D A M O N C . GL I S S O N , C H A I R
LAW OFFICE OF DAMON C. GLISSON, APOLLO BEACH
813-645-6796
DAMON@GLISSON1.NET
Section Member Recommendations on Proposed Rule
for Admission by Motion/Reciprocity
Background. On Friday, September 11, 2015, The Florida Bar General Practice, Solo & Small
Firm Executive Council voted to confer with its section members with regard to paragraph “X.
a.” of the Preliminary Report of the Multijurisdictional Practice - State Focus Committee of the
Vision 2016 Bar Admissions Subgroup related to admission by motion/reciprocity.
A September 15 email to 1,870 section members from Section Chair Damon C. Glisson
requested section members’ recommendations to either support or oppose the proposed rule.
Results. Of the GPSSF Section members who expressed their recommendations, 74.67 percent
oppose and 25.33 percent support the proposed rule. The results are reported below and are
divided by state geographic regions and out of state. Relevant comments are included on pages
2 – 4.
Region
North
Central
South
Out of State
Total
Totals
Oppose
Support
25
77
40
8
150
17
60
31
4
112
8
17
9
4
38
GPSSF Section Input on Motion by Admission/Reciprocity
2
SECTION MEMBER COMMENT S
Oppose

I have had clients routinely illegally solicited by other lawyers from other states seeking illegal payments for
“services guaranteed to win.” The Florida Bar does nothing about this. Further, the result in my opinion of
reciprocity is that large corporations will advertise profusely for legal services (for example, 1-800-411 PAIN,
CALL GARY), and everyone will then be retained through these “Gatekeepers.” The clients are not well served
by these unscrupulous out of state practitioners who know nothing about Florida law or what to do. The
Florida Bar does nothing about these alleged “referral services.” Yet, I cannot solicit business without a litany
of restrictions.

I am fighting against the much larger firms for business that is already shrinking because of online "Legalzoom"
type sites. I also am a member of the PA, NJ & FL Bars. I sat for the Florida Bar in 1997 and have paid my FL
Bar dues every year even though I did not move to Florida and begin to practice law here until 2004 because I
always knew I wanted to return to Florida and I also knew reciprocity was not an option. I will be punished in
several ways if reciprocity is now permitted.

Based on my experience, Florida should not allow admission to the bar unless the bar exam is taken and
passed. If a candidate for admission cannot pass the bar exam, the candidate is not prepared to practice law in
Florida, in my opinion. I have been a lawyer for over 38 years. I have been licensed in Minnesota since 1977
and Wisconsin since 1984. In February, 2015, I sat for and passed the Florida Bar exam. I was admitted to the
Florida Bar on May 4, 2015. I found that studying Florida law for the bar exam put me in a much better
position to practice law in Florida than had I been admitted by motion. I was admitted to the bar in Wisconsin
by motion in 1984 and have never really had a comprehensive review of Wisconsin law. I now feel much more
prepared to practice law in Florida than in Wisconsin, even though I have been a member of the Wisconsin bar
for 31 years. The Florida bar and the Florida Supreme Court have a duty to protect the public from unqualified
lawyers. They can only do so by requiring each lawyer to pass the Florida Bar Exam. I am in a unique position
because I was admitted to the Wisconsin bar by motion and also passed the Florida Bar Exam.

Florida requires a score of 136 to pass the Multistate portion of the bar exam. Minnesota requires only a
score of 130 to pass the Multistate portion of the bar exam. In view of this, Florida could be admitting lawyers
with inferior ability to the lawyers who have passed the Florida Bar Exam, if admission by motion is allowed.

Just from a retirement perspective, Reciprocity will, among other things, be a one way street. A street that
will be subjected to an unnecessary gridlock of incompetence, unfamiliarity with Florida law and confusion
with the court’s procedures – causing substantial harm to the public at large. My concern is whether there will
be a cap as to how many lawyers will be admitted in both states and how will we know if the other state is
actually granting reciprocity to Florida Lawyers applying? We don't want an unfair ratio of lawyers from other
states when at the same time they are denying the Motions of Florida Lawyers.

I looked at a chart and confirmed that by waiving into IL and DC you can get into any other state that offers
reciprocity of any form, or that allows waiver of course. There were like 7 states that had no waiver or
reciprocity total. All of them would be states that would be likely to have people jumping in.

