Attached is a Public Notice announcing a Magistrate Judge vacancy for the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, in the Ocala Division. Ocala Full Public Notice – 2012
Members, please note that the Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission is accepting applications for district judge until January 18, 2012. You can find the announcement and more information about the application process by going to the MDFL website, http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov, and then clicking on “Florida Federal Judicial Nominating Commission” in the lower right hand corner.
The new Federal Rules went into effect December 2011. They can be accessed here: http://dojnet.doj.gov/usao/eousa/ole/usabook/rules.htm
Changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mostly relate to technology matters like electronic warrants and appearance by video.
The Federal Rules of Evidence have been thoroughly revised to make them easier to read, but no substantive changes are intended.
There are two small changes to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that clarify deadlines. Rule 4 (clarifies 60-day appeal deadline in cases where U.S., federal agency, or federal employee is a party) and Rule 40 (clarifies 45-day rehearing deadline in cases where U.S., federal agency, or federal employees is a party).
Administrative Office of the Courts Calls for Comment on Proposed Court Rule Changes
At this link is a brochure describing the comment process and a summary of proposed rule changes:
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/Publication%20Aug%202011/Brochure.pdf
Written or electronic comments must be received by the Secretary to the Standing Committee by February 15, 2012. Comments may be sent electronically to rules_comments@ao.uscourts.gov or by mail to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, D.C. 20544. The proposed effective date is December 1, 2013.
The following changes in bankruptcy rules are proposed:
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure
Bankruptcy Rule 1007 — relieves individual debtors of the obligation to file Official Form 23 if the provider of a personal financial management course notifies the court that the debtor has completed the course.
Bankruptcy Rule 3007 — allows the use of a negative-notice procedure for claim objections and clarifies the manner for serving them.
Bankruptcy Rule 5009 — reflects the amendment to Bankruptcy Rule 1007 by providing that the Clerk of Court is not required to send notice to a debtor if a course provider has already provided notice that the debtor completed a personal financial management course.
Bankruptcy Rule 9006 — makes various changes to draw attention to the fact that the rule prescribes default deadlines for serving motions and written responses; and applies deadlines to any written response to a motion.
Bankruptcy Rules 9013 and 9014 — conform to the amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 9006.
Official Form 6C — reflects the Supreme Court’s decision in Schwab v. Reilly by permitting the debtor to state the value of the claimed exemption as the “full fair market value of the exempted property.”
Official Form 7 — makes the definition of “insider” consistent with the definition in the Bankruptcy Code.
Official Forms 22A and 22C — align the allowable deduction for telecommunication expenses with the IRS list of
Other Necessary Expenses; also amends Form 22C to conform to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamilton v. Lanning, by directing an above-median-income Chapter 13 debtor to list any changes in the reported income and expenses that have already occurred or are virtually certain to occur during the 12 months following the filing of the petition.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida is pleased to announce the availability of WiFi Internet service for the convenience of the lawyers who practice before the Court. The service is now available in the Orlando and Tampa Courthouses, and installation in remaining Courthouses is planned. The cost of the WiFi installation, equipment and on-going service is funded by the lawyers practicing in the Middle District of Florida through the Bench Bar Fund.
Attached is the Order entered by Chief Judge Conway regarding the availability of WiFi Internet service. It is, of course, up to each Judge whether to allow attorneys to use WiFi in that Judge’s courtroom.
Attorneys still need an Order to bring computer equipment into the Courthouse. If the presiding Judge allows internet use, the Courtroom Deputy will furnish the password and a copy of the attached administrative Order.
The Florida Bar Trial Lawyers’ Section is pleased to announce its annual summit on January 25 to 28 at the JW Marriott in Orlando, offering 18 CLE hours. For more information, please click here: Summit
Since 2006, the MDFL has supported a civil pro bono program. Since then, over 50 lawyers from around Jacksonville have offered to give their services and time to pro se litigants. Those lawyers run the gamut; from our area’s well-known legal giants to our young practitioners just starting their profession.
The program is a win-win for all. Worthy litigants get the help they need, while generous lawyers contribute their expertise and gain valuable federal court experience. The program is particularly good for young lawyers who might get opportunities for oral arguments, mediations, and even trials that they otherwise would not get to do until they are partners.
Here’s how the program works. When a District or Magistrate Judge identifies a case with a pro se plaintiff or defendant, where that party’s position appears to have arguable merit or otherwise deserves a lawyer’s attention, the Judge will contact Shannon Shoulders, the head of the Jacksonville Division’s Clerk’s Office, who acts as the coordinator of the panel list. The judge will inform Ms. Shoulders that a lawyer is needed for the particular case. Once Ms. Shoulders identifies the next name on the list, she will contact the lawyer and inform him or her that the judge wishes to order an appointment. Ms. Shoulders will provide the lawyer with the names of the parties to the case and the case number so that the lawyer can run a conflicts check before an order of appointment issues.
At that point, if, for some valid reason, such as a conflict, the lawyer is unable to undertake the representation, the lawyer should inform Ms. Shoulders, who will simply contact the next lawyer on the list. If a lawyer is forced to forgo representation when called upon, that lawyer will simply be contacted when the next appointment is due. The goal is that participating lawyers turning down representation is a rare occurrence.
Once the lawyer agrees to undertake representation, the judge will enter an appropriate order effectuating the appointment. The procedure and protocol for cost reimbursement is available on the court’s website, www.flmd.uscourts.gov. The allowable costs will be paid from the Bench Bar Fund.
The judges cannot guarantee that all appointments will be in a participant’s practice area. It is the judges’ view, however, that the Jacksonville lawyers who participate are talented enough to transcend different practice areas and, without a doubt, will perform better than the litigant left without a lawyer.
If you have additional questions about the program or are ready to add your name to the list, please call Ed Birk with Marks Gray at (904) 398-0900. We hope that you will join the other lawyers on this list. The Jacksonville Chapter of the FBA and the Judges of the MDFL greatly appreciate your consideration.
John M. Fitzgibbons has announced the four finalists for our vacant U.S. District Judge position in the MDFL. They are Sheri Polster Chappell, Brian J. Davis, Elizabeth A. Jenkins, C. Alan Lawson. Our own Judge Monte Richardson is a finalist for the vacancy in the NDFL.
Revisions to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Eleventh Circuit Rules took effect on August 1, 2012. You can view them on the Eleventh Circuit’s website by clicking here. Revisions include:
(1) give capital case panels flexibility in whether or not to hear oral argument. 11th Cir. R. 22-4(a) and (b), and IOP 2 following 11th Cir. R. 22-4;
(2) require that the jurisdictional statement in a brief contain all information required by FRAP 28(a)(4). 11th Cir. R. 28-1(g); and
(3) require the inclusion of state court opinions and orders in record excerpts filed in state habeas corpus appeals. 11th Cir. R. 30-1(g).
Bryan Garner’s interviews with the Supreme Court Justices on writing and oral argument tips is now available in written form. Click here to view the document.
