Summati
The
Escambia/Santa Rosa Bar Association
n
September 2013
Volume 2 / Issue 3
The Federal
Re-Entry Program
page 11
W i l l i a m M e a d o r R e m e m b e re d 路 H i st o r y o f Pa r a l e g a l P ro f e ss i o n 路 M o b i l e D ev i c e D i st r a c t i o n s 路 E m p l o y m e n t L a w 路 N ew M e m b e r s /A n n o u n c e m e n ts
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 1
Inside
Escambia-Santa Rosa Bar Association 216 South Tarragona Street, Suite B Pensacola, FL 32501 Phone: 850.434.8135 Fax: 850.436.8822 email: esrba@esrba.com Lawyer Referral Service: 850.434.6009 Executive Director Michael Doubek mike@esrba.com Editor Patricia Buchanan Wright patriciabwright@aol.com Published quarterly by the Escambia-Santa Rosa Bar Association as a service to its membership. Any article herein may be reproduced provided credit is given both to The Summation and the author of the article. Articles appearing in The Summation are not to be construed as official expressions of the views of the Escambia-Santa Rosa Bar Association. Official positions are expressed only by formal resolutions adopted by a majority of the membership and will be so designated when published. Editorials are expressions of the opinion of the Editor. Due date for all advertisements, articles, and announcements is the 1st of the month for the issue you wish to advertise in. Address all editorial correspondence to the Escambia-Santa Rosa Bar Association office. For all inquiries concerning advertising rates contact Ballinger Publishing. “The Summation Committee is dedicated to providing a publication to the legal community which contains articles that are accurate, informative, entertaining, educational, relevant and timely.” Summation Committee If you have any comments or suggestions about The Summation, please feel free to express them to any of the committee members. If you would like to join the committee, please call the Bar office at 434.8135.
Judge Terry Terrell Judge Charles Kahn Brooke Jones Gerald McGill Caroline Peterson Lisa York
Dana Martinez-Jones Jeremy Branning Clara Smith Illauna Bazwell Tami Stokes Debra Bass
The
Summation
8. Ask a Lawyer 11. Federal Re-Entry Program 14. Judge’s Preferences 16. Wall of Honor 18. History of Paralegal Profession 20. Pictures 22. News from the Court
In every issue 3. From the President 4. Chief’s Corner 5. New Members / Announcements 6. Board of Governors 7. Bottom Line 23. Classifieds / Calendar
Publisher • Malcolm Ballinger Executive Editor • Kelly Oden Art Director • Rita Laymon Graphic Design & Ad Coordination • Kassie McLean Editor • Emily Lullo Business Editor • Josh Newby Sales & Marketing Sharyon Miller, Account Executive ext. 28 Rheana Rice, Account Executive ext. 31 Visit our Website at www.ballingerpublishing.com Editorial Offices: 41 North Jefferson Street, Suite 402, Pensacola, Florida 32502 850/433-1166 • Fax 850/435-9174 Member of
Reproduction or use of the contents herein is prohibited without written permission from the publisher. Comments and opinions expressed in this magazine represent the personal views of the individuals to whom they are attributed and/or the person identified as the author of the article, and they are not necessarily those of the publisher. This magazine accepts no responsibility for these opinions. The publisher reserves the right to edit all manuscripts. All advertising information is the responsibility of the individual advertiser. Appearance in this magazine does not necessarily reflect endorsement of any products or services by Ballinger Publishing. © 2013 Ballinger Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
2 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
From the President Jeremy Branning, the immediate past president, did an outstanding job serving as our leader during the 2012-2013 year. In many ways, I am humbled to follow Jeremy as he has showed such extraordinary leadership with great finesse. Indeed, I have studied how he has handled executive meetings, led our monthly bar meetings, and acted with a strong voice both as an advocate for our bar and to help our community. He is a tough act to follow. Thank you, Jeremy, for your extraordinary service. The ESRBA is fortunate to enjoy a commitment by members of the local bar who actively participate in the ESRBA and serve the public. Indeed, the ESRBA membership has a strong history of public services, from tirelessly accepting pro bono work and hosting clinics for veterans and the poor, to sponsoring and participating in community service organizations, events, and projects. As I briefly noted at the installation banquet, helping others can be an incredible source of happiness and fulfillment. So, I encourage you to make time to selflessly help others—become a guardian ad litem by calling Joan Irby at 565.0600 or volunteer with Legal Services of North Florida by emailing Leslie Powell, leslie@lsnf.org. Another opportunity to help may be found in the ESRBA’s recently initiated N.D. Fla. Volunteer Lawyers Project. As part of this project, the ESRBA will periodically send out Pro Bono Opportunity emails
By Benjamin J. Stevenson
describing various civil rights cases pending in federal court. The litigants are often prisoners and their claims have satisfied some level of judicial scrutiny. Now they need an attorney to assist them. If you can help one of these pro se litigants, please respond to the email or give us a call. Our 2013-2014 Executive Council consists of a diverse group of lawyers, spanning virtually all ages, practice areas, and life experiences. I am so honored to be serving with them to make our association stronger, more dynamic, and responsive to our community. However, much of the hard work is successfully completed by the ESRBA Executive Director, Mike Doubek. Mike has been with the ESRBA since 2003 and has done a tremendous job in moving the ESRBA forward and promoting its mission of service with the help of the office staff, including Pat Atkinson and Jason Boatwright who has recently joined the organization as the member services specialist. Thank you all for your past work and continued service. I am humbled to be serving you for the next year, and I encourage you to participate in all the ESRBA has to offer. Sincerely, Benjamin James Stevenson
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 3
Chief’s Corner
The past issue of The Summation featured the 20th anniversary of Drug Court in the First Judicial Circuit. We were unable to include pictures of the Drug Court Graduation Ceremony conducted in conjunction with the recognition of the anniversary of the drug court program due to the publication schedule. As a consequence, some of the photos from that joint event will be displayed in the December edition. While the 20th anniversary of Drug Court was significant in its own right, it was truly significant in a much broader context. Our first drug court, developed under the initiative of Senior Judge John T. Parnham, is not a “court” as most of us understand the term. At its core, it is really a case management strategy which involves more frequent monitoring of case developments by the presiding judge in concert with the parties, involved agencies, and service providers.
