How can this person practice law?

For the more masochistically inclined...

Here is the text of the most recent changes to Florida's UPL and Multijurisdictional Practice Rules:

www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/860E2E28E0BCD3D985257004004C0C7F/$FILE/MJP%20OP-SC04-135.pdf?OpenElement

I don't know; they seem to draw a distinction between operating an office and appearing before a particular tribunal and they are pretty picky about stating that you are NOT admitted to the Florida Bar, something Mr. Savino appears to have omitted from his web site.

 

Re: For the more masochistically inclined...

Your link, for some reason, broke. Here's the correct link:

http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/550de8a406d7160185256b51005010a6/860e2e28e0bcd3d985257004004c0c7f/$FILE/MJP%20OP-SC04-135.pdf

Yes, it's interesting to note the stricken (lined-through), and the inserted (underlined) parts beginning on page 14. Clearly they're relaxing their rules, for the reasons the Court stated on page 5 at:

• Multijurisdictional Practice of Law, Rule 4-5.5
  
  Currently, Rule 4-5.5, Unlicensed practice of lawRule 4-5.5, Unlicensed practice of law the rules and case law provide that a lawyer licensed to practice law in another state or country, but not in Florida, cannot, except in very limited circumstances, provide legal advice or services in Florida or involving Florida law. Such a structure does not recognize the reality of modern legal practices. Thus, the amendment to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-5.5 relaxes the restrictions and permits temporary practice in Florida by non-Florida lawyers. The amendment recognizes that there may be times when other law, such as a federal rule or regulation, allows a lawyer to have a regular presence in Florida.

But it's very clear, from the paragraph beginnin on the bottom of page 9, that the Supreme Court intends for no non-Florida lawyer to have a regular general practice there:

• Current Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.061 provides that a non-Florida lawyer is presumed to be engaged in a "general practice" if the lawyer makes more than three appearances within a 365-day period in separate "and unrelated" representations. That rule provides a court with discretion to allow more than three appearances upon a showing that the appearances are not a "general practice," or that denial would result in a substantial hardship on the client. Due to reports that non-Florida attorneys were abusing the current rule, the amendment deletes the language that authorized judicial discretion to permit more than three pro hac vice appearances in a 365-day period and to allow additional pro hac vice appearances in related litigation. More than three appearances within a 365-day period suggests that the non-Florida attorney is engaging in a regular practice in Florida. Non-Florida attorneys who tend to regularly practice in Florida may always seek to gain admission to The Florida Bar.

And the having-an-office-vs-appearing-before-a-tribunal thing is present in the very first line of RULE 1-3.10. APPEARANCE BY NON-FLORIDA LAWYER IN A FLORIDA COURT, in the caption at (a) Non-Florida Lawyer [stricken]With Professional Business in Florida[/stricken] [inserted]Appearing in a Florida Court[/inserted] on page 22. In fact, pages 22 through 28 seems to cover alot of what we've been talking about here; but pages 37 thru 43 contains alot of new language that directly applies.

The Florida Court is clearly trying to amend its rules to be more in line with the recommendations of the ABA's commission that studied the multijurisdictional practice of law starting in 2000; but one can almost sense in its words the loathing it has for what it clearly considers to be interlopers. Florida is just not a state where I'd fool around with this sort of thing... but, again, that's just me. Outsiders are not welcome. Mr. Savino has more courage than I would have; and/or he's so rigid and careful about how he conducts himself that if he did get asked the question you posed back in the third post in this thread (i.e., "Should I divorce my wife before I get deported?"), or any question similar, he has the self-control to bite his tongue and refer it out to a licensed Florida attorney... with many of whom I'm sure he has good relationships and, therefore, could easily do.

 

Oh, and unlike most states where UPL is a misdemeanor (if it's a crime at all), in FLORIDA it's a class three FELONY!

 

Yikes! That I didn't know. Man... that'd get 'ya disbarred in California in a big-assed hurry, wouldn't it!

Wow, just thinking about that... that's really serious. A class three felony. So, in addition to disbarment, we're also talkin' disenfranchisement: Can't vote. Can't own a gun. Can't visit Canada. Have to disclose it on job applications... for life. Always shows-up in background checks. No longer bondable... etc., etc. Ick!

