Clarifying Finality and Procedure in Florida Lawyer Discipline: Permanent Disbarment, Disciplinary Revocation Without Leave, and Grievance Committee Voting Under Amended Chapter 3

I. Introduction

This commentary addresses the Supreme Court of Florida’s per curiam decision in In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Chapter 3, No. SC2025-1180 (Dec. 18, 2025). Acting in its rulemaking capacity, the Court approved, with modest modifications, a set of amendments to Chapter 3 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, which governs lawyer discipline and related procedures.

Although the opinion is relatively brief, the amendments are significant in how they:

• Clarify the finality of permanent disbarment and disciplinary revocation without leave to apply for readmission;
• Align terminology concerning emergency suspension and interim probation;
• Increase flexibility in waiving procedural time limits in certain disciplinary proceedings; and
• Standardize voting requirements for all grievance committee actions to ensure binding decisions despite abstentions.

The amendments affect four rules within Chapter 3:

• Rule 3‑3.2 (Board of Governors of The Florida Bar);
• Rule 3‑5.1 (Generally – the central sanctions rule);
• Rule 3‑7.2 (Procedures on Criminal or Professional Misconduct); and
• Rule 3‑7.4 (Grievance Committee Procedures).

The decision is an exercise of the Court’s constitutional authority over the Bar and lawyer discipline, and it continues a long line of “In re: Amendments” cases where the Court both refines disciplinary procedure and codifies key substantive principles.

II. Background and Procedural Posture

A. Institutional Setting and Jurisdiction

Under article V, section 15 of the Florida Constitution, the Supreme Court of Florida has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission and discipline of lawyers. The opinion expressly grounds jurisdiction in:

Rule 1‑12.1 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar prescribes the process for proposing and adopting amendments to Bar rules. The Florida Bar (through its Board of Governors) initiates the petition; the Court then evaluates, accepts, modifies, or rejects the proposed text.

B. The Petition and Notice Process

The Florida Bar petitioned to amend specific disciplinary rules in Chapter 3. Key procedural steps included:

• Board of Governors approval of the proposed amendments;
• Publication of formal notice in The Florida Bar News, as required by rule 1‑12.1(g), advising the Bar and public of the intended petition; and
• Invitation for comments: interested parties were directed to file comments directly with the Court.

No comments were filed. While not dispositive, this silence typically suggests that the amendments are viewed as either noncontroversial, clarificatory, or consistent with existing practice.

C. The Court’s Disposition

After reviewing the Bar’s proposals, the Court:

• Adopted the amendments to Chapter 3,
• With some modifications (reflected only in the final rule text in the appendix, not detailed separately in the narrative), and
• Set an effective date of February 16, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.

The Court also expressly states that:

This ensures that the implementation date is firm, preventing uncertainty that could otherwise arise if rehearing motions delayed the effective date.

III. Summary of the Opinion and Key Amendments

The Court itself highlights “the more significant rule changes,” which fall into four main areas:

1. Rule 3‑3.2(b)(2) – Emergency Suspension or Interim Probation
   The Court adds the word “interim” so that the rule consistently references “emergency suspension or interim probation,” aligning with rule 3‑5.2. This is a terminological but important clarification of the nature of emergency measures.
2. Rule 3‑5.1 – Reorganization and Clarification of Sanctions
   The rule is structurally reorganized:
   • Subdivisions are relettered and renumbered, and many are retitled for clarity.
   • Amended subdivisions (a)(5) (Disbarment) and (a)(6) (Disciplinary Revocation) explicitly provide that:
     • Lawyers subject to permanent disbarment, and
     • Lawyers whose disciplinary revocation is granted without leave to apply for readmission,
     are forever barred from applying for readmission.
3. Rule 3‑7.2(l) – Waiver of Time Limits
   The Court revises the waiver provision so that a lawyer may waive any applicable time limit in rule 3‑7.2 either:
   • By a written request, or
   • Orally on the record at a hearing before a referee.
4. Rule 3‑7.4(g)(3) – Grievance Committee Voting
   The rule is tightened to require that:
   • All grievance committee action – not only findings of probable cause and recommendations of guilt –
   • Must be by a majority vote of members present (with at least two members voting).
   This prevents abstentions from paralyzing the committee and ensures that its actions are binding.

