks of working Floridians and it’s time we take steps to clean up the process,” state Rep. Ben Diamond said in a written statement Wednesday.

“Homeowners deserve a real, consumer-driven solution that ensures that legitimate claims are paid while putting a stop to the bad actors who are driving up the cost of property insurance for all Floridians,” the St. Peterburg Democrat said.

He pointed to a report in the Miami Herald that Demotech Inc. was about to downgrade as many of 15 of the 57 Florida insurers it rates from “A” to “B” on financial stability.

The move could put mortgages at risk for thousand of homeowner because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require “A” ratings on insurance carried by its borrowers, the Herald reported.

Diamond sits on the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee, which is debating restricting the ability to use AOBs to file lawsuits against insurers to policyholders, as opposed to contractors to whom they might assign insurance benefits.

Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier has endorsed this approach.

Earlier this week, the Florida Justice Reform Institute issued a report finding that the number of AOB-related lawsuits grew by nearly 300 percent between 2010 and 2016, and comprised 54 percent of all lawsuits filed last year.

The Consumer Protection Coalition, representing the Florida Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies, and other business interests, pointed to the institute’s report to underline the need for reform.

“For most Floridians, their home is their biggest investment. But AOB fraud and abuse – and the high insurance rate increases it is causing – is quickly making home ownership more expensive for many working families,” coalition spokeswoman Carolyn Johnson said.

“For some low-income families, AOB abuse may even put home ownership out of reach. This report clearly documents that state legislators must reign in the AOB lawsuits, and fix the problem with the one-way attorney fee statute.”

That law allows policyholders to sue their insurers without winding up liable for defense attorney fees, but contractors with AOBs have also used it.

“It is imperative that we work to address the cost-drivers plaguing the system head on this session so hardworking Floridians can have some relief. Now is the time to protect our Florida homeowners from AOB abuse,” said Logan McFaddin, of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

“Florida’s consumers are paying more while AOB abuse goes unchecked,” said Michael Carlson, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida.

“We’re seeing that the same kind of AOB abuse that drives up costs and threatens home ownership is also a growing issue in replacing auto glass that is alleged to be cracked or damaged. We need reforms that keep policyholders in control of the policies they bought and paid for. The time for legislative action to protect consumers is now.”

http://saintpetersblog.com/aob-rating/

Florida Justice Reform Institute Calls for Assignment of Benefits Changes

February 13, 2017/in Florida Record

by Russell Boniface | Feb. 13, 2017, 2:12pm

TALLAHASSEE — The Florida Justice Reform Institute is advocating changes to curb what it calls abuses of assignment of benefits (AOB), as well as one-way attorney’s fees for insurance claims awarded to service providers and their attorneys.

Florida’s one-way attorney fee is designed to reimburse policyholders for their legal bills if they sue an insurance company. Critics argue that some third-party vendors and their attorneys are coercing policyholders to assign over their benefits to obtain one-way attorney’s fees so they can sue insurance companies that fail to pay for fraudulent or inflated repair invoices.

The one-way attorney fee statute states that the prevailing party is awarded the attorneys’ fees and costs in addition to the damages awarded by the court.

Florida policyholders are free to sign away their AOBs to a contractor or attorney. Florida law states that an insurance policy “may be assignable, or not assignable, as provided by its terms.”

Vendors typically soliciting AOBs from policyholders are associated with property insurance, auto repair and personal insurance claims.

The Florida Justice Reform Institute, a nonprofit that advocates for judicial reform, believes Florida vendors, or service providers, and their attorneys are manipulating the process by seeking to have the rights of that insurance company assigned to them so they can get the one-way fees.

“This arrangement is particularly lucrative for attorneys,” William Large, president of Florida Justice Reform Institute, told the Florida Record. “The issue is if the vendor attorneys take on an insurance company and win, not only do get their fee paid by the insurer but they also bill the insurance company an inflated cost for the repair. If David is taking on Goliath, David wants his fees paid.”