4 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
By Terry D. Terrell Chief Judge First Circuit Court
In drug court the involved agencies are the Office of State Attorney, the Office of Public Defender and other defense counsel, the Office of the Clerk of Court, the Escambia County Sheriff Department, the Department of Corrections through the assigned community control and probation officers, the Office of Trial Court Administrator through case managers and administrators, and a Lakeview Center sponsored treatment provider called Pathway. The case management strategy was identified as a mechanism to facilitate more effective outcomes for identified problems. Therefore, the core concept facilitates more effective problem solving. Another descriptive phrase for the strategy might be that it amounts to a “problem solving court” concept. Over the past 20 years, the case management strategy has been expanded to other identified problem areas. It was adopted to assist with dependency cases where caregiver substance abuse and domestic violence resulted in neglect or abuse of children, and it helps facilitate reunification efforts and family stability. It was adopted to deal with domestic violence cases and monitors follow-up with counseling requirements and other court restrictions and obligations. It has been applied to mental health and traumatic brain injured veterans’ cases to more effectively link them with relevant services and treatment. Certainly not every participant in these programs successfully completes their requirements; however, a significant portion do. Statistically, successful participants return to the court system much less frequently than people with similar issues who don’t participate in the more intensively managed cases. Your court system is identifying and developing more responsive and effective ways for our communities to be safer.
New Members Douglas A. Bates Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse 125 W. Romana Street, Suite 800 Pensacola, Florida 32502 (850) 434-9200 dbates@cphlaw.com Robert E. Larkin, III Allen, Norton & Blue, PA 906 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (850) 561-3503 rlarkin@anblaw.com Barbara O. Bruckmann Baker Botts, LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 (850) 733-9240 bruckmannb@att.net Clayton M. Connors Westberry & Conners, LLC 3000 Langley Avenue, Suite 300 Pensacola, Florida 32504 (850) 473-0401 cconnors@westberrylaw.net William Fisher, IV Law Office of William Fisher IV 1010 N. 12th Avenue, Suite 301 Pensacola, Florida 32501 (850) 433-1717 wfisherivlaw@yahoo.com
Richard M. Hinds The Law Office of Richard Hinds 605 Markham Drive Mobile, Alabama 36609 (251) 441-1919 richardm@hindslawoffice.com John E. Rogers Hall, Prangle and Schoonveld, LLC 17 S. Palafox Street, Suite 382 Pensacola, Florida 32502 (850) 462-9513 jrogers@hpslaw.com Joseph W. Hammons The Hammons Law Firm 17 W. Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 (850) 434-1068 hammonslawfirm@gmail.com Travis P. Lepicier Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor 316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32502 (850) 435-7006 tlepicier@levinlaw.com Jonathan D. Simpson Simpson Law Firm 1048 Mar Walt Drive Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32547 (850) 862-1134 jondavidsimpsonlaw@gmail. com
Announcements Guardian Ad Litem My name is Joan Irby and I am a recruiter for the 1st Circuit Guardian ad Litem Program. In our two county area, there are over 800 children involved in the Dependency Court System. Every one of the children deserves a voice in court; however, only about 60 percent have one at this time. Our teenagers in particular need someone who will be an advocate and a role model, and help them be prepared to face the world as an adult. I can think of no better way to meet your pro bono requirement than by standing up for and beside an abused child in court. The time commitment is minimal, usually only a couple of hours a month. Accepting just one case would satisfy a member’s professional responsibility to provide pro bono legal services. We provide online training (which is approved for CLE credit) to get you started. Ongoing support from our staff attorneys is also available. Please call me or email me today and I will be happy to get you started. Just remember, when you touch a child’s life, you ensure they will have a brighter future. I look forward to working with you. Respectfully yours, Joan Irby “Kicking Off Christmas” Charity Auction Pensacola Legal Support Association is “Kicking Off Christmas” with a charity Christmas auction luncheon Tuesday, Nov. 12, noon, at the Pensacola Bay Center. Cost for the luncheon is $15. For reservations, please contact Regina Silva at rsilva@LTFLaw.com or call 850-469-0202. New Board Certifications Please join us in congratulating the following Escambia/ Santa Rosa Bar Association members who have recently earned their Florida Bar board certification. Brian W. Hoffman – Real Estate Law Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux Richard N. Sherrill – Wills, Trusts and Estates Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse Jason A. Waddell – Elder Law Waddell & Waddell
Escambia/Santa Rosa Bar Association’s evening at the Blue Wahoos September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 5
Board of Governors
By Stephen Echsner
Report from
The Florida Bar Board of Governors The Florida Bar Board of Governors met on July 26, 2013. Major actions of the board and reports received include: In response to a notice of intent to file a petition to amend Rule 1-3.1 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar to specify that no one who has complied with requirements for Bar admission be disqualified from membership solely because he or she is not a U.S. citizen, the board voted to respond to the petition after its filing by indicating that the board supports the concept contained in the petition, but that the board believes that the amendment is more appropriately placed in the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar, and that the board recommends to the Supreme Court of Florida that it seek input from the Board of Bar Examiners on the issue. The notice of intent to file the petition was submitted as per Rule 1-12.1(f) and (g). The Florida Bar has not taken a position on the case of Jose GodinezSamperio, an undocumented immigrant seeking to become a member of the Bar. An ethics advisory opinion on cloud computing was approved. The opinion concludes that lawyers may use cloud computing if they take reasonable precautions to ensure that confidentiality of client information is maintained as well as other steps to ensure adequate security and access to the information and to back up the data. On the recommendation of the board’s Program Evaluation Committee (PEC), a new Senior Lawyers Committee was approved. The committee’s mission will be to serve the interests and needs of the profession by fostering an interchange of ideas, sharing the accumulated knowledge and experience of its members and addressing issues that are of particular significance to senior lawyers. For information about joining the committee, please watch for a website announcement and an article in an upcoming issue of The Florida Bar News. In the current bar year, 2013-2014, the Program Evaluation Committee will consider: whether the PEC chair should be an automatic member of the Executive Committee; changing the name of the Legislation Committee to the Governmental Affairs Committee; variations in certification criteria for different areas of law and evaluating a new anti-trust and trade regulation certification; evaluating the Bar’s Law Office Management Assistance Service (LOMAS); conducting the mandatory three-year review of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section; and whether there should be an additional charge beyond the initial $150 fee when an ad submitted for Bar review is subsequently revised and must be rereviewed. Based on a recommendation of the Citizens