In addition, although not singled out in the narrative discussion, the reorganized text of rule 3‑5.1 reaffirms and clarifies the full spectrum of disciplinary measures: admonishment, minor misconduct procedures, probation, public reprimand, suspension, disbarment, disciplinary revocation, notice-to-clients obligations, forfeiture of fees, and restitution.

IV. Detailed Analysis of the Amendments

A. Rule 3‑3.2(b)(2): “Emergency Suspension or Interim Probation”

1. Context: Board of Governors’ Authority to File a Formal Complaint

Rule 3‑3.2 governs the authority of the Board of Governors (“BOG”) to initiate formal disciplinary complaints. Subdivision (b) lists several preconditions under which The Florida Bar may file a formal complaint.

Amended rule 3‑3.2(b)(2) now reads (in pertinent part):

2. Terminological Alignment with Rule 3‑5.2

Previously, the text referred to “emergency suspension or emergency probation.” The Court notes that adding “interim” aligns the terminology with rule 3‑5.2, which addresses “Emergency Suspension and Interim Probation.”

This clarification matters for several reasons:

• Conceptual clarity: “Interim probation” better captures the nature of the measure—temporary, provisional conditions imposed pending final resolution—rather than “emergency probation,” which could be misread as a final sanction.
• Harmonization: Uniform language across related rules minimizes arguments based on textual differences (for example, that a certain type of probation is beyond the contemplated scope of one rule but not another).
• Procedural linkage: By explicitly linking the authority to file a complaint to orders of “emergency suspension or interim probation,” the rule reinforces that such emergency measures and the ensuing formal complaint must address the same underlying misconduct.

B. Rule 3‑5.1: Reorganization and Substantive Clarifications

Rule 3‑5.1 is the central “sanctions framework” for Florida lawyer discipline. It enumerates all major disciplinary measures and associated conditions. In this amendment cycle, the Court:

• Reorganizes the rule structurally to improve readability, and
• Introduces critical clarifications, especially regarding permanent disbarment and disciplinary revocation without leave.

1. Overall Structure: A Ladder of Sanctions

Amended rule 3‑5.1(a) states:

The measures appear on an approximate continuum from least to most severe:

1. Admonishment (for minor misconduct);
2. Probation;
3. Public reprimand;
4. Suspension;
5. Disbarment (including permanent disbarment); and
6. Disciplinary revocation (tantamount to disbarment).

Additional related concepts—notice to clients, forfeiture of fees, and restitution—are also governed under this rule but function more as collateral or supplementary remedies.

2. Admonishments and Minor Misconduct

The rule distinguishes “minor misconduct” from more serious violations, with admonishment being the only appropriate sanction for minor misconduct. Key elements include:

• Administration of Admonishment: An admonishment may be administered by:
  • The Supreme Court of Florida;
  • The Board of Governors;
  • A grievance committee; or
  • A referee.
  A memorandum of the administration must become part of the disciplinary record.
• Criteria for Minor Misconduct: Absent “unusual circumstances,” misconduct will not be regarded as minor if it involves:
  • Misappropriation of client funds or property;
  • Actual or likely prejudice to a client or other person;
  • Actual or potential injury to the public or the legal system;
  • Public discipline in the prior three years;
  • Misconduct of the same nature as prior discipline in the prior five years;
  • Dishonesty, misrepresentation, deceit, or fraud; or
  • Commission of a felony.
• Grievance Committee Discretion: Committees may still recommend admonishment or diversion to a “practice and professionalism enhancement program” even if one of the disqualifying criteria is present, but only with a detailed explanation in their report. This preserves flexibility while demanding transparency.
• Procedural Mechanisms:
  • Grievance committees issue reports recommending admonishment and related costs (including a specified $1,250 assessment/administrative fee).
  • The respondent has 30 days after service of the report to reject it; such a rejection is treated as a finding of probable cause, triggering formal proceedings before a referee.
  • The Board of Governors may also reject a minor misconduct report, which is likewise deemed a finding of probable cause.
  • Respondents may tender a written admission of minor misconduct (with limited conditions), but if the admission is accepted, they cannot later contest the admonishment recommendation.