The Florida Justice Reform Institute is seeking to amend the one-way attorney fee statute so that service providers holding assignments of benefits may not obtain attorneys’ fees.

“What is happening is the vendor that does the repair tells an insurance company to reassign the benefits to them and then sends the insurer a bill two-fold, three-fold or four-fold of the market value,” Large said. “For example, if that market price is $2,500, the vendor sends in a bill for $10,000. Service providers and the assignee are entitled to attorney’s fees under the one-way attorney fee statute. The insurer will contest it. Now the vendor is working with the insurer.”

According to a report by the Florida Justice Reform Institute, manufactured windshield repair claims involving auto glass repair shops have developed a niche market of promising “free” windshields in exchange for an AOB and the right to sue an insurer.

“You can park in a big box store and find a hairline crack in your window,” Large said. “The big box store will give you a coupon to shop in the store and tell you that they can repair the windshield in exchange for your right to file an insurance claim for a free windshield replacement. But they repair it at four-fold the cost and then file suit against the insurer when they don’t get reimbursed.”

Florida had 28,000 AOB claims in 2016, according to the Office of Insurance Regulation.

Critics argue that the AOB trend will result in rising premiums for policyholders. Last year, two bills introduced to Florida’s House and Senate addressing the AOB issue were halted.

Last month, Florida-based Citizens Property Insurance Corp. and the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation addressed the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on the AOB issue. And on Feb. 2, officials met at the Florida Chamber of Commerce’s Insurance Summit in Miami to discuss the rise of AOB claims on account of potential fraud.

Florida’s lawmakers will continue to debate AOB reform when they convene in March.

http://flarecord.com/stories/511081664-florida-justice-reform-institute-calls-for-assignment-of-benefits-changes?t=qou9_ErhJ668yYJZaigW

FJRI President, William Large, introduced Senator Marco Rubio

February 10, 2017/in Florida Justice Reform Institute News

FJRI President, William Large, introduced Senator Marco Rubio at the 2017 Annual Florida Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society

Judicial Term Limits on the Move in State House

February 10, 2017/in wctv.tv

By Mike Vasilinda | Posted: Fri 9:25 PM, Feb 10, 2017

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WCTV) — Legislation to limit Supreme Court and appellate judges in Florida to two six year teams is moving forward in the state House.

It became a top priority of the Speaker after several adverse rulings from the Court.

The Supreme Court ruled twice against lawmakers in redistricting, overturned a death penalty sentencing law, and threw out caps on attorneys fees in workers comp cases all in the last 2 years.

Now key lawmakers are pushing a 12 year term limit on appellate judges.

Right now they face voters every six years, but no judge has ever lost.

Representative Jennifer Sullivan of Lake County is the sponsor.

“An accountability system that doesn’t hold people accountable is not truly an accountability system” says the second term lawmaker.

Warren Husband, representing The Florida Bar, told lawmakers Florida would be the only state to restrict judges terms if passed and approved by voters.

“Been on the ballot three times in three states. Been rejected by the voters in all three instances” says Husband.

Even William Large, who is President of the conservative, law suit fighting Florida Justice Reform Institute thinks term limits for judges is a bad idea.

“It would be very unlikely that the best and brightest lawyers would apply, because they would see that they would have to retire in 12 years” says Large.

State Rep. Sean Shaw’s father was a distinguished Supreme Court Justice.

“The courts are definitely under attack. When you’re attacking something that’s not broken, it’s unnecessary. The court system is working fine, just because you disagree with certain decisions, doesn’t mean that you just broad side attack on the court is appropriate,” says Shaw.

Many believe that attorneys in private practice would be reluctant to apply if there were term limits, and that would mean only government lawyers would apply to be judges.

And they are likely to be less skeptical of government.