6 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
Forum and the Communications Committee, the board approved that upon receipt of an order of suspension or disbarment by the Florida Supreme Court that The Florida Bar change the status posted on the member’s website profile to: Member in Good Standing/Suspension or Disbarment Pending and that a link be placed to the court order. This change would provide consumers with a notice during the 30-day period between the court order and the effective date of the suspension or disbarment. To learn more about members’ needs for technology education and information, the board approved including questions on the upcoming Bar membership survey on use of technology and also approved conducting a separate electronic member survey on technology use in law practices. In addition, the board approved posting a weekly technology tip on the website homepage, a pilot project by the Leadership Academy to use Facebook and LinkedIn and a Facebook page and Twitter feed for The Florida Bar President. Appointments to two-year terms to the ABA House of Delegates were confirmed for Herman Russomanno and Edith Osman, both of Miami. A list of special appointments to be made in 2013-14 and the application are on the website.
The Bottom Line
By Taxie Lambert
Mobile Devices: Could They Be Sending You Into Therapy? Take a look around and you will likely agree that mobile devices are replacing the traditional desktop in both the workplace and at home. From their convenient touch screens to an array of applications, mobile devices have created an arena for continued advancement in mobile communication. Users have the world at their fingertips. From text messaging to video capturing, these devices give a back seat ticket to the way we once communicated with one another. While these devices are considered to be the next best thing since the personal computer, they are also having a profound effect on our society. Although these devices have advanced us closer to living like the Jetsons, with their innovative mobile communication capabilities, we have yet to consider some of the issues that lie ahead if we allow these devices to interfere in the workplace, along with interpersonal relationships and our personal creativity. Whether your mobile device is connected by ear, hip, or hand, mobile communication is becoming more widely accepted during work hours. Due to an array of applications at the touch of a screen, mobile devices are causing a hypnotic spell among users, consequently causing unnecessary and frequent distraction in the work place. With instant text messaging and access to social networking sites, employees are spending less time working and more time socializing. Most companies have implemented policies to deal with mobile device usage; however, the lack of enforcing those policies has left users pushing the limits with mobile communication abuse in the workplace. The age of mobility has delivered remarkable new ways to communicate electronically with one another. At the same time, these new communication methods are damaging relationships between friends, couples, and colleagues by taking precedence over engaging in face to face conversation. These newly preferred methods of communication are also having negative effects on our ability to focus and even more so with our ability to listen intently. Additionally, the trend to be among the social networking sites has shaped our society to network electronically, instead of joining local organizations or attending company-sponsored programs, thus passing up the opportunity to build interpersonal relationship skills. Mobile devices induce constant distractions with buzzing and dinging notifications when some form of electronic
communication is received. With an unlimited amount of applications to surf, the time once spent on creative thinking has been replaced with expressing ourselves through downloaded mobile applications with predefined scopes. The ability to think creatively is hindered as time and energy is poured into exploring the limits of electronic mobile applications. As these devices continue to impact our society with a parasitic effect, we should not allow them to cause us to miss opportunities that could be staring us in the face. Let’s embrace mobile devices and electronic communication and use them as tools instead of allowing them to reign over every aspect of our lives. Mobile communication is a constantly evolving topic; therefore, the use of these devices shouldn’t be sending us into therapy. And that’s the bottom line.
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 7
Ask a Lawyer
By John Westberry
Employment Law What does it mean to be an “at will” employee? Florida, and most other states, is considered to be an “at will” state. In layman’s terms, employers and employees can terminate their employment relationship at any time for no reason, a good reason, or a bad reason, as long as the reason does not violate state or federal law. The reasons for which an employer cannot terminate an employment relationship are because of age, race, sex, gender, pregnancy, national origin, retaliation for filing of a worker’s compensation claim, Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) rights, blowing the whistle on the employer for violating a rule, law or regulation, (“USERRA”) or retaliating against an employee for reporting discrimination in the workplace. What are three essential questions to ask a potential client that believes they were terminated for an unlawful reason? First, determine how many employees the company employs. Depending on the cause of action, if the employer does not meet the minimum threshold requirements then there may not be a cause of action to pursue. Second, determine if the employee
8 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
worked for a private company, federal or state agency, local municipality or federal contractor. Making this distinction is critical because, depending on the cause of action and type of employee, certain agency specific procedures must be followed. By way of example, the Florida Whistleblower Act’s reporting and administrative exhaustion requirements differ if you are a state employee verses a municipal employee. Third, determine when the termination or other adverse job action occurred. Employment related claims have specific administrative exhaustion requirements and filing deadlines. For example, depending on the cause of action a charge or complaint will need to be filed with one or more of the following agencies: The Florida Commission on Human Relations (360 days), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (300 days), the Merit Systems Protection Board, (30 days) and the Public Employee’s Relations Commission (30 days). What two essential procedural prerequisites for filing with the FRCH or EEOC? The first prerequisite is: does an employer have the requisite number of employees to evoke the protections of the Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”), Title VII, ADA or the ADEA. Title VII, the FCRA and ADA cover employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce that have 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year. The ADEA has identical requirements except that it ups the minimum of employees to 20. The second prerequisite is the time limit for filing a charge of discrimination. Because Florida has a fair employment practices agency, the FCHR, a claimant has 300 days from the alleged unlawful employment practice to file a charge with the EEOC. In contrast, a claimant filing a charge of discrimination under the FCRA is permitted 360 days from the alleged unlawful employment practice to do so. For more information, please contact Clayton M. Connors at Westberry & Connors, LLC, at 850-473-0401, or at cconnors@westberrylaw.net. This information is not intended to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. No person should act or rely upon any information in this article without seeking the advice of a qualified attorney.
