MEMORANDUM
To: Senior Partner
From: Associate
Date: September 30, 2018
RE: Florida Oil Disaster
The purpose for this legal memorandum is to address the issues we have been presented with at this time, based on the fact pattern. We also have provided solutions to the respective listed issues, all set forth herein after this paragraph.
I. The first issue here is whether the bill proposed to legislation ever went through the proper constitutional process and became an official law.
In Florida, and under the authority of the Florida State Constitution, any law that is introduced into legislation may only be permitted to address one single subject, and further the singular selected subject must be included in the title of the proposed law. The proposed law must be according to the constitution, must have clear and concise language, must not be arbitrary or vague and its purpose must reasonably relate to the welfare of the public within the state it is to be proposed in. Furthermore, if the proposed law involves taxing and appropriations, the proposed law must be read not less than three (3) separate days in each respective house for it to properly be ruled an effective law.
Here, the bill which is being proposed by Polk County Florida Representative facially addresses two issues; mainly medical malpractice lawsuits, and separately applying an ad valorem tax on motor vehicles throughout the state. Initially, this bill is in violation of the singular subject rule, although the name of the bill conforms with the latter portion of the above stated FL Constitutional. Furthermore, the law being introduced must be constitutional, must have clear and concise language, must not be arbitrary or vague and its purpose must reasonably relate to the welfare of the public within the state it is to be proposed in. The bill only works to include the entirety of Polk County, which again is in violation of the FL Constitutional requirements. The public welfare point is arguably addressed, however the fact that just Polk County residents would see an increase in public welfare certainly does not afford the entirety of the state such, and therefore it would violate that requirements of the FL Constitution. The fact that the bill in question properly satisfies the special legislative section for fulfillment of brining the bill in the respective houses, is immaterial. However, the bill was improperly brought through the procedure, and the bill cannot be passed.
The proposed bill by Polk County Florida Representative will be considered invalid, due to the violation of the FL Constitution which may only be permitted to address one single subject, and further the singular selected subject must be included in the title of the proposed law. The Bill was improperly read by title on three separate occasions, and due to all of the above factors, the proposed bill cannot be enacted as law.
II. The next issue is whether the special legislative session was called for properly.
In Florida, and under the authority of the Florida State Constitution, A governor may call a special legislative session by proclaiming so, and by stating the purpose of the session during which no other business may be conducted without at least a 2/3 vote. This subject session may not exceed 20 days of review, unless it is extended by obtaining 3/5’s of both houses vote’s.
Here, the Governor was within his power to call a special legislative session, and while the proclamation was done in proper fashion, the satisfaction of the title reading requirement also was properly executed. Additionally, the time period was not exceeded.
Therefore, the Florida Governor called the special legislative session properly.
III. Next, the issue is whether the provisions included in the bill, and the bill itself, and deemed constitutional under the Florida Constitution.
In Florida, and under the authority of the Florida State Constitution, any special law which apply to a specific person or group of people, a specific place or group of places, must give notice to respective subjects included within the special law provisions. Regarding the laws that pertain to these specialized subject matter, the FL Constitution requires uniformity and consistency. In addition, the FL Constitution requires statewide conformity with the uniformity and consistency on certain important subjects that include a taxation of the State, County and Public.
This subject bill, being introduced by FL Representative Polk, is a law that affects both a specific group of people, as well as a particular place, again focusing on just Polk County. The Fact pattern does not mention any notice that was conveyed to the involved parties, and notice is a requirement in making the bill constitutional. Additionally, the bill does not seem to run parallel with the Florida Constitution requirement of uniformity and consistency. Here, the bill looks to add an ad valorem tax on every vehicle registered in and through Polk County, translating a rise in the state of Florida’s general revenue. This effect cannot exist merely for the purpose of the state.
Within the provisions of the proposed bill, the one which imposes a $1 million bond to file a medical malpractice suit is violative of the Florida Constitution Due Process provisions, and access to courts. To impose such a requirement for an individual to bring forth a suit is unconscionable. This law would promote improper bringing forth of suits, which would effectively decay the validity of the justice system. If the bond is treated like a filing fee, a much more reasonable number would have to be introduced to justify the additional burden on an already assumed burdened plaintiff.
This leads to the conclusion that the bill’s provisions, and more so the bill itself are all unconstitutional as it stands. There is no notice given or approved to give to the specific people of places this bill sets out to effect. The bill is also not deemed constitutional under the Florida Constitution due to its failure to meet the uniformity and consistency requirements.
IV. The final issue to be discussed is whether there are any ethical issues arising from Plaintiff’s efforts to seek representation in this situation.
The contingency fee arrangement is likely problematic under the Florida Rules of
Professional Conduct. Contingency fee arrangements are permissible in most civil litigation, with the exception of domestic relations cases such as child support, divorce, etc. Contingency arrangements are required to be in writing, must be signed by the client, and must lay out how the fee will be calculated. The client is also entitled to a final calculation in writing at the end of representation. However, contingency arrangement are also subject to the general rules regarding the reasonableness of fees. A lawyer cannot charge an unreasonable fee. Factors that contribute to whether a fee is reasonable or not include the lawyer's education and experience, the amount of time spent on the case, and the complexity of the issues. A lawyer who attempts to retain 50% of the recovery in a case is likely not a reasonable fee. This contingency fee arrangement would not likely be valid.