Florida is not to be trifled with, I tell you... not to be trifled with!

 

I asked

I'm not sure why no one bothered to ask the man, but I did and nosborne is right on the nose with federal subject matter jurisdiction. If the feds retain exclusive jurisdiction - as they do in immigration, admirality, social security and the like then a license in one state allows you to practice in any state you wish.

It is also interesting to note that multijurisdictional practice for immigration lawyers is quite common and it appears that about 20 percent of the immigration lawyers in Central Florida yellow pages ads are not Florida bar members.


To address specifically Mr. Savino, I wrote him and told him about the discussion on degreeinfo.com and he replied the next day with a very complete and informative answer. He also invited me to call if I had any more questions.

Mr. Savino of course had no obligation to answer me as I was not a prospective client, but the fact that he did and provided a substantive answer certainly speaks volumes about him. I did provide a link to this topic so he may join the discussion. However if I ever need an immigration attorney I'd certainly seek his counsel as he is my neck of the woods - and because he was honest and forthcoming about his qualifications. He seems like a straight shooter to me.

I think the thread has a bit of a negative tone regarding Mr. Savino's practice, but it is legal and I think we all should learn from him- especially those that want to practice law w/o an ABA law degree. Perhaps a California non-ABA JD and Federal subject matter is the way to go. Remember this board is for encouraging legitimate distance and non-traditional education, not trying to undermine people who have leveraged non-traditional education to their advantage legitimately. I say Hooray Beer.... I mean Hooray for him.

 

Negative? Well, maybe just a little. My concern was only that he seems to be representing himself as a lawyer in an office in Florida without being a member of the Florida bar. My concern was that the Florida authorities might have a bone to pick with him.

Having said that, I freely admit that it is a greyish area. Nothing Mr. Savino says about himself on his site is false or even misleading; he IS admitted to the California Bar and he IS permitted to practice before federal immigration agencies. He IS a lawyer and the immigration authorities no doubt treat him as such. (That's important, BTW)

FWIW, since admission in 2002, no disciplinary action has ever been taken against Mr. Savino by the California Bar nor (to my knowledge) by any other entity.

Perhaps potential D/L law students could profit by a conversation with Mr. Savino about the perils and pleasures (if any) of Taft!

 

Yeah! Negative?

Er... um... well... okay... maybe, I suppose.



But seriously, I don't think it was so much about Mr. Savino, personally, as it was about the whole business of saying you're a lawyer in Florida -- particularly Florida -- when you're not a member of that state's bar. Period.

In fact, if you go back and read my words about Mr. Savino, I was very positive about him, specifically. I, for one, was just concerned about being in Florida with the word "attorney" on one's business card or shingle while not also being a member of the Florida bar. I care not what anyone says in defense of doing that, I, myself, would not... not in that state, at least.

That's really all I was saying. As for Mr. Savino, personally, I suggested that he probably did the research and had figured out how to do it without a problem and that that was fine. So I, at least, was not negative about him. More power to him, I say!

But, ya' know, mdoneil, as for the whole hey-this-place-is-about-helping-people-not-undermining-them thing... well... I'll stifle going so far as to say "gimmee a break," 'cause I don't feel that strongly about it... but almost. And I also don't want to offend you 'cause your "rah, rah" positive attitude is inspiring and admirable. Just not realistic. But I still think you're cool for gettin' to the bottom of it; and, no, if Mr. Savino's reading this, I, for one, don't have one single negative thought about him. I'd just do what he's doing from California if I were him, but that's just me.

That's all.

 

Re: I asked

Well...what was his answer? I called his office and never got a return call. I am looking for an option if it is possible to get a DL law degree and practice in FL.

 

Re: Re: I asked

It's not... at least not if you want to be a member of the Florida Bar. Well... I mean... it's possible, but it will require 10 years of practice in California first. Then, once you've done that, you must gather-up samples of your work product during said ten years and package it together with a motion to be admitted to the Florida Bar... and then cross your fingers.

