Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

“In for a Penny, in for a Pound” is No Longer the Case for Florida Lawyers

Client Alert
February 19, 2024

On April 1, 2024, newly adopted Rule 1.041 to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedures goes into effect, which creates a procedure for an attorney to appear in a limited manner in civil proceedings. Currently, when a Florida attorney appears in a civil proceeding, he or she is responsible for handling all aspects of the case for their client. This new rule authorizes an attorney to file a notice limiting the attorney’s appearance to particular proceedings or specified matters prior to any appearance before the court. For example, an attorney can now appear for the limited purpose of filing and arguing a motion to dismiss. Once the motion to dismiss is heard by the court, the attorney may file a notice of termination of limited appearance and will have no further obligations in the case. 

The intended consequence of Rule 1.041 was to make accessing the Florida court system easier for litigants. Many individuals who could not afford to retain an attorney throughout an entire case can now pick and choose when they believe an attorney’s help will be the most beneficial. For example, a defendant in a debt collection lawsuit may choose to hire an attorney to attend mediation or handling the trial. Rather than the attorney devoting months to the case, the client hires the attorney for only a few days’ worth of work. 

A potential unintended consequence of Rule 1.041 is an increase is compartmentalization or specialization among of attorneys. The increase of specialization may be both a benefit and detriment to litigants. For instance, a number of Florida attorneys may start promoting their ability to defend any client at trial even upon short notice. An attorney such as this would rely on their knowledge of Florida Evidence Code to try to exclude evidence the plaintiff would need to prove their case. To the litigant faced with the proposition of having no attorney at their trial, or an attorney who has only a limited knowledge of their case, having an attorney who was only partially prepared would feel like a blessing. 

While some litigants will benefit from the new limited appearance rule, litigants will need to be careful in who they choose to hire for even a limited role. Going back to the example of a defendant in a debt collection lawsuit that hires an attorney to file a motion to dismiss, the litigant will assume that the limited appearance attorney will file a motion to dismiss tailored to their specific case; however, this most likely will not be what actually happens. It will be far more likely that attorneys will use form motions that only require changing the name of the defendant in a few key places. The attorney may have filed the same form motion in hundreds of cases with mixed success. Unfortunately, the current litigant will not know this without asking detailed questions of the limited appearance attorney before engaging them.

For more information or questions regarding the newly adopted Florida Rule 1.041, please contact BMD Litigation Attorney Ed Brown at ejbrown@bmdpl.com or (904) 366-1516.

Edward BrownFloridaLitigationCivil Litigation
Client Alert

Community Behavioral Health Providers - Supervisor Pricing Changes Begin July 1 [Corrected Date]

June 16, 2025Effective June 16, community behavioral health providers wishing to receive reimbursement at the supervisor rate must add the HP or HT Modifier to fee-for-service (FFS) claims. Find out about the new guidelines.Client Alert

CMS Rescinds EMTALA Guidance for Emergency Abortions

June 16, 2025On June 3, 2025, CMS withdrew its 2022 guidance on emergency abortion care under EMTALA, eliminating federal protection for providers in states with abortion restrictions. This policy change could significantly impact how hospitals handle emergency care involving pregnancy complications.Client Alert

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for Majority-Group Plaintiffs in Title VII Claims

June 11, 2025In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that all Title VII plaintiffs, whether from majority or minority groups, must meet the same evidentiary standard. The decision eliminates the “background circumstances rule” and reinforces equal treatment in workplace discrimination claims.Client Alert

Understanding Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews: A Critical Guide for Immigrants Facing Removal

May 23, 2025In his latest article, Immigration Attorney and former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff offers a clear breakdown of Reasonable Fear vs. Credible Fear Interviews—key procedures for noncitizens seeking protection from persecution or torture. Citing Judge Brian Murphy’s recent ruling on unlawful deportations to South Sudan, Ratliff connects these critical legal standards to current judicial developments. Read the full article at www.removal-defense.com.Client Alert

House Republicans Propose Cuts to Medicaid to Finance Savings

May 12, 2025House Republicans have introduced legislative language that proposes substantial cuts to the Medicaid entitlement program, aiming to achieve significant budget savings through policy changes. The proposed measures include stricter eligibility verification, work requirements for certain adults, and federal funding cuts to states providing coverage to undocumented residents. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the proposed healthcare provisions would reduce spending by $715 billion and could result in 8.6 million fewer people having health insurance by 2034.
Older posts
Newer posts