Florida Lawyers Face Off Over Bid to Afford 3 Months' Continuance for Parental Leave in Litigation
Both sides agreed something should be done about continuances for parental leave, but the consensus ended there.
August 27, 2019 at 02:29 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday from supporters and opponents of a proposed rule that would create a presumption allowing three-month continuances for male or female lead counsel in a case if they're expecting a baby or new child—unless the other party can show substantial prejudice.
Both sides agreed something should be done about parental leave, but the consensus ended there.
Supporters claimed the rule will curb a systematic, statewide problem with denial and opposition of continuances. But critics said it's too vague and takes discretion from trial judges.
'Not in this way'
Eduardo Sanchez, past chair of the Rules of Judicial Administration in Miami, argued that continuances shouldn't be automatic as some attorneys with a parental leave conflict arrive late in a case when trial has been set. He also noted the rule doesn't properly explain what "substantial prejudice" is.
Orlando solo practitioner Theodore Green opposed how the rule would shift the burden to the other party who'd have to show why a continuance shouldn't be granted. He estimated about 98% of judges already make the right call.
"For that 2%, we're adopting a rule that would hamstring the other 98% from using their discretion," Green said.
Justice Ricky Polston found credence in that point.
"It seems like this rule anticipates that a judge is going to do the wrong thing, and it tries to keep a judge from doing the wrong thing, expecting that," Polston said.
Green argued the issue should be addressed, but "not in this way."
"To be clear, I don't oppose pregnancy or parental leave being a factor in someone getting a continuance of a case," Green said. "I think a continuance ought to be based on the cumulative factors on both sides."
Systematic bias?
Supporting the rule, Susan Warner of the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee clarified that clients would have to consent to a continuance, which she said provides clarity for judges and protects clients by affording them "the right to have their attorney, who's invested in the case, who's prepared and knows it, represent them in court."
According to Jennifer Richardson of the Florida Association of Women Lawyers, clients seeking trial often settle out of court when their attorney is denied a continuance. Richardson argued the advancement of women as professionals is directly implicated by the rule, as they might have to pass a case on if denied a continuance.
Justice Barbara Lagoa asked a lot of questions, particularly about why parental leave had to be a stand-alone issue.
"Why should it not just be an emergency family situation?" Lagoa said, pointing to attorneys who've been denied continuances when they or their spouses were undergoing cancer treatment.
Lara Bach said her constituents at the Young Lawyers Division of the Florida Bar have problems obtaining continuances for parental leave and cited one example of a lawyer who was scheduled in court the same day as her cesarean section. Though the rule will apply to both men and women, Bach said gender bias has long plagued her profession.
"Women are not that often lead counsel," Bach said. "We are underrepresented in firm partners, as well as judges, and this rule could have a significant impact on that. Because right now, they're being treated as though they can be sidelined in cases, and marginalized, and simply replaced and assigned with a new attorney."
K&L Gates' Miami office hosted a watching party for the oral arguments, inviting all staff and their friends. One attendee, K&L Gates partner April Boyer, said Bach's comments drew cheers.
"That line of questioning, people got pretty excited about," Boyer said. "This isn't to suggest that there shouldn't be leave for other medical emergencies, for other personal emergencies, but I thought they were hiding behind cancer and deaths of family members and things like that to avoid a problem that very much exists."
Boyer served as partner and lead trial attorney in cases while pregnant and said she noticed courts tend to treat medical and family emergencies differently to parental leave.
The parties also disagreed over whether the rule should allow continuances for "a lead attorney," as it's written, or "the lead attorney," and Justice Carlos Muniz asked Warner whether she'd consider changing it. Her answer? "No."
"Already, we've seen in some of the more recent oppositions to continuances that parties or other attorneys will use that to try to diminish a woman—particularly this happens to women—their role in a case," Warner said.
Compromise?
The court is yet to rule, but a compromise might be in the cards. Justice Alan Lawson floated the idea of a sunset provision, introducing the rule temporarily and addressing any problems with it later.
Florida Bar President John Stewart commended that idea, stressing that there wasn't time to wait for a perfect proposal. This rule, Stewart argued, would advance the bar's missions in promoting diversity, health and mental wellness, meaning lawyers could better serve clients.
"Sometimes perfection is the death of progress, and we need progress in this arena," Stewart said.
Lagoa instead suggested an appellate rule change, requiring courts to give specific grounds for denying a continuance. That way, she reasoned, there would be statistics on who is denying them and why.
But appealing would take time and money that not all clients have, Boyer of K&L Gates highlighted.
She said parents shouldn't have to choose between bonding with their child and trying a case: "I would hope that [the justices] follow the ABA's suggestion and movements around the country, and recognize that some clear guidelines on parental leave are needed if we are going to live in a world in which we want men and women to be able to compete legally in the courtroom and be lead lawyers."
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawsuit Against Major Food Brands Could Be Sign of Emerging Litigation Over Processed Foods
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Face Reassignment, Rescinded Job Offers in First Days of Trump Administration
4 minute readLaw Firm Sued for $35 Million Over Alleged Role in Acquisition Deal Collapse
3 minute read4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250