These provisions largely codify an existing framework but are reorganized for coherence. They emphasize that “minor misconduct” is genuinely minor and that repeated or dishonest conduct, or misconduct involving money, will ordinarily be treated as more serious.

3. Probation: Expanded and Structured Conditions

Rule 3‑5.1(c) allows the imposition of probation “for a stated period of time between 6 months and 5 years or for an indefinite period determined by conditions stated in the order.” The Court preserves a flexible menu of possible conditions, including:

• Completion of a practice and professionalism enhancement program;
• Quarterly or periodic caseload status reports;
• Supervision of some or all of the respondent’s work by another Bar member;
• Required reporting to a designated agency;
• Additional continuing legal education or ethics study;
• Supervision or audit of fees and trust accounts;
• Participation in substance use disorder programs;
• Periodic physical or mental examinations;
• Passing the bar examination or a professional responsibility exam; and
• Restrictions on advertising in cases involving advertising violations.

The rule provides that:

• The respondent must reimburse the Bar for the costs of supervision.
• Failure to comply with conditions, or new probable cause findings during probation, may lead to contempt proceedings and possible termination of probation with additional sanctions.

As reorganized, the text underscores that probation is a structured and potentially intensive form of oversight, not a mere nominal sanction.

4. Public Reprimand and Suspension

Rule 3‑5.1(d) and (e) reaffirm the mechanics of public reprimand and suspension:

• Public reprimand:
  • Is administered as prescribed in the judgment (e.g., before the Court, the BOG, a judge, or referee);
  • Is reported in the Southern Reporter; and
  • Requires the respondent’s personal appearance if ordered.
• Suspension:
  • The respondent remains a Bar member but cannot practice.
  • Suspensions of ≤90 days:
    • Do not require proof of rehabilitation or retaking the Bar; and
    • Expire automatically, restoring full privileges at the end of the period.
  • Suspensions of >90 days:
    • Require a formal reinstatement order by the Court;
    • Require proof of rehabilitation; and
    • May require retaking all or part of the Florida Bar Examination.
  • No suspension may be ordered for a specific period exceeding three years.
  • Suspension orders normally:
    • Prohibit accepting new business from the date of the order; and
    • Make the suspension effective in 30 days to allow orderly closing of the practice and protection of existing clients, unless the Court orders otherwise.

The structural reorganization makes the “90-day” line and the 3‑year cap more conspicuous, which will likely reduce confusion about when rehabilitation and reinstatement procedures are triggered.

5. Disbarment, Permanent Disbarment, and Finality of Readmission Bars

Rule 3‑5.1(f) addresses disbarment. Its core features are:

• Effect of disbarment:
  • Terminates the lawyer’s status as a member of the Bar.
  • Readmission is possible only by full compliance with admission rules.
• Timing of readmission applications (non-permanent disbarment):
  • No application may be tendered within five years after disbarment (or a longer period specified in the order).
  • No application may be filed at any time after that until all court-ordered restitution and disciplinary costs have been paid.
• Permanent disbarment:
  • The rule now states expressly: “Permanent disbarment precludes readmission.”
  • It further provides: “No application for readmission may be filed after a Supreme Court of Florida order of permanent disbarment.”
• Presumption of disbarment for theft:
  • Disbarment is the presumed sanction for lawyers found guilty of theft:
    • From a lawyer’s trust account; or
    • From special trust funds held as guardian, personal representative, receiver, or trustee.
  • The respondent may rebut this presumption with competent, substantial evidence that disbarment is not appropriate in the particular case.
• Implementation mechanics:
  • Disbarment orders:
    • Normally bar the respondent from accepting new business from the date of the order; and
    • Make the disbarment effective in 30 days, absent a different order, to permit closing the practice and protecting clients.