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 9
10 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
The Federal Re-Entry Program When the Summation committee decided to dedicate a series of articles on the Federal Reentry Court, I personally had little insight into the depth of research and empirical study in developing the program. Judge Casey Rodgers has been generous with her time in sharing her vision and the myriad aspects of the Federal Reentry Court and its concomitant components that make up the constellation of federal, community and individual commitments which impact on the continued success of Federal Reentry. There is no better way to explore the various aspects of this evidence based federal program than through Judge Rodgers’ own words. The following is extracted from the Foreward which Judge Rodgers wrote for a book by Professors Crow and Smykla of the University of West Florida.
Sentencing people to prison is by far the most difficult part of a judge’s job. The last thing a judge wants to do is sentence someone to prison for a second or possibly third time. A few years ago, after serving as a federal judge for many years and sentencing countless numbers of men and women to lengthy federal prison terms, I found myself thinking more and more about the goals of federal sentencing policy and questioning whether the current federal criminal justice system is successfully advancing those goals. I concluded that if the primary goal was simply to punish defendants, by removing them from society for long periods of time, then the system was working well and as intended. However, to the extent federal sentencing policy includes a broader societal goal—which not only reflects the need for punishment, retribution, and deterrence, but also recognizes the need to protect the public long term from further crimes by a defendant—then the answer was painfully obvious: the system, at least as it played out before me, was failing. The United States has by far the largest prison population in the world. In 2011, approximately 1.6 million people in this country were behind bars, and almost 7 million, or one out of every 34, were under the control of the United States Corrections System, including those on probation and parole. Ninety-five percent of those serving a prison sentence will return to society and rejoin a community. The recidivism statistics reveal a disturbing truth. Currently, of the approximately 700,000 offenders released each year from state and federal correctional facilities, two-thirds will commit a new law violation within three years. Slightly less than half, or approximately four in ten, will return to prison.
Notwithstanding Congress’s efforts to reform sentencing policy with the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, the cycle of recidivism has continued to churn, causing continued suffering in our communities and an escalating burden on taxpayers. Each year, our country spends billions of dollars to secure, house, feed, clothe, and provide medical and psychological care and treatment for inmates. In the federal system, it costs the taxpayers an average of $29,000 to house one prisoner for one year. In 2012, the federal Bureau of Prisons spent $6.6 billion to house 218,687 inmates, which represents an increase of 787 percent in the prison population since 1980 and a corresponding budget increase of 1,900 percent. In 2011, the Bureau of Prisons had a net inmate gain of 6,500, enough inmates to fill four empty federal prisons to capacity. The federal system cannot continue to sustain this level of growth. The Bureau of Prison’s budget is consuming the Department of Justice. Money previously spent on prevention and law enforcement is now redirected to corrections and the federal courts. In 2012, the federal courts spent $106 million on treatment services for offenders on supervision. Despite these efforts, the return to prison rate for federal offenders is still too high, at 29 percent, and the collateral costs associated with recidivism, are tremendous and far-reaching. Since 1987, when Congress abolished the United States Parole System, the supervision of federal offenders upon their release from prison has been administered by the federal courts under the jurisdiction of the offender’s original sentencing judgment. As a result, the United States Probation System, an arm of the federal courts, has had direct responsibility for supervising offenders during the term of their supervised release. For the most part, the federal probation office’s approach to supervision over the past 30 years has been one of monitoring compliance with the terms and conditions of an offender’s supervision to ensure that the court’s sentencing judgment is fully carried out and reporting violations to the court. When violations occur, the judge often revokes supervision, even for technical violations, and imposes a term of imprisonment, with no supervision to follow. This approach works well if the goal is simply to punish the offender for his or her violation of the court’s trust and protect the community by removing the offender from society for a brief period. If the goal is to protect the community long term from further crimes September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 11
of the offender, however, then the approach will – and has failed. If the past 30 years has taught us anything, it has shown that supervising offenders by monitoring and punishing their behavior does not reduce the likelihood of them committing additional crimes when they return to their communities. Indeed, the social science research shows that to achieve long term protection of the public through recidivism reduction, we must do more than monitor and punish offender behavior; we must affect a change in offender behavior. In my view, this change must be affected through a blended approach – one that recognizes the need for personal accountability and personal change by all agency stakeholders, each of whom must recognize that law enforcement, punishment, security, and positive offender reform can coexist in furtherance of an evidence-based approach designed to achieve long-term changes in offender behavior. Clearly, this type of approach will require a fundamental change in the American criminal justice system, but it is not beyond our reach and is essential to providing offenders in this country with a path to productive, law-abiding lives. Progress is being made. Several states have committed to major sentencing reform, including improvements in community supervision practices. The federal system also has recognized the need for change, beginning with Congress’ passage of the Second Chance Act in 2008. The United States Attorney General has recognized the importance of reentry efforts, recently commenting that “[r]eentry has moved from the margins to the mainstream” in our criminal justice system. As of today, more than 40 federal districts have some form of a specialized reentry program, many of which involve judge-led reentry courts. Additionally, the Administrative Office of the Courts’ Office of Probation and Pretrial Services has worked extensively to redesign the federal probation system into an outcome-driven organization with a strong emphasis on evidence-based practices, with long term recidivism reduction as the ultimate goal. In my view, some of the most promising gains recently have been made by the Bureau of Prisons. Through new and impressive leadership, the Bureau of Prisons has shown an increasing commitment to reentry and to working with the courts to reduce recidivism by placing greater emphasis on issues related to offender reentry. This type of deliberate, collaborative effort and dedication of resources will surely lead to even greater opportunities for partnering among agencies in the future. Although a great deal more remains to be done to turn the tide of recidivism, it is promising that policy makers at both 12 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
