Derailing the 'mommy track': rule would create special continuances for maternity and paternity leave.

On the trial's third day, the prosecutor was hospitalized for complications in her eighth month of pregnancy. The judge told her to find a substitute. When she explained no one else was familiar enough with the case to step in, the judge threatened to dismiss the case. The prosecutor ended up leaving the hospital against doctor's orders so she could finish the trial.

Another lawyer, five months pregnant and obviously showing, filed a motion to move up the trial date or continue it, as it fell during the period she would be taking maternity leave. Even though opposing counsel did not object, the judge insisted she get a letter from her obstetrician confirming her pregnancy and attesting that she would be on maternity leave until the date she stated in her motion. The lawyer called it a "humiliating experience."

During pretrial motions, a lawyer let the judge know that his wife was about to give birth. He didn't ask for a continuance, but wanted to witness his first child's birth. The judge responded it was not his problem. His wife labored for hours without his support, and the lawyer raced to the hospital just in time to see the doctor deliver the baby. The lawyer went back to trial the next day, because his absence would have been detrimental to his client.

Those anecdotes from Florida lawyers were gathered by The Florida Bar Special Committee on Parental Leave in Court Actions, as members grappled with whether there needs to be a new proposed rule on continuances specifically for parental leave. While members of the Rules of Judicial Administration Committee supported the concept of family leave, they opposed a new rule. Members of the Diversity and Inclusion Committee declared their support for a new rule.

After lively debate January 27, at the Bar's Winter Meeting in Orlando, the special committee--made up of half and half RJA and D&I members--voted 5 to 4 to recommend that draft Rule 2.570 Parental Leave should be added to the Rules of Judicial Administration by the Florida Supreme Court.

Chair Robert Eschenfelder, who voted against the new rule, said the committee's report will be presented at the next Board of Governors meeting on March 24, where it will be decided whether to send it up to the Florida Supreme Court.

"The president [Bill Schifino] wanted to make sure there was a balanced viewpoint. RJA voted twice strongly not to. Diversity and Inclusion voted strongly to. And he was also being lobbied by the Young Lawyers Division and so forth," Eschenfelder said after the meeting. "Before he took a final position to take to the Board of Governors, he wanted more of an analysis, frankly. Because RJA simply said, 'No, no,' and there was no...