The explicit codification that permanent disbarment forever precludes readmission is a central substantive development. While the Court had long imposed “permanent disbarment” or “disbarment without leave to reapply” as a sanction in particularly egregious cases, the rule now makes the consequence unambiguous at the regulatory level:

• There is no waiting period after which a permanently disbarred lawyer may seek readmission; and
• The Bar and applicants are spared threshold litigation over whether “permanent” disbarment might nevertheless permit an application for readmission after some extended time.

6. Disciplinary Revocation: Equivalence to Disbarment and “Without Leave”

Rule 3‑5.1(g) addresses “disciplinary revocation,” a mechanism that allows a respondent to consent to the ultimate sanction in lieu of defending disciplinary charges. The rule emphasizes:

• Equivalence to disbarment:
  • A disciplinary revocation is “tantamount to a disbarment.”
  • It terminates Bar membership and the license to practice law.
  • Re-entry into the profession requires readmission under the Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar.
• Timing of readmission applications (ordinary disciplinary revocation):
  • No application may be tendered until the later of:
    • Five years after the order granting disciplinary revocation, or
    • A longer period specified in that order.
• Revocation without leave to apply:
  • The rule now explicitly states: “No application for readmission may be tendered after a Supreme Court of Florida order granting disciplinary revocation without leave to apply for readmission.”
  • This mirrors the treatment of permanent disbarment and cements the idea that “without leave” = no possible future readmission attempt.

In practice, this amendment is highly consequential. Disciplinary revocation is often used as a negotiated resolution in serious cases. By clarifying that a revocation “without leave” is truly final, the Court:

• Aligns disciplinary revocation with permanent disbarment in both substance and effect;
• Provides transparency to respondents considering such a disposition; and
• Reduces future disputes over whether such individuals may seek reinstatement or reapply at any point.

7. Notice to Clients, Forfeiture of Fees, and Restitution

The reorganized provisions (now renumbered as rule 3‑5.1(b)–(d)) reaffirm important collateral obligations:

• Notice to clients:
  • Upon service of orders of disbarment (including disciplinary revocation), suspension, emergency suspension, emergency probation, or placement on inactive status for incapacity, the respondent must immediately furnish a copy to specified categories of clients and others.
  • Within 30 days, the respondent must file a sworn affidavit listing the names and addresses of those notified.
• Forfeiture of fees:
  • Where a prohibited or clearly excessive fee is involved, the Court or a minor misconduct report may require:
    • Return of the excessive portion to the client; or
    • Forfeiture of the fee to The Florida Bar Clients’ Security Fund.
• Restitution:
  • The Court may order restitution for:
    • Clearly excessive, illegal, or prohibited fees; or
    • Conversion of trust funds or property.
  • Restitution is capped at the amount of the excessive, illegal, or converted funds, may include lawful interest, and must specify:
    • The recipient(s), and
    • The deadline for completion.
  • Failure to comply:
    • Causes the respondent to become a delinquent member (affecting the right to practice), and
    • Does not preclude additional disciplinary proceedings.

These provisions reinforce the remedial dimension of discipline: protection of the public and financial redress are at least as important as punishment of the lawyer.

C. Rule 3‑7.2(l): Waiver of Time Limits in Criminal or Professional Misconduct Proceedings

1. Rule 3‑7.2 in Context

Rule 3‑7.2 governs procedures triggered by:

• Determinations or judgments of guilt for criminal misconduct; and
• Discipline following removal from judicial office.

Because such matters often involve parallel criminal and disciplinary tracks, timing and deadlines are especially important: they affect both the respondent’s ability to prepare and the public’s interest in expedited resolution.

2. The New Waiver Mechanism

Amended rule 3‑7.2(l) provides:

Substantively, two points are clear:

• Waiver is permitted: The respondent has the option to relinquish time-limit protections under this rule.
• Form of waiver:
  • By written request; or
  • Orally, on the record during a hearing before the referee.
• Approval required: The waiver is subject to approval by the referee or the Supreme Court.

This change increases procedural flexibility. It recognizes that respondents may sometimes prefer:

• More time to coordinate criminal and disciplinary matters;
• Scheduling accommodations; or
• Consolidation or sequencing that requires deviating from default timelines.

At the same time, requiring that the waiver be either written or clearly stated “on the record” protects against later claims that a purported waiver was informal, unintended, or coerced.