the state and federal levels are recognizing that reentry efforts make sense and that without education, job skills, and other basic services, together with effective behavioral reinforcement, offenders are very likely to repeat the same conduct that sent them to prison in the first place. Research clearly demonstrates that offenders who obtain steady jobs, learn critical thinking skills, and develop strong social bonds have much lower recidivism rates; that they can lead productive, crime-free lives and by providing them with some of the resources necessary to achieve success in that regard. In 2009, concerned over the statistics related to recidivism and rising prison costs, and feeling as though I was doing little, if anything, to help change the tide of recidivism, I decided to try an alternative approach to supervision. After considerable research and planning by our probation office, my Court started a Reentry Court program. The voluntary, 18-month program is designed to provide moderate to high risk participants with a more intensive period of non-traditional supervision upon release from prison, with the promise of potentially receiving up to a one-year reduction in the participant’s period of supervised release upon successful completion of the program. The participants accept increased responsibilities and are closely monitored for accountability, but also receive the benefit of positive, regular interaction with a reentry court committee as well as pro-social support from an individual mentor, who is a local attorney. The committee consists of committed criminal justice stakeholders, including a judge, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation officers, warden and other prison staff, and mental health, substance abuse, and vocational rehabilitation counselors who assist the participants in reaching their goals by introducing needed resources in the areas of housing, employment, education, and mental and medical health. The program also seeks to identify needed life skills and build strong character traits, with the goal of helping participants recognize the need to make better decisions that will result in positive, life-long behavioral changes. Each participant also is encouraged to contribute to the community by actively developing and maintaining a productive, law abiding lifestyle, including making better choices regarding associates, avoiding negative environments, and providing for his or her family. The vehicle through which our participants reconnect with the community in a positive, pro-social way is the Re-entry Alliance Pensacola (REAP What you Sow) Community Garden. The community garden is a collaborative effort among various stakeholders in the community, including the Court, the Mayor of Pensacola, the Bureau of Prisons, the Pensacola Chapter of the American Inns of Court, Richards Memorial United Methodist Church and Pensacola United Methodist Community Ministries, master gardeners from the Escambia County Extension agricultural program, research professors from the University of West Florida (Drs. Crow and Smykla), and an impressive number of caring, community-minded citizens who donate their time and labor to the project, all of whom are committed to evidence-based efforts to reduce recidivism rates in our community. Ultimately, success for each individual depends on that
participant’s ability to change his or her own behavior. To facilitate this transformation, our program also includes cognitive behavioral classes, taught by probation officers who have been trained in Thinking For a Change, which is an integrated, cognitive behavioral change program developed through the National Institute of Corrections for offenders that includes cognitive restructuring, social skills development, and development of problemsolving skills. In addition, our reentry court participants are supervised by probation officers who have been trained in a motivational interview technique known as Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest (“STARR”), a structured cognitive behavioral supervision approach that seeks to address a participant’s dynamic risk factors through an officer’s use of behaviorally-based skills aimed at improving one-on-one officer/participant interactions. Published research on STARR demonstrates that training in STARR is associated
with up to 50 percent reductions in the 12-month recidivism rates for moderate risk offenders. STARR shows great promise for community supervision; in fact, every one of the probation officers in my District is STARR trained. STARR is considered a critical component of our reentry program, as the officers’ use of these behaviorally-based skills is engaging participants in ways that effectively motivate them to change their behavior. Through our experience with Reentry Court over the past four years, we have learned many lessons, and our program continues to evolve and improve. The most important of those lessons regards the need to remain focused on our ultimate goal of reducing recidivism by remaining true to the results of social science research. To this end, we have made a concerted effort to remain faithful to the social science principles of risk, need, and responsivity, which means we: (1) target higher risk offenders for supervision; (2) use a risk prediction instrument that identifies the specific characteristics or risk factors that place our participants at an increased risk of committing crimes, and warranting more intense supervision; and (3) attempt to tailor our approach to address each participant’s risk factors by using specific supervision techniques and interventions that have proven effective at addressing those factors. We also have committed to a long-term research study of our program by Professors Crow and Smykla, using an experimental design and random assignment of participants. The decision to undergo a long-term study was based on our firm belief that reentry programs of any nature should be evidence-based, supported by the latest corrections research, and evaluated based on outcomes. It is our hope this study will provide sound evidence of the effectiveness of reentry in general and, more specifically, reentry courts. Professors Crow and Smykla have partnered with our Court for more than two years now, providing invaluable insight from their observations of the program and helping to implement and evaluate our offender reentry initiatives. Their work has helped improve the quality and effectiveness of our Reentry Court through specifically designed phases and benchmarks and by frequently reminding us of the importance of fidelity to program design, assessment, and evaluation. Their ongoing involvement ensures that our Reentry Court program and services adhere to the principles of evidence-based intervention. And, in the end, through their research study of our program, they will provide the much needed data to tell us whether our efforts are paying off.
