There is a reasonable volume of Notices of Disclosure hitting our inboxes. The intent is for information, and there is some likelihood that they have relevance in some proceedings. The Florida Bar likely perceived that in recommending disclosure rules, as did the Supreme Court in adopting them. That said, some efficiencies might be considered in any event.
Most of the Notice of Disclosures filed cite the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, specifically Rule 4-7.10(g)(3). They note that the law firm, Name, Name, & Name, is part of XYZ Corporation and that all lawyers at that firm are employees of XYZ Corporation. It is a reasonably perfunctory requirement. The one flaw is that there is no Rule 4-7.10(g)(3). There has not been for over a decade:
On the one hand, it is laudable when attorneys file pleadings that cite authority. Any motion, trial memorandum, or other request for relief will always be more powerful and persuasive if it includes citations to authority. The premise is a sound practice and should be encouraged. But when you cite authority, it is always a good idea to make sure it is updated.
Forms are convenient.
Copying your last argument is a normal legal practice.
Failing to update your authority is lazy, unfortunate, and potentially fatal.
There is no rocket surgery involved. The Florida Bar publishes these rules. The image above was readily cut from the rules. It substantiates that for almost a dozen years, there has been no Rule 4-7.10.
A simple Google search for the case number (SC11-1327) brings one immediately to the Supreme Court Order. The Court clearly "delete(d) all rules in existing Subchapter 4-7 of the Rules Regulating the (sic) Florida Bar."
The new rule was numbered 4-7.21 (Firm Names and Letterhead). The applicable portion remains (g)(3) in this context. That is the subpart lawyers erroneously cite using the old reference "7.10(g)(3)." The subparagraph requires:
"(3) the name of the insurer and the employment relationship must be disclosed to all insured clients and prospective clients of the lawyers, and must be disclosed in the official file at the lawyers’ first appearance in the tribunal in which the lawyers appear under such name;"
The intent is reasonably clear, that the "clients and prospective clients" need to know about relationships. Thus, disclosure of the fact that lawyers are employees of XYZ Corp. despite the letterhead and firm name being Name, Name, & Name makes sense.
There is also logic in the requirement that the relationship "must be disclosed in the official file." There is the potential that a "court" might need or benefit from this information. There is also the potential that a relationship between XYZ Corp. and Name, Name, & Name might present complexities in a jury environment where mention of insurance could be problematic.
But that is where the logic of the Notice of Disclosure stalls in the workers' compensation practice. There are no juries here. In workers' compensation, everyone knows that there are insurance companies; says so in the statute. The name of the carrier or servicing agent is in the style of every proceeding and is repeated in virtually every filing. The existence of a carrier in each case is no mystery.
The relationship between XYZ Corp. and Name, Name, & Name might not be so clear in any litigation including a workers' compensation case. Thus, the "appearance in the tribunal" makes sense. This Office is not a "court," it is a "tribunal." See Candor, Quarts, and Consistency (January 2025).
So, Name, Name, & Name are notifying this tribunal as required by rule.
The incredibly illogical point, beyond the lazy references to non-existent rules, is the filing of a "Notice of Disclosure" separately. The Chapter 60Q-6 Rules of Procedure for Workers' Compensation Adjudications require the filing of a Notice of Appearance. There is no prohibition regarding what that Notice can include.
Point in fact: you may include your Aunt Gertude's recipe for sponge cake in your Notice of Appearance if you wish (I am not recommending it). And, in that logic path, the required notification of the relationship between XYZ Corp. and Name, Name, & Name may be included in the Notice of Appearance. You may make it a separate paragraph with a heading in bold if you wish to highlight it.
There is nothing in the procedural rules to preclude that. There is nothing in 4-7.21(g)(3) that precludes that. Intriguingly, some lawyers do include their disclosure in the Notice of Appearance. Some find this efficient and effective (it is both). But, some who include this in the Notice of Appearance nonetheless file a separate, redundant, and duplicative Notice of Disclosure that says the exact same thing.
Redundant and duplicative are irrelevant and unnecessary.
Rule 60Q6.108(1) is reasonably clear "Duplicate filings will not be docketed and will be destroyed."
This makes sense if the filings had duplicate titles. Filing two "Notices of Appearance" would be inappropriate and unnecessary. Some might find it laughable. Filing the same information in two documents is no more appropriate because the title of one is "Notice of Appearance" and the other is "Notice of Disclosure." In either event, there is duplication and redundancy. In either, there is illogic and waste.
There are key points to this post.
First, there is no reason to file a Notice of Disclosure. Include any necessary disclosure in the Notice of Appearance.
Second, forms and pasting are dangerous. Any citation of authority may require updating. Statutes change, rules change, and decisional law is overruled and distinguished. Failing to notice such a change for a dozen years is not complimentary or effective.