D. Rule 3‑7.4(g)(3): Majority Vote for All Grievance Committee Action

1. Grievance Committees’ Role

Rule 3‑7.4 governs local grievance committees, which serve as the Bar’s investigative and charging bodies. Their functions include:

• Investigating complaints;
• Determining whether probable cause exists;
• Recommending sanctions for minor misconduct; and
• Making recommendations about case dispositions more generally.

2. Revised Voting Standard

Amended rule 3‑7.4(g)(3) now reads (emphasis added):

Previously, the text focused only on “findings of probable cause and recommendations of guilt of minor misconduct.” The amendment:

• Expands the majority-vote requirement to all committee action – including, importantly, dismissals, recommendations for diversion, and other dispositional decisions.
• Confirms that:
  • A majority of members present (at least two) must vote in favor for an action to be valid; and
  • There is no separate minimum number of lawyer-votes required.
• Retains safeguards:
  • Vote totals must be recorded;
  • Minority reports are permitted; and
  • Investigating members may not vote on the disposition of the matters they investigated.

The principal functional consequence is to ensure that:

• Abstentions no longer block the committee from taking binding action, provided a legitimate majority of those present vote in favor; and
• Any formal “action” of the committee—whether favorable or adverse to the respondent—has the legitimacy of a recorded majority vote.

V. Legal Framework and Precedent

A. Constitutional and Rule-Based Authority

The Court’s authority in this case arises not from an adversarial dispute over a particular lawyer’s conduct, but from its constitutional responsibility to regulate the profession. Two provisions frame this:

• Article V, section 15, Florida Constitution:
  • Vests the Supreme Court of Florida with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the admission of persons to the practice of law and the discipline of those admitted.
• Rule 1‑12.1, Rules Regulating The Florida Bar:
  • Sets forth procedures for proposing and adopting rule amendments, including:
    • Requirement of BOG approval;
    • Notice to the Bar and public;
    • An opportunity to comment; and
    • Final approval (with or without modifications) by the Court.

Thus, this opinion is part of the Court’s quasi-legislative, rulemaking jurisprudence rather than a case-specific adjudication. That said, these rule amendments will directly influence future adversarial cases.

B. Codifying Existing Disciplinary Principles

Although the opinion does not cite case law, several aspects of the amendments clearly align with long-standing Florida disciplinary jurisprudence:

• Misappropriation / theft from trust accounts:
  • The rule’s presumption of disbarment for theft from trust accounts or fiduciary funds is consistent with decades of Supreme Court decisions treating financial dishonesty against clients or beneficiaries as warranting the most severe discipline in the absence of compelling mitigating factors.
• Permanent disbarment and “without leave” sanctions:
  • Florida courts have repeatedly used formulations such as “permanent disbarment” or “disbarment without leave to reapply” for egregious misconduct (e.g., substantial financial crimes, serious felonies, or repeated violations demonstrating unfitness).
  • The amendments formally incorporate these practices into the text of rule 3‑5.1, making the finality of such sanctions explicit and predictable.
• Equivalence of disciplinary revocation and disbarment:
  • Decisions approving disciplinary revocation have long described it as functionally equivalent to disbarment. The rule now states this explicitly and clarifies the timing and permanent effect of revocation “without leave.”

In this sense, the amendments are more codification than innovation: they embed into the rules what the Court has repeatedly articulated in case law, thereby increasing transparency and foreclosing interpretive ambiguity.

VI. The Court’s Legal Reasoning and Policy Choices

A. Emphasis on Clarity, Finality, and Predictability

The Court’s narrative discussion is brief, but the structure and content of the amendments reveal clear policy aims:

• Clarity:
  • Reorganization of rule 3‑5.1 makes the disciplinary “ladder” and associated conditions easier to navigate.
  • Terminological alignment (“interim probation”) avoids interpretive disputes.
  • Explicit language that permanent disbarment and revocation without leave preclude any future application for readmission removes uncertainty.
• Finality:
  • By declaring certain sanctions to be irreversibly final, the Court underscores that some forms of misconduct are incompatible with any future practice of law in Florida.
  • Finality aids both the public (who can rely on the permanence of such sanctions) and the system (which avoids future threshold fights over the availability of readmission).
• Predictability:
  • Codified presumptions (e.g., disbarment for theft) and clear waiting periods for readmission applications allow lawyers, the Bar, and the public to anticipate likely outcomes.
  • Predictable procedure fosters settlement and early resolution in disciplinary matters.