If you want to confine your Florida practice to appearances before various Federal agencies and tribunals; and if Mr. Savino's experience and accomplishments are any example/indicator, then it would appear you could do like he's done and get your DL JD from one of the dozen or so CalBar-registerd, bar-eligible DL JD programs, sit for and pass the bar, meet all othe requirements, and get licensed to practice in California. Then go do like Mr. Savino's doing and set-up shop in Florida, but confine yourself to very specific federal stuff.

Then hopetogod you don't accidentally utter even a syllable of non-federal legal advice while doing so; and/or praytogod that no one wonders why you call yourself an attorney, yet you don't appear in the Florida Bar's database and you get reported and get cited for the unauthorized practice of law... which you probably would be at least once until you explain yourself to the Florida Bar and convince them that what you're doing is not against the law in Florida.

I'd sooner take a sharp stick in the eye than screw around with it, but you're welcome to copy what Mr. Savino's done and take a flyer and practicing limited federal law in Florida while licensed in California. Just keep a few thousand dollars bail money at the ready at all times.

Umm.... didn't we cover this around here a while back, Randell1234? Nothing's really changed since then except, as discussed earlier in this thread, the Florida Bar has loosened-up a tiny bit on the rules for allowing out-of-state lawyers practice pro hack vice in Florida. It is no more easy today than it was then to do what you'd like to do. It's troublesome and risky and I'd not even consider it if I were you. But it's your call.

 

Re: Re: I asked

I posted his answers in condensed form. I didn't cut and paste because -well because it would have simply been cutting and pasting a long answer.

The two main points were:
1) Federal practice only
2) A lot of immigration - social security - admirality (things reserved to federal courts) lawyers may practice in a state where they don't have a license, but they do have a license from some state and admission to Federal practice.

I emailed him, I didn't call. Drop him a line... who knows we may have made him busy with all our foreign friends on degreeinfo who have decided to move to Florida for the heat and humidity.

 

What's not realistic about what he did? He did it. If I said anyone could do it and fly by flapping his arms that would be not realistic.

I think it give us another thing to think about until the ABA relaxes its draconian rules about distance education. Hey, I can get a California JD and practice Social Security law in Guam!

I wasn't singling out anyone when I said this thread had a bit of a negative tone, as many members are quite skeptical and rightfully so with the nonsense some of the mills get into. But you have said any number of times you would not do it. Not to be rude, but I don't believe anyone asked you to.

The most disturbing thing about your post was when you said I have a 'positive attitude." Now I'm terrified my boss might read that and expect one when I'm at work

 

Aye, yai, yai.

I didn't mean that what he did wasn't realistic. In fact, I wasn't even talking about him. I just meant that the whole notion that we're all here "to help" being taken to the level that, because of it, we can't ever criticize anything, or talk about anything's potential downsides, is just silly... and not realistic. That's what I meant. I've been off the subject of Mr. Savino for some time now. I'm impressed with him and what he's doing. I wish him all the luck in the world. I'd just never do what he's doing myself. And I'm having trouble understanding why that simple, salient point of mine seems so hard to grasp.

Or, if Mr. Savino's experience is any indicator or predictor, in virtually any of the other U.S. protectorates, as well, I suspect. And if that's what'll trip yer trigger, then by all means.... go for it! I'll bet you'd be in a helluva lot less danger of getting in trouble with the bar there than you would be in Florida... which is pretty much my point...

...my continued repetition of which would seem, now, to be grating on you, to wit:

I wonder why people preface statements with even sillier statements that are intended to somehow mitigate them. In this case, here, you prefaced a rude statement with "not to be rude," as if that would somehow absolve the rude statement of its clearly intended rudeness. I think, maybe, it's similar to -- or at least in the same general family with -- when someone begins a sentence with, "To be honest...", as if the listener would have it any other way; or when people talk about a long distance phone call with the same reverence they'd show if they had to walk it. Some things are just silly... and sometimes, as now, tend to exacerbate the offense.