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 13
Judge’s Preferences
Honorable Robert Hilliard Santa Rosa County Judge Division: 1 Jurisdiction: County Court: Criminal Traffic, Misdemeanors, County Ordinance, Landlord/Tenant, County Civil and Small Claims. Criminal matters are divided by alphabet: Division 1 = K-Z. Civil matters are divided by case file number. Division 1 = odd numbers. Judicial Assistant: Janet J. Rothbart Phone: 850-981-5543 DIVISION PREFERENCES All paperwork in reference to a court case of any kind should be filed only with the Clerk of the Court. Do not send a copy directly to the judge’s office unless it is a courtesy copy of the notice of hearing. Once the Clerk receives the document, they will attach it to the file and send it to the judge’s office, if appropriate. The following times are given as a general guideline. On occasion it is necessary to schedule at a different time or day. First Appearances The county judges alternate weeks of coverage of first appearances (bond hearings). Weekday first appearances are scheduled daily at 1:30 pm. Weekend and holiday coverage is handled by the duty judge. When
Judge Hilliard is the duty judge he conducts his weekend and holiday first appearances at 9 am. Any changes in time will be notice via email. Private attorneys will be notified of any changes provided the judicial assistant is aware of their participation. If the pretrial release officer notifies the judicial assistant that the defendant anticipates his attorney to be present at first appearance, the judicial assistant will confirm with a courtesy call to the attorney’s office. Arraignments Arraignments (Plea Day) in Division 1 are scheduled at 8:30 am for criminal traffic cases and at 1:30 pm for misdemeanor cases. These are usually scheduled on a Thursday. Appearance is required unless Notice of Appearance, Plea of Not Guilty and Waiver of Appearance have been filed with the Clerk of the Court. Criminal Motions Criminal motions are scheduled once within a trial cycle. Post-trial criminal motions are scheduled at 9 am and pre-trial criminal motions are scheduled at 10:30 am. All motions must be filed with the Clerk of the Court and a copy sent to the Office of the State Attorney. Motion hearings should be scheduled with the judicial assistant to ensure adequate time is available. Pretrial Conferences Pretrial conferences are scheduled on separate dates for the public defender and for private attorneys, beginning at 9 am. Defendants and their attorney must appear unless otherwise excused by the Court. Mini Docket Day Depending on time availability, one “mini docket day” is scheduled prior to each trial cycle. These are usually scheduled on the Thursday or Friday before jury selection day. Jury Selection Day On the day of jury selection, pretrial discussions begin at 8 am in chambers, followed by the selection process in the assigned courtroom. Violations of Probation Violations of probation are scheduled approximately twice monthly and begin at 8:30 am. These are usually scheduled on a Wednesday. Judge Trials Judge trials are scheduled once per month and begin at 9 am. County Ordinance Violations County ordinance violations are scheduled once per month. Mandatory Traffic Infractions Mandatory traffic infractions are scheduled every other month and begin at 9 am. Defendants Represented by Counsel It is inappropriate for a judge to receive personal communications regarding cases. When represented by counsel, you may instruct your counsel to file any appropriate motion on your behalf.
14 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
Pro Se Litigants It is inappropriate for a judge to receive personal communications regarding cases. If you have any questions concerning proper legal procedures you may contact an attorney.
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 15
Wall of Honor
By Douglas S. Woodward
William Shane Meador (1974 – 2005) William Shane Meador: Christian, husband, son, brother, uncle, grandson, cousin, nephew, friend, counselor, attorney, advocate, co-worker, Auburn fan, golf partner. Bill had many titles and wore many hats but no matter how you knew him or what you called him he was always the same smiling, honest, trustworthy, loyal, hardworking person. Bill approached everything he did with determination which usually equated to success. This drive and unwillingness to lose started early in his childhood. He was born on April 24, 1974. He fell in love with sports and competition right away. As a child he excelled at many sports including baseball and golf and became an avid fan of Auburn sports. Bill graduated from Grissom High School in 1993 where he was an excellent student and a great athlete. He lettered in baseball and went to Troy University with the aspirations of playing college baseball. While at Troy Bill realized that his studies were going to suffer as a result of athletics so Bill left Troy to attend Auburn University. Those that knew Bill knew of his unwavering support for Auburn University. After graduating from Auburn in 1997 Bill attended Cumberland School of Law. At Cumberland he was an excellent student and developed a passion for the law. It was at Cumberland that Bill met Ann. In between classes and studying for exams the two fell in love. He graduated from Cumberland in 2000 and could have accepted a job from any law firm in the southeast but chose to move to Pensacola with his then fiancée Ann. He accepted a job with Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon. Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon has always had an eye for talent and was dead on with their hiring of Bill. On May 12, 2001 Bill and Ann were married at the First United Methodist Church, Pensacola. Bill was a loving and devoted husband. He and Ann had one of the best and healthiest relationships I’ve ever witnessed. They rode to work together; they went to the grocery store together; they went to lunch together; they went to legal conferences together. They were always together. 16 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
No words can describe the amount of love Bill and Ann shared with each other; but, for those that witnessed them together no words are needed. The memories and love that Bill and Ann shared in the last seven years were more than most of us will experience in a lifetime. Their daughter, Abigail Elizabeth Meador, arrived on March 30, 2005. Bill has left a legacy that Abigail Elizabeth Meador will be so proud of. She will never meet her father in this life, but she will meet hundreds of people that were touched and affected by her father. Bill’s family was concerned about his ability to be an effective attorney because of his demeanor. It was this kind, gentle, big-hearted demeanor that made Bill an excellent attorney. Though he only practiced law for five years we all could learn something by the way he approached his job and treated his profession. He would show the same professional courtesy to an overzealous out of town attorney as he would show his best friend. He fought hard for his clients because he believed in their cause but never belittled or demeaned the opposing side. He believed in justice and truly used litigation as a last resort. For Bill it was not about the fees but about the fairness. It was not about the luxuries of life; it was about the law. He stood firm on what he believed whether it was popular or not and he never prejudged or post-judged others for their beliefs. With Bill there were no fronts, no masks and no hidden agendas. What you saw of Bill in the court room was what you saw in the living room. The way he acted on the golf course was the same way he acted in church. The way he treated a seasoned attorney was the same way he treated law clerks. Bill was Bill 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. He always remained calm and had an awesome ability to always know what to say. He knew when to give you an ear and when to give you an earful. Even when an earful was needed he did it with the utmost tact and as usual was always smiling. He was truly small in stature but huge in heart. He graciously gave his time and efforts to the community whether volunteering for Young Lawyer’s Holidays in January, serving on
the local young lawyers’ board, frequently giving blood, was president of the Auburn Club, volunteering for Habitat for Humanity or donating his plasma for burn victims. But his real passion was Junior Achievement. He served on the board of Junior Achievement and was a volunteer counselor at Wedgewood and Pensacola High School. He connected with his students and received their respect because he gave them respect. Bill also gave freely of his time to the local and state bars. He served on the Escambia/Santa Rosa County Young Lawyer’s Board for four years and was treasurer for one of those years; was active in the Florida Trial Lawyer’s Association; and was recently elected to the Board of Governor’s seat for the Young Lawyer’s Division representing the First Judicial Circuit. His love for the law, his clients and co-workers is unprecedented and made him one of the best, well-rounded attorneys many of us will ever know. As an attorney everyone wants to tell you lawyer jokes. If every lawyer was like Bill Meador there would be no lawyer jokes. I could write for days and fill up an entire year’s worth of Summations telling you many stories of how Bill was the perfect Christian, husband, son, brother, co-worker, attorney and friend, but don’t have to because everyone that met Bill knew Bill and to know Bill was to love Bill. His family, friends, his extended family at Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon and the legal community lost a star on January 24, 2005. His presence will be missed by all. Everyone will miss his never-ending boyish smile, quick wit, passion for helping others and large heart. There is a passage in Proverbs Chapter 3 Verses 3-4 that exemplified Bill’s Life. It reads: “Never let loyalty and kindness get away from you! Wear them like a necklace; write them deep within your heart. Then you will find favor with God and people, and you will gain a good reputation.” Bill lived every day of his life this way. He is, and will continue to be, greatly missed by all.