B. Balancing Flexibility and Protection in Procedure

Two procedural amendments—time-limit waivers and grievance committee voting—show a deliberate balance between flexibility and systemic integrity:

• Time-limit waivers (rule 3‑7.2(l)):
  • Flexibility: Respondents can adjust procedural timelines to accommodate related criminal matters, complex investigations, or other realities.
  • Protection against abuse: Requiring written or on-the-record waivers, subject to referee or Court approval, guards against unrecorded or coerced waivers and preserves appellate review.
• Grievance committee voting (rule 3‑7.4(g)(3)):
  • Efficiency: All committee actions can proceed based on a majority of those present, preventing abstentions from stalling the process.
  • Legitimacy: Recording vote counts and allowing minority reports ensure that decisions remain transparent and subject to higher-level review when appropriate.
  • Fairness: Barring investigating members from voting helps maintain impartiality and avoids the appearance that investigators are also adjudicators.

C. Protection of the Public and the Integrity of the Profession

Consistently with longstanding Florida doctrine, the overarching rationale for these amendments is protection of:

• The public;
• The courts; and
• The integrity of the legal profession.

The particularly strong stance on:

• Trust account theft, and
• Irrevocable sanctions (permanent disbarment and revocation without leave)

reflects the Court’s view that certain forms of misconduct strike at the heart of the fiduciary relationship between lawyers and clients and are incompatible with future licensure.

VII. Complex Concepts Simplified

For non-specialists, several of the rules and terms can be opaque. The following simplifications may help.

A. The Disciplinary Ladder: From Admonishment to Disbarment

• Admonishment:
  • The lightest sanction, used only for “minor misconduct.”
  • It is essentially a formal warning, but it is part of the lawyer’s disciplinary record.
• Probation:
  • The lawyer remains authorized to practice but under specified conditions and monitoring (e.g., supervision, reporting requirements, treatment programs).
• Public reprimand:
  • A formal, public censure, typically published and possibly administered in open court.
• Suspension:
  • The lawyer is temporarily barred from practicing law for a set period.
  • Short suspensions (≤90 days) end automatically; longer ones require proof that the lawyer is rehabilitated and, in some cases, retaking the Bar exam.
• Disbarment:
  • The lawyer’s license is revoked.
  • Ordinarily, the lawyer may apply for readmission only after at least 5 years and after satisfying all conditions (such as restitution and costs).
• Permanent disbarment:
  • A special form of disbarment where the lawyer is never permitted to apply for readmission.
• Disciplinary revocation:
  • Functionally equivalent to disbarment, but typically initiated by the lawyer’s petition to surrender the license in lieu of defending charges.
  • It may be granted with or without leave to apply for readmission in the future.
  • When granted “without leave,” it has the same finality as permanent disbarment.

B. “Minor Misconduct”

“Minor misconduct” is a narrow category reserved for low-level violations that:

• Do not involve dishonesty, serious harm, or major rights-impairing consequences; and
• Are not similar to recent past misconduct for which discipline was imposed.

If the conduct involves misappropriating client funds, lying, felony conduct, or repeated similar violations, it will almost never be “minor.”

C. “Permanent Disbarment” and “Without Leave to Apply”

The amendments make it straightforward:

• Permanent disbarment = the lawyer can never seek readmission.
• Disciplinary revocation without leave to apply for readmission = same effect; the lawyer can never seek readmission.

These sanctions are reserved for the most serious misconduct—often involving major dishonesty, abuse of fiduciary duties, or repeated, egregious violations.