In 2011, after other adverse rulings, a different House Speaker tried to split the supreme Court in two and pack more judges on the court. It cleared the House but never got a hearing in the Senate.

http://www.wctv.tv/content/news/Judicial-term-limits-on-the-move–413466393.html

Will Florida Become the First State to Impose Term Limits on Justices?

February 9, 2017/in Miami Herald

Will Florida become the first state to impose term limits on justices?

Capitol Building

Posted by Miami Herald on Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017 at 4:44 PM – @MaryEllenKlas

Despite a torrent of criticism from both conservatives and liberal lawyers, a House committee on Thursday advanced a proposed constitutional amendment that would impose a 12-year term limit on Florida Supreme Court justices and appeal court judges who now can serve until retirement age.

The idea is a top priority of House Speaker Richard Corcoran, R-Land O’Lakes, who accuses the Florida Supreme Court of repeatedly “writing whole cloth law” in violation of the separation of powers. If the measure is placed on the November 2018 ballot, it would need 60 percent of the vote to become law. No other state has such steep limits on its highest courts, although Colorado, Mississippi and Nevada have proposed judicial term limits at the appellate level and voters have rejected it .

The House Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee voted 8-7, for HJR1, by Rep. Jennifer Sullivan, R-Mount Dora. The measure would not apply to judges currently in office but take effect beginning with anyone who is appointed to the appellate courts beginning in 2019.

Under current law, justices and appeals court judges can serve until they reach the retirement age of 70, but must face voters in an up-or-down merit retention election every six years. Sullivan argued that since no justice or judge has been turned out of office in the last 40 years, the system has not worked as intended.

“An accountability system that does not hold people accountable is not truly accountable,” she said. “This bill seeks to correct that and give the people of Florida another opportunity to implement the accountability they originally intended to place upon our judicial branch of government.”

The Florida Supreme Court, however, does have the power to discipline judges and the Judicial Qualifications Commission recommends who to discipline and remove. Most of the appellate judges that have faced sanctions in the last two decades have resigned before being reprimanded, according to a 2015 report by legislative auditors.

The proposed amendment is opposed by the Florida Bar, former court justices and legal scholars and, this year, the conservative Florida Justice Reform Institute, a judicial advocacy organization that has been on the losing side of many Florida Supreme Court rulings, also voiced its opposition to the bill.

William Large, director of the group, said his organization opposes the bill because it will diminish the quality of applicants who serve on the bench and erode public confidence in the judiciary.

“We want judges that are knowledgeable, experienced, diligent and who are texturalists and originalists – and judges who can say what the law is, not what it should be’’ Large told the committee.

The existing appointment process is working, he said, because many talent young judges are being appointed to the bench with those characteristics but, if the amendment is passed, few judges will leave a stable law practice to serve on the bench for 12 years because it will be more difficult to return into private practice when their terms are up, he said.

“It will insure that the best and brightest rarely, if ever, apply,’’ Large said.

Jeff Kottkamp, who has served in all three branches as former lieutenant governor, state representative and clerk for two federal judges, told the committee that the federal system gives judges life terms to insure their independence from the whims of political and economic pressures.

“Our founding fathers believed deeply in the independence of the judiciary, making sure that we protected our judges from the winds of change, from politics and from worrying about making an unpopular decision,’’ he said. But if the composition of the appellate courts turn over every decade, it will lead to less settled and consistent law and more conflicting opinions.

Large said that the measure could also lead to the same revolving door problems that term limits have created with legislators — who often serve their eight-year term, win promises from lobbyists whose issues they vote on, and return as high paid lobbyists.

“It is going to prevent good people from ever applying and what we are going to see is people, who don’t need to return to private pracitce such as government attorneys, will make a lateral move out of the appeals judgeship and go back into government practice,’’ he said after the meeting. “Is that what we want?”

Warren Husband, lobbyist for the Florida Bar which opposes the proposal, said that one third of all appellate judges rotated off the bench in the last four years without term limits but, if justices are forced off the bench it will make is more difficult for many of them to return to the practice of law if they are late in their career.