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 17
By Elizabeth Crane, ACP
A Brief History of the Paralegal Profession and Landmark Advancements The paralegal profession is still in its infancy when compared to the lengthy histories of the lawyer and legal secretary professions. Lawyers have been around since the time of the great orators in ancient Greece, and legal secretaries have been around since the beginning of the written word. It is important to look at the many advances our profession has made since its inception in the late 1960s, to be aware of the changes in our field, and to actively help shape its future development. The paralegal profession began in the 1960s when
Congress, law firms, local bar associations, and the American Bar Association (ABA) began efforts to increase access to legal services. The last decade has been an incredibly important one for the advancement of the paralegal field. Many state courts, circuit courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court have made important rulings that will have a lasting impact on the growth of the paralegal profession. The following is a concise timeline of the paralegal profession based on notable advancements, cases, and legislation:
1974
National Federation of Paralegal Associations is founded (“NFPA”). This is the first national paralegal association in the United States.
1975
National Association of Legal Assistants (“NALA”) is founded and establishes the Certified Legal Assistant (“CLA”) credential.
1976
The Paralegal Association of Florida, Inc. (“PAF”) is incorporated.
1979
Kentucky is the first state to address paralegal utilization, establishing Rule 3.700, which defines the term “paralegal,” prohibits UPL, and includes other rules such as allowing a paralegal’s name on attorney letterhead as long as the “paralegal’s status is clearly indicated.”
1980
PAF established the voluntary Certified Florida Legal Assistant program and began administering the CFLA exam in 1983.
1981
Northwest Florida Paralegal Association is founded (“NWFPA”) (at this time it was known as Pensacola Legal Assistants).
1984
NALA defines “legal assistants” as “a distinguishable group of persons who assist attorneys in the delivery of legal services. Through formal education, training, and experience, legal assistants have knowledge and expertise regarding the legal system and substantive and procedural law which qualify them to do work of a legal nature under the supervision of an attorney.”
1986
The ABA defines a “legal assistant” as “a person, qualified through education, training or work experience, who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, governmental agency, or other entity, in a capacity or function which involves the performance, under the ultimate direction and supervision of an attorney, of specifically-delegated substantive legal work, which work, for the most part, requires a sufficient knowledge of legal concepts that, absent such assistant, the attorney would perform the task.”
1987
Fla. Stat. § 57.104 is modified to specifically state that legal assistants work under the direct supervision of an attorney.
1989
Paralegal fees are recoverable under §1988 of the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee Awards Act of 1976, reasoning that by encouraging the use of lower cost paralegals rather than attorneys wherever possible, permitting market-rate billing of paralegal hours “encourages cost-effective delivery of legal services and, by reducing the spiraling cost of civil rights litigation, furthers the policies underlying civil rights statutes.” See Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989).
18 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
1993 1996
At this time, Florida is one of four states to have statutes or court rules which permit the recoverability of paralegal time in an attorney’s fee application for fees. See Fla. Stat. § 57.104. NFPA establishes the PACE Registered Paralegal competency exam (“RP” credential).
1997
The ABA amends its definition of “legal assistant” to state “[a] legal assistant or paralegal is a person qualified by education, training or work experience who is employed or retained by a lawyer, law office, corporation, governmental agency or other entity who performs specifically delegated substantive legal work for which a lawyer is responsible.”
1999
Maine adopts statute defining the terms “paralegal” and “legal assistant” based on the ABA definition, and provides a fine of up to $1,000 for violators.
2003
Arizona modifies the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration Section 7-208, to require anyone preparing legal paperwork without an attorney’s supervision must be certified as a legal document preparer. Legal document preparers can provide general legal information but cannot give legal advice. Paralegals can obtain a legal document preparer’s certification if they have earned a paralegal certificate from an ABA-approved program or meet other educational requirements.
2004
NALS establishes the Professional Paralegal credential (“PP”).
2006
Department of Labor specifically includes language stating that a “paralegal” will remain non-exempt (i.e., entitled to overtime pay) “unless they hold advanced specialized degrees in other professional fields and apply advanced knowledge in that field in the performance of their duties.” See 29 C.F.R. 541.301(e)(7).
