Stephens & Stevens Marital & Family Law

No. SC2025-1347 (Fla. Mar. 19, 2026)

The Florida Supreme Court adopted a series of targeted amendments to the Bar’s Professionalism Expectations. This is not a wholesale rewrite. It is a tightening-and-clarifying opinion that makes several expectations more practical, more objective, and more enforceable in real litigation settings. The amendments become effective May 18, 2026, at 12:01 a.m.

What changed in substance:
The Court approved the Bar’s proposal without opposition and made several notable revisions. First, the concept that lawyers should avoid charging unnecessary expenses to the client was pulled out of Expectation 1.9 and made its own standalone Expectation 1.14, signaling that unnecessary client expense is now its own professionalism problem, not merely a billing footnote. Second, Expectation 1.11 was narrowed by deleting the phrase “and the client’s best interests” from the statement that counsel must continue diligent representation until the attorney-client relationship is formally dissolved in compliance with law. Third, Expectation 2.4 broadens the timely-service obligation from just “pleadings” to “documents required to be served,” which better tracks actual practice.

Discovery and deposition changes:
This opinion is especially meaningful for litigators. Expectation 3.11 no longer suggests that privilege is the only basis to instruct a deponent not to answer. The Court added two more recognized exceptions: where necessary to enforce a court-imposed limitation on evidence, and where the instruction is made in connection with a motion to terminate or limit the deposition. Likewise, Expectation 4.9 now recognizes that nondisclosure may be based not only on legal privilege but also on a valid legal objection. That is a practical correction that brings the professionalism language closer to how actual discovery objections work.

More objective conduct standards:
Expectation 4.10 was revised to remove the phrase “in an attempt to conceal evidence.” Translation: a lawyer no longer gets to hide behind “that was not my intent” when the discovery response is disorganized, unintelligible, or otherwise inappropriate. The focus shifts from subjective motive to objectively bad conduct. Expectation 4.20 was softened slightly by deleting “criticize or” and leaving the prohibition against denigrating opposing parties, witnesses, or the court to clients, the media, or the public.

Office management and client communication:
Expectation 5.1 now says lawyers should instruct support personnel to abstain from rude, disruptive, and disrespectful behavior, rather than merely encourage them to do so. That is a meaningful elevation of supervisory responsibility. And Expectation 6.10 deletes “and others” from the duty to respond promptly to inquiries and communications, narrowing that expectation back to clients rather than every person orbiting the case.

This opinion is less about aspirational rhetoric and more about practical accountability. The Court did not reinvent professionalism; it refined it, tightened it, and made clear that lawyers will be judged more by what they do than by how they later explain it. For litigators, the message is straightforward: bill fairly, serve promptly, make valid objections, supervise your staff, and conduct discovery in a way that is organized, defensible, and professional. Come May 18, 2026, these are not just good habits—they are the Supreme Court’s updated expectations.