I repeat that I wouldn't do it, as I did again, in this post, above -- and as I'm doing again, in effect, right now -- because I think that doing so is a mistake on the same order as riding a motorcycle without a helmet: You can do it (and in states with no helmet law, legally), but it's still dumb. As a native of a state with no helmet law who has ridden both with and without for... let me think... going on 35 years, now... I choose with as I've grown both older and smarter. My repeating what I would never now do it is my way of warning others, who might be considering it, off the idea. I think it's foolish, and can have dire consequences. I get to think that and, moreover, I get to say it here pretty much as many times as I'd like.

But thanks for your concern! It's truly touching.

If your approach here is any indicator, I'm thinking maybe neither you, nor he, have too awfully much to worry about in that regard.

 

Originally posted by DesElms
Aye, yai, yai.

I've been off the subject of Mr. Savino for some time now. I'll try and keep up.



I wonder why people preface statements with even sillier statements that are intended to somehow mitigate them. In this case, here, you prefaced a rude statement with "not to be rude," as if that would somehow absolve the rude statement of its clearly intended rudeness.
Actually it was not nearly as rude as without the preface. I think of it as a note to those that are not easily offended to be offended.

I think, maybe, it's similar to -- or at least in the same general family with -- when people talk about a long distance phone call with the same reverence they'd show if they had to walk it. My sister in law's mother does that.

My repeating what I would never now do it is my way of warning others, who might be considering it, off the idea. I think it's foolish, and can have dire consequences. I get to think that and, moreover, I get to say it here pretty much as many times as I'd like.
Thanks I guess.

But thanks for your concern! It's truly touching.
I'm glad you know I care.

Truly, your response above this was one of the best things I have ever read here. Irreverent yet erudite, Bravo!

 

The misgivings I feel come from a difference in verb tense. He didn't "do it"; he is presently "doing it". Not the same.

Please DON'T get the idea that some Florida official gave Mr. Savino a letter or certificate approving his activities. They don't give advisory opinions nor issue licenses for which the law does not provide. Rather, it's that they haven't tried to shut him down. YET.

Put it this way...if a graduate of Taft and member of the California Bar approached me for advice as to whether this Florida practice is a risk free business and professional strategy, I'd say, "No, there IS risk that you are buying a high stakes lawsuit for yourself."

Ön the OTHER hand, if the same individual came to me and said, "The Florida Bar is seeking to enjoin me from running my immigration practice wherein I call myself a lawyer and have an office in the state. Can we win?", I'd say, "It depends on what our ads say and don't say and what their witnesses say you did in connection with your practice."

I am definitely NOT saying that this will EVER happen only that it is a nasty possibility and that this possibility will hang over the lawyer for as long as, and even longer than, he continues to practice. That's all.

 

What he said... all of it.

 

Sperry v. Florida

Incidentally, Florida featured in a famous legal decision regarding the rights of patent practitioners, the Sperry v. Florida case. Sperry was a non-lawyer who qualified for and passed the USPTO "patent bar" exam. He then advertised and performed patent law services in Florida. Florida charged him with the unauthorized practice of law. Florida lost.

The case was a long time ago (1963), but it remains well known, and I suspect that Florida is probably not anxioius to repreat it.

 

Re: Sperry v. Florida

Interesting... but it doesn't change my opinion. Florida is not to be trifled with in this regard. No state is, really. The stakes, when it comes to UPL, are too high. It's one of the few things about which nearly every state bar declares it's deadly serious. Why would anyone want to even fiddle with something like that... in any state?

I think, maybe, the problem -- at least in my case -- is that I'm not one of those kind of people who looks for the loophole. There's the letter of the law, and then there's the spirit. There is no state bar that would want anyone in its jurisdiction doing what Mr. Savino's doing. That's clearly Florida's wish, too. That's the spirit of its law... and the law of every other state, as well. Operating in a loophole to a law's letter is opportunistic and disrepectful. I choose to respect and observe the law's spirit.

Some people just like to live dangerously, I guess. Legislatures just love to plug loopholes. Why set-up an entire practice based on a loophole? Who would enjoy putting all those years into something, only to have it taken away before one's done reaping its benefits?