The glut of attorneys that already exists is impacting our state by reducing opportunities for new attorneys to
find meaningful and GAINFUL employment. The result is more new attorneys opening their own practices
without the benefit of supervising attorneys or mentors to guide them. This lack of supervision is wreaking
GPSSF Section Input on Motion by Admission/Reciprocity
3
havoc on our court system as new attorneys have no idea what they are doing, they are filing lawsuits with no
merit, and they file pleadings, motions and documents that make no sense or are unsupported by the
law. They are watching equally unskilled new lawyers in court -thinking the bad conduct is acceptable-then
following their lead. The impact is not only a financial drain on clients who must oppose these unprincipled
and bad legal practices, but it negatively impacts the reputation of all our attorneys. Our citizens simply
cannot endure more of this inexperienced representation by inviting additional lawyers to the ranks and
leaving yet more law students in the wake.
Support

I have now reviewed the report and am happy to say that I SUPPORT the effort. The report addresses my
concerns adequately as to the process of reciprocity (my reference to quid pro quo). I believe the safeguards
are adequate, the report references Arizona’s experience with an initial flood of applicants for admission by
motion but that it normalizes quickly. The explanation by those that have been working this issue and the
impact it has on the economic viability of the practice for FL lawyers favors reciprocity. I am in favor of
admission by motion with those states (and Washington DC) that have reciprocity.

I favor admission on motion with one additional qualification. To receive admission, applicants should be
required to take an online course on Florida differences in the major area of their intended practice.
Cramming information in areas where no practice is likely, is a waste of time, energy and cost. It serves only to
protect local lawyers against an anticipated "rush" of "outsiders" which simply ignores the means by which
lawyers actually meet and obtain clients.

The current state of the rules is especially harsh on Florida Authorized House Counsel. In my case, I have lived
in Florida full time and continuously since 1986. I became an Authorized House Counsel in 1994 and practiced
continuously in that capacity until 2014. In 2014, faced with the prospect of the winding up of the company
that employed me as general counsel, I decided that I wanted to return to the practice of law rather than look
for a new in-house position. The only option for me was to either move from the state that had been my home
for nearly 30 years or sit for the bar exam. So, notwithstanding the fact that I had already been through a
character and fitness review in connection with the processing of my House Counsel application, and the fact
that I had complied with all requirements applicable to House Counsel (including Florida CLE requirements and
payment of annual dues) for a continuous period of 20 years, I literally had to start over. To add insult to
injury, I had to pay the same application fees to The Florida Bar that are paid by non-Florida House Counsel
lawyers of my age and experience who apply for admission in Florida. I sat for the bar exam last year and
passed, but the cost — both in terms of out-of-pocket expenditure and the opportunity cost of taking the time
necessary to study for the bar exam — was crushing. I have been a corporate practitioner for over 30 years. I
have an A/V rating from Martindale-Hubbell in Corporate Law and Mergers and Acquisitions. It is very difficult
for me to “buy” the public policy arguments that required someone in my position to disrupt life, home and
career for nine months. Hopefully, by changing the rules to provide for admission by motion based on
reciprocity, others can be spared what I had to go through.

I am in full support of an Admission by Motion Rule being adopted by the Florida Supreme Court. I sat for the
Florida Bar in 2002. I relocated to Colorado and I sat for another bar exam. I have passed the Uniform Bar
Examination to be eligible to obtain 13 state admissions by motion. I work at a national firm with 15 offices
across the country. We have clients across the nation. Many of our clients conduct business in multiple states
since the companies are involved in oil and gas operations or services in multiple states through involvement
in the energy industry. I believe that our current rules are outdated. In today’s business world, through
technological advances, clients can enjoy developing global business. However, Florida attorneys cannot
freely assist or service these businesses and companies in their growth. I think the benefits of assisting clients
and being able to move freely to pursue opportunities as attorneys is great. I also support consideration of
the Uniform Bar Examination so that there is a uniform examination setting minimum standards.
GPSSF Section Input on Motion by Admission/Reciprocity
4

As a lawyer who practiced the greater part of his professional career in Michigan and then took the Florida Bar
(at age 65) and thereafter resumed his practice here in Florida I do support the proposed rule allowing
reciprocity. I'm not convinced that studying for and passing the Florida Bar made me more qualified to
practice in Florida than did my 40 years of experience practicing Michigan law. Of course there are differences
in the laws between the two states but the differences are not overly pronounced and learning the differences
would have been a modest exercise compared to taking the entire bar exam. Indeed, with the promulgation of
uniform laws I think it's fair to state that the actual differences in the laws between most jurisdictions are
relatively minor and that learning these distinctions would be nowhere near as formidable as taking an entire
bar exam!

I support and encourage the adoption of a rule allowing admission by motion with certain conditions, for
attorneys from other states to be admitted to the Florida Bar. Conditions could include 5 years of practice in
another jurisdiction and recommendations by other attorneys from the state in which the applicant currently
practices.

As those in favor of this proposal have noted, state lines have become far less relevant in this world-wide-web
based economy. Attorneys as businessmen have developed proficiency in areas of practice where state
borders have no real relevance and the public deserves the wider options these industry specific experts can
offer. As to those who fear the influx of carpetbaggers coming in and undercutting us hard working lawyers
while living off their social security, methinks this fear factor is overstated and doesn't take into consideration
the offsetting out flux of us Florida lawyers exploring our new opportunities in other states. Fellow lawyers, it's
time to set aside fear of change and embrace the global opportunities that await us.