D. “Emergency Suspension” and “Interim Probation”

• Emergency suspension:
  • A temporary immediate suspension when a lawyer’s continued practice poses substantial threat of harm to clients or the public.
  • Imposed before the full disciplinary process runs its course, to protect the public.
• Interim probation:
  • A temporary set of conditions placed on a lawyer’s practice (e.g., monitoring, restrictions) as an emergency measure while the disciplinary case proceeds.

E. Grievance Committees and “Probable Cause”

Grievance committees are local bodies composed of lawyers and nonlawyers who:

• Investigate complaints against lawyers; and
• Decide whether there is “probable cause” to believe that the lawyer has violated disciplinary rules.

“Probable cause” is a relatively low threshold: it means there is enough evidence to justify moving forward with formal charges before a referee, but it is not a determination of guilt.

VIII. Likely Impact on Future Cases and the Law of Lawyer Discipline

A. Readmission and the Use of Permanent Sanctions

The clearest impact of the amendments is in the area of readmission applications:

• Individuals who have been permanently disbarred or whose disciplinary revocation was granted without leave to apply now face an absolute regulatory bar to any future readmission effort.
• The Bar can summarily reject any such applications as procedurally improper.

For future cases, counsel and respondents will need to approach negotiations over possible “without leave” language with particular care, understanding that such language extinguishes all future opportunities to return to practice in Florida.

B. Strategic Use of Disciplinary Revocation

Because disciplinary revocation is formally equated with disbarment and its timing rules are now clearly stated, respondents may:

• Be more likely to use revocation to avoid the cost and publicity of a contested proceeding in very serious cases; but
• Be more cautious entering into revocation agreements that include the phrase “without leave to apply for readmission,” given the finality now codified in rule 3‑5.1(g).

The Bar and the Court may, in response, reserve “without leave” more explicitly for the most extreme cases, relying on ordinary disbarment or revocation (with leave after a long period) for others.

C. Grievance Committee Practice and Case Flow

Requiring a majority vote for all grievance committee actions will likely:

• Reduce procedural stalemates where abstentions prevented formal action;
• Encourage active participation and accountability among voting members; and
• Support more consistent record-keeping (given the requirement to record vote counts).

In practical terms, this amendment should streamline the “front end” of the disciplinary process and produce more reliable data about how committees function.

D. Time Limit Waivers and Coordination with Criminal Proceedings

Allowing oral-on-the-record waivers under rule 3‑7.2(l) will:

• Permit more efficient handling of scheduling and case-management issues in matters involving criminal convictions or judicial removal;
• Facilitate coordination between criminal defense strategies and disciplinary defense strategies; and
• Reduce unnecessary written filings where the parties and referee can address timing at a hearing.

At the same time, explicit approval requirements and the on-the-record requirement preserve fairness and a clear audit trail.

E. Reinforcing Deterrence for Financial Misconduct

By integrating the presumption of disbarment for theft within the reorganized text and reinforcing the finality of permanent sanctions, the rules send a strong signal:

• Misappropriation of client or fiduciary funds is nearly certain to end a lawyer’s career in Florida.

This clarity is intended both to deter such misconduct and to reaffirm to the public that the legal system takes financial breaches of trust with utmost seriousness.

IX. Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Florida’s decision in In re: Amendments to Rules Regulating The Florida Bar – Chapter 3 refines, but does not radically alter, the architecture of Florida’s lawyer disciplinary system. Its principal contributions lie in:

• Codifying the finality of:
  • Permanent disbarment, and
  • Disciplinary revocation granted without leave to apply for readmission,
  thereby foreclosing any future attempts at readmission by those subject to such sanctions.
• Aligning terminology related to emergency suspension and interim probation, reducing ambiguity.
• Enhancing procedural flexibility through waivers of time limits in rule 3‑7.2, while preserving formal safeguards.
• Strengthening the operational efficiency and legitimacy of grievance committees by requiring majority votes for all actions and clarifying voting procedures.

Together, these amendments increase clarity, predictability, and efficiency in the disciplinary process, while reaffirming core normative commitments: protection of the public, maintenance of the integrity of the Bar, and particularly stern treatment of financial dishonesty and egregious misconduct. As of February 16, 2026, these rules will govern all new and pending disciplinary matters to which they apply, shaping the landscape of Florida lawyer discipline for years to come.