 

Re: Re: Sperry v. Florida

I respectfully disagree. An immigration attorney like Mr. Savino, or a patent agent like Mr. Sperry, are respecting both the letter and the spirit of Federal law. If a state tries to get between a Federal agency and a legal practitioner that is explicitly approved to practice before that agency, then the state is the one disrespecting the letter and spirit of the law.

For example, it's no secret that the USPTO is very picky about patent law practitioners: they specifically want people with a science or engineering background. Most attorneys don't qualify, but many scientists and engineers do. This is not a "loophole"; it is the policy that USPTO wants. And if a state tries to stop the practice of a USPTO-approved patent practitioner, then it is clearly violating the letter and spirit of USPTO's laws and regulations. And for no good reason: states have zero authority to grant patents, so why do states need to regulate patent practitioners?

This assumes that the patent law practitioner deals exclusively with the USPTO. If a patent issue winds up in state court, then yes, the issue must be addressed by a practitioner that is also a member of the state bar. But otherwise no.

 

Re: Re: Sperry v. Florida

The jurisdiction of a state bar is state law. As long as Mr. Savino does not practice state law, the state bar has no jurisdiction over him. It's that simple.

It's certainly important to be sensitive to the wishes of state agencies, but the wishes of federal agencies should count for something too. It is (apparently) the wish of the INS that Mr. Savino be allowed to practice immigration law. Since the state has no authority over immigration issues, the wishes of the INS should count for more.

 

Re: Re: Re: Sperry v. Florida

I think the state's issue is the person's use of the word "attorney" or "lawyer", not so much what the person is practicing. The federal construct provides the means by which the person may practice, and I've never seen a state fiddle with or even care about that kinda' stuff. If a person calls himself/herself an "agent" rather than an "attorney" or "lawyer," then the problem kinda' goes away, I think.

I don't think they're trying to; and I'm not advocating that they should. The state seems protective, only, of the practitioner's use of the word "lawyer" or "attorney" when referring to himself/herself.

The problem is that long before anything winds-up in state court, there's gotta' be alot of state advice and counsel. The state clearly doesn't want anyone who's not a member of the state bar to engage in such things. The federal practitioner would need to have some serious self-control. And where's the line to be drawn? How far is too far? In an example similar to the one nosborne48 proffered earlier in this thread, what if the guy who's about to get deported is sitting in Mr. Savino's office starts talking about whether someone could take his house from him, or if his boss could fire him, or if his wife could just take all their stuff and leave with it, etc. In that context, for Savino to merely utter the phrase, "don't worry, none of that stuff can happen," and then guide the conversation back to the deportation issue, has he committed UPL? It's a rhetorical question, the answer to which doesn't matter. The point is, the state bar, by its position, is, I think, trying to make it so that kind of problem simply can't happen by ensuring that everyone who calls himself/herself a "lawyer" or "attorney" is a member of the state bar... or so, at least, it would prefer.

Look, CalDog, your points are excellent. I mean... I get it. I guess my view is from the steps of the county courthouse, while yours would appear to be from the steps of the federal one. Neither of them are wrong views; they're just different.

Just imagine how much easier this would all be for Mr. Savino if he simply practice in California. What... there aren't as many Mexicans in need of immigration assistance as there are Cubans? (Again, a rhetorical question.)

I'll tell you what, though -- if you'll let me shift the subject a little -- there's another thing I got to thinking about regarding Mr. Savino's situation and I really am interested in what the answer to this might be: Florida's rules are that Savino can never sit for its bar, but it will permit him -- even with his DL JD, from what I can tell -- to move for admission to the Florida bar once he's practiced continuously for ten years, and then submits samples of his work product along with the motion (and does whatever other little things are asked for at the time). That procedure was written by Florida with the thought in mind that said 10 years of practice would be in some other state. I mean, even the twenty-something states that would let Savino sit for their bar exams, with the apparent exception of Wisconsin, all pretty much say that they will only do so after the applicant has practiced in the state in which s/he's licensed for however many years (usually 5 to 7). Savino's licensed in California, but he's actually, physically practicing in Florida. So are the years of practifce he's accumulating in Florida counting toward that 10-year thing? Or, because he's not actually practicing in the state in which he's licensed, is he just spinning his wheels?