Bar opposes amendment 3: helps fund effort to defeat the measure.

The Florida Bar has gone on record as opposing a proposed constitutional amendment on the November 2 ballot that would limit contingency fees in medical malpractice cases and possibly other tort matters. The board also approved donating $100,000 to the campaign to defeat the amendment and learned that another $100,000 will be given from the Florida Lawyers Association for the Maintenance of Excellence.

The issue also provoked an extensive debate at the board's October 15 meeting on whether the Bar should become involved in the profusion of constitutional amendments recently placed on the statewide ballot by initiative petitions which many see as inappropriate for the state's governing charter.

In the end, the board decided to limit its action to the contingency fee amendment because of the nearness of the election, but many members said they want to explore the amendment process matter further.

The proposed amendment--backed by the Florida Medical Association--would limit contingency fees to 30 percent of the first $250,000 awarded in a malpractice case and to 10 percent above that amount. Some opponents of the measure claim it may affect other tort actions as well, in that "medical liability claim" has not been clearly defined in the law.

Bar President Kelly Overstreet Johnson said part of the reason for the last-minute action on the proposal, known as Amendment 3, was that she thought the issue did not fall within the relatively narrow areas where the Bar can lobby. But she said after she was asked to have the Bar consider it, she got a legal opinion that the Bar could act on it and she referred the matter to the Legislation Committee.

Legislation Committee Chair Sharon Langer said both Bar Legislative Counsel Steve Metz and Bar General Counsel Paul Hill advised the committee that the Bar could act on the amendment. Tallahassee attorney Barry Richard, who also advises the Bar on legal matters, similarly agreed.

The committee then voted to recommend to the board that the Bar oppose the amendment because it restricts access to the courts and limits a client's rights to enter into contracts.

Board member Hal Melville said the amendment strikes at basic legal rights. "I think access to the courts is one of the most fundamental concepts in our legal system," he said. "Amendment 3 would destroy that for virtually every malpractice action."

The board unanimously passed the two-part motion necessary to adopt the position, first finding it within...