Controlling Jurisdiction and the Duty to Disclose Adverse Authority: Florida’s District Courts of Appeal Reign Supreme on Matters of First Impression

Lawyers in Florida have a duty to be honest with the court and tell them about any previous cases that could affect the current case. Even if a case comes from a different part of the state, it still counts as important precedent for the whole state. It’s important for lawyers to be professional and ethical by being honest about cases that might not help their client’s case. In Florida, the court system follows a hierarchy of authority where trial courts must follow decisions from higher courts, like the district courts of appeal. This means that lawyers may need to cite cases from other district courts in their arguments. It’s also the lawyer’s ethical duty to disclose any legal authority that goes against their client’s position, even if it’s from a different district court. This rule applies on appeal, and could also include authority from the Florida Supreme Court. In Florida, lawyers have a duty to disclose district court opinions, even if they are not from the same district as the court they are presenting in. This is because the Florida Supreme Court has emphasized the need for attorney honesty and candor. This means that lawyers should not try to narrowly interpret the rule about citing district court opinions. Instead, they should disclose any relevant district court rulings. This is important because the Florida Supreme Court does not review every case, so lower courts should follow the decisions of the district courts. Florida has a different way of handling legal theories compared to the federal system. In Florida, appellate court decisions carry more weight and have to be followed by lower courts, while in the federal system, courts can make different interpretations of the law. This means that in Florida, lawyers have to follow the decisions of higher courts, which can make things more efficient, but it also means there is less room for different legal interpretations to develop. In legal cases, it’s becoming more important for lawyers to intervene, or get involved, in new situations that could affect their clients. But it might be hard for them to do this because they’re not from the same area as the case. So, they’ll have to ask the judge to let them join the case, and it’s up to the judge to decide if they can or not. Per curiam affirmed opinions (PCA) can cause problems and make it hard to find solutions to legal issues. They’re supposed to be used when the facts and law are already well established, but some people question if they should be used in new or important cases. The “Pardo principle” says that it’s important for lawyers to ask for a written opinion from the court instead of just getting a PCA, because a written opinion creates a rule that other courts have to follow, while a PCA doesn’t. But sometimes, different district courts will issue conflicting opinions, and it can be frustrating when a court issues a PCA that seems to go against a written opinion from another court. But in the end, the written opinion from the original court is still the one that matters, even if it seems less important because of conflicting PCAs. The meaning of “controlling jurisdiction” in Florida’s district courts of appeal is different from federal courts. A ruling from any district appeals court in a case of first impression is binding precedent for all lower trial courts statewide. This means lawyers must disclose adverse legal authority from other districts, and may increase the incentives for lawyers to intervene in cases outside their own district. Appellate judges should be careful in using per curiam affirmed opinions and dissents in these cases. Simply put, when a court has made a decision on a legal issue, other courts in the same state have to follow that decision. This helps ensure that the law is applied consistently throughout the state. Lawyers also have a duty to be honest with the court and tell the judge about any legal rules that might go against their client’s position. This is important for upholding the fairness and accuracy of the legal system. The Florida Supreme Court has rules about how cases are handled, including when other people can get involved and submit their own opinions. Sometimes the court makes decisions without giving detailed reasons, and those decisions don’t set a precedent for future cases. This has been a topic of debate and there have been suggestions for alternative ways to handle these kinds of cases. This report discusses issues with Per Curiam Affirmed Decisions (PCA) in the Florida legal system. Some lawyers and judges are concerned that PCAs can seem arbitrary and unfair. The column is written by Keith W. Rizzardi, a law professor, and lawyer. “To teach members about their responsibilities to the public, make the legal system better, and improve the study of law.”

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/controlling-jurisdiction-and-the-duty-to-disclose-adverse-authority-floridas-district-courts-of-appeal-reign-supreme-on-matters-of-first-impression/