2007
The Florida Bar introduces the Florida Registered Paralegal program (“FRP”) pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Case No. SC06-1622, In re: Amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar— Florida Registered Paralegal Program.
2008
U.S. Supreme Court rules that “a prevailing party that satisfies… requirements may recover its paralegal fees… at prevailing market rates.” See Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, Case No. 06-1717 (2008).
June 2010
The Florida First District Court of Appeal rules that “attorneys fees” include paralegal services and that the paralegal fees should be reimbursed at market rates, which includes contingency risk multipliers. See State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Edge Family Chiropractic, P.A., et al., 41 So. 3d 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
June 2012
The Supreme Court in Washington lays the framework for the licensing and regulation of non-attorneys so they can engage in activities that currently fall within the definition of the “practice of law.” While this ruling does not allow non-attorneys to engage in such activities yet, it lays the basis for certification requirements, education and experience requirements, as well as outlines the types of activities that a “licensed legal technician” would be allowed to engage in.
June 2012
The Supreme Court in Ohio withdraws its prior advisory opinion (89-16) to allow non-attorneys’ names to appear on letterhead, websites and business cards (if they are clearly identified as non-lawyers). See Opinion 2012-2, Identification of Nonlawyers on Law Firm Letterhead, Websites, and Business Cards.
As you can see, the paralegal profession has made incredible progress over the last 50 years. And, as the profession continues to grow and the responsibilities of paralegals continue to expand, it will be increasingly important for paralegals to help define their role—as a way to provide cost-effective legal services—by being aware of upcoming legislative changes, to actively participate in providing information to the courts, and to continue to push for greater utilization of paralegals by
attorneys, law firms, government entities, and commercial law departments. References: Vuong, Patrick. Paralegal Regulation in the United States: A look at paralegal certification activities and legislation across the nation. Paralegal Today, March/April 2006. http://paralegaltoday.com/issue_archive/features/ feature1_ma06.htm News & Articles. http://www.nala.org/allnews.aspx
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 19
Installation Banquet
Jodi Cooke presents the William Meador Award to Blythe Glemming
Judge Terry Terrell presents the Chief Judge’s Award to Mary Johnson
Judge Terry Terrell presents the gavel to incoming President Benjamin Stevenson 20 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
The Law Firm of Taylor, Warren & Weidner
The 2013 – 2014 Executive Council
Frederick Gant is recognized by Legal Services of North Florida for Pro Bono service
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 21
News from the Court
By Keri Igney, Court Administration
Veterans Stand Down Events The First Judicial Circuit is pleased to announce our continued participation in two Veterans Stand Down events. The Okaloosa event is scheduled for September 27, 2013. The Escambia event is scheduled for October 25, 2013. A “Stand Down” is a cooperative event organized by the Department of Veterans Affairs, local veteran organizations, and community vendors whose goal is to provide services and information to local homeless veterans. The Disabled American Veterans’ Departmental Services reaches out to the First Judicial Circuit each year for help in providing court services to veterans attending the event. We heed that call and coordinate the court’s involvement. We extend the call for service to State Attorney Bill Eddins, Public Defender Bruce Miller, Escambia Clerk of Court Pam Childers, Escambia County Sheriff David Morgan, and Senior Judge John Parnham. Every contact has revealed a willingness and excitement to participate in and be a part of this service each year in both Okaloosa and Escambia counties. Brigadier General (Retired) T. Patterson Maney serves the First Judicial Circuit as a County Judge in Okaloosa. Judge Maney established the community-based Okaloosa Homeless Veterans Stand Down in 2007. In recognition of Judge Maney’s persistent efforts to establish Veterans Courts in Florida, the
22 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013
2012 Legislature passed the T. Patt Maney Veterans’ Treatment Intervention Act. Judge Maney coordinates, participates in and overseas the provision of court services to the Okaloosa Veterans Stand Down event each year. This event is also supported by the State Attorney, Public Defender, as well as Chief Ted Litschauer and the Ft. Walton Beach Police Department, and Sheriff Larry Ashley and the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s office. The goal for the court is to make justice available to homeless veterans. The event helps them meet their obligations to the court while affording them dignity and respect in acknowledgment of their service and sacrifices for our country. I encourage each member of the Bar to volunteer for this event. The experience of assisting those who have willingly and selflessly served our county is very rewarding. •
To volunteer for pro bono legal service at the Escambia Stand Down event, please contact: Leslie Powell, Legal Services of North Florida, 850-432-8222.
•
To volunteer for pro bono legal service at the Okaloosa Stand Down event, please contact: Brian Norback, Legal Services of North Florida, 850-862-3279.
Calendar September 19 September Bar Meeting (Noon – 1:00 PM) Kenneth Bell (Recent Supreme Court Decisions) Portabello Market September 26 Collaborative Divorce Seminar (11:45 AM – 1:00 PM) Portabello Market September 27 Elder Law Seminar (9:00 AM – Noon) Covenant Hospice (2011 N. Palafox Street) October 4 Employment Law (9:00 AM -1:00 PM) Portabello Market
Classifieds Need associate for general practice law firm. Family law experience a plus. Compensation based on experience. Send resume to jchase@cqmjlaw.com. Seeking the attorney who helped with the will of Walter Hendricks Hodge at Azalea Trace. Contact hodge.scott@gmail.com with information. Cherry Desk. 36”x 72”. Raised with two drawers on each side. All wood, long grain. $350. 850-7339240.
October 15 October Bar Meeting (Noon – 1:00 PM) State Court and Clerk of Court Funding Portabello Market
November 19 November Bar Meeting (Noon – 1:00 PM) John Appleyard Portabello Market
November 7–11 First Judicial Circuit CLE Cruise Jacksonville to Freeport & Nassau, Bahamas
November 22 Federal Civil Rights Pro Bono Seminar (9:00 – 11:00 AM) U.S. District Courthouse, Courtroom 3 North
September 2013 www.esrba.com The Summation 23
24 The Summation www.esrba.com September 2013