The Florida Supreme Court amended the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar on October 22, 2026, effective immediately, and declined to amend one rule the Bar proposed. In a per curiam opinion in In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Miscellaneous Petition, No. SC2025-1178, the Court adopted the Bar’s proposals with some minor revisions, except for rule 1-12.1. Justice Tanenbaum concurred in part and dissented in part with an opinion. Chief Justice Couriel and Justices Labarga, Muñiz, Grosshans, Francis and Barrios concurred.
The rules in the petition
The Bar’s petition proposed amendments to rules 1-3.7 (Reinstatement to Membership), 1-12.1 (Amendment to Rules; Authority; Notice; Procedures; Comments), 4-7.20 (Exemptions from the Filing and Review Requirement), 6-12.7 (Confidentiality), 10-2.1 (Generally), 11-1.8 (Practice after Graduation), 20-5.2 (Duty to Update), and Bylaw 2-3.11 (Electronic Meetings). The Board of Governors approved the proposals and the Bar published them for comment. Five comments were received about the proposed amendments to rule 4-7.20, and the Bar filed a response.
What changed under the amended Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The opinion describes four of the amendments. Bylaw 2-3.11 now clarifies that the Bar, its Board of Governors, board committees, sections, divisions, and standing and special committees are authorized to conduct votes by email or other electronic polling in exigent circumstances.
Rule 4-7.20 now exempts sponsored search engine results that do not include images, audio, or video other than the permissible content of advertisements in rule 4-7.16 from the filing requirements for advertisements of rule 4-7.19. Rule 6-12.7 now further clarifies that files, records, and proceedings of the board of legal specialization and education related to or arising from a member’s failure to satisfy the basic skills course requirements remain confidential until the proceedings are concluded. The amended rule allows disclosure in three circumstances: in furtherance of the duties of the board of legal specialization and education, on the member’s own written request, or when the records are introduced in evidence or otherwise produced in a proceeding under the rules — and the Supreme Court of Florida can direct disclosure otherwise. Rule 20-5.2 now requires Florida registered paralegals whose registration becomes ineligible for renewal to notify their employing or supervising lawyer of any change in their registration status.
Rule 1-12.1
The Court wrote: “we decline to amend rule 1-12.1 as proposed by the Bar at this time.”
The partial dissent
Justice Tanenbaum wrote that, in addition to the other changes the Court adopted, he would adopt the proposed new subdivision 1-12.1(h) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.
What this does and does not mean
The opinion text does not describe the changes to rules 1-3.7, 10-2.1 and 11-1.8; the appendix to the opinion contains the amended text of those rules. In the appendix, rule 1-3.7 adds “from the bar” clarifications and provides that the membership of a member retired or delinquent for 5 years or more will lapse, that the member will not be reinstated under the rule, and that the member may be readmitted only on application to the Florida Board of Bar Examiners and approval by the Supreme Court; rule 10-2.1 adds a new definition (o), Filing, meaning filing in an electronic format approved by the court unless excused; and rule 11-1.8 adds passing a criminal fingerprint check as an alternative to an initial clearance letter for law students and graduates seeking certification. The appendix text of Bylaw 2-3.11 states the electronic-vote authority more fully than the opinion: only if there is an emergency, if necessary to meet an impending deadline, to confirm a matter of consensus, or on a matter solely related to committee procedures, with voting suspended and a meeting scheduled if 10% of the members entitled to vote request one. The opinion says the amendments become effective immediately and that the filing of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date. It does not explain why the Court declined to amend rule 1-12.1 or what the proposed subdivision (h) said.
Related decisions: Can a defendant still amend a Rule 3.850 motion after the 60 days the court gave? A First DCA judge says the rule cuts that right off too soon Does the speedy-trial clock in a Florida criminal traffic case start at arrest? Not after January 1, 2027, the Florida Supreme Court says
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Miscellaneous Petition, No. SC2025-1178 (Fla. Oct. 22, 2026) (Tanenbaum, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). This article is general information, not legal advice.