“You wouldn’t want to apply to be a judge if you were [age] 54,’’ Husband said. “You would lose half of the district court of appeals applicants on age alone.”

Rep. Sean Shaw, R-Tampa, whose father was Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw served for 22 years on the bench, said he opposes the bill because it is a threat to judicial independence.

“I’m still not certain that there is a problem that we are addressing,’’ he said. “If you do not agree with certain decision of the Florida Supreme Court or appellate court, good, that means that separation of powers is working.”

He said he was particularly concerned about what impact more rotation on the courts would mean to death penalty cases which, he said, are complex and require deep knowledge of the law.

This is the second time in two years the bill has been advanced in the House, but faces no companion measure in the Senate.

Voting for the bill were Reps. Daniel Burgess, R-Zephyrhills, Colleen Burton, R-Lakeland, Cord Byrd, R-Neptune Beach, Erin Grall, R-Vero Beach, Shawn Harrison, R-Tampa, Jackie Toledo, R-Tampa, Frank White, R-Pensacola, Heather Fitzenhagen, R-Fort Myers.

Voting against the bill were Reps. John Cortes, D-Kissimmee, Ben Diamond, D-St. Petersburg, Jay Fant, R-Jacksonville, George Moraitis, R-Fort Lauderdale, Sean Shaw, D-Tampa, Cynthia Stafford, D-Miami, Barbara Watson, D-Miami Gardens.

See Full Article

House Panel OKs Term Limits for Judges

February 9, 2017/in Orlando Sentinel

House panel OKs term limits for judges

February 9, 2017 – By Jim Saunders

TALLAHASSEE — Despite opposition from an array of legal groups, a House panel Thursday backed a proposed constitutional amendment that would place term limits on Florida Supreme Court justices and state appeal-court judges.

House Speaker Richard Corcoran, R-Land O’ Lakes, is pushing the proposal, which would go on the 2018 ballot if it gets through the Legislature. The proposal would revamp a decades-old system in which Supreme Court justices and appeals-court judges do not face term limits. They are required to go before voters every six years for merit-retention elections and face a mandatory retirement age of 70.

Rep. Jennifer Sullivan, R-Mount Dora, who is sponsoring the measure (HJR 1), said the current system does not hold jurists accountable. She said no justice or or appeals-court judge has ever lost a merit-retention vote.

“This bill is about good government and accountability,” Sullivan said before the House Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee approved the proposal.

But the measure faces opposition from legal groups ranging from The Florida Bar to the Florida Justice Reform Institute, a business-aligned organization that has frequently disagreed with the state Supreme Court about civil legal issues.

Opponents said, in part, that term limits would dissuade young attorneys from leaving private law practices for judgeships because those attorneys would eventually have to go back and try to rebuild practices.

“Bottom line, term limits are not going to ensure the best judges are on the bench,” said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. “Instead, they will only ensure that the best and brightest Florida lawyers rarely, if ever, apply.”

The proposal would prevent Supreme Court justices and appeals-court judges from seeking additional terms in merit-retention elections if they have already served 12 consecutive years in their positions. The House passed a similar proposal last year, but senators did not approve it.

Corcoran and other Republican leaders have been highly critical of the Supreme Court in recent years because of rulings that overturned legislative decisions.

But Rep. Sean Shaw, D-Tampa, who voted against the proposed constitutional amendment Thursday, said lawmakers disagreeing with court rulings is evidence that the constitutional separation of powers is working. Shaw also pointed to the experience of his father, the late Supreme Court Justice Leander Shaw, who had repeated merit-retention votes and “had to campaign vigorously.”

“I’m still not certain that there is a problem that we are addressing,” Shaw said.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/political-pulse/os-judges-term-limits-20170209-story.html

Listen to opponents of term limits for judges: Where We Stand

Drive for assignment of benefits reform picks up steam

Will Florida become the first state to impose term limits on justices?

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links