(Image
via
Getty)
Ed.
note:
This
is
the
latest
installment
in
a
series
of
posts
on
motherhood
in
the
legal
profession,
in
partnership
with
our
friends
at MothersEsquire.
Welcome
Jennifer
Feld
and
Alexandra
Paez
to
our
pages.
Click
here
if
you’d
like
to
donate
to
MothersEsquire.
A
small
firm
practitioner
on
hospital
bed
rest
was
thrown
into
panic
after
her
motion
to
continue
a
trial
was
denied
without
hearing.
A
partner
at
a
large
firm
was
asked
by
opposing
counsel
to
relinquish
handling
a
case
—
for
which
she
had
specifically
been
credentialed
—
in
order
to
expedite
a
deposition
during
her
maternity
leave.
In-house
counsel
was
sanctioned
with
attorney’s
fees
on
an
ex
parte
motion
to
compel
late
discovery
responses
due
during
her
properly
noticed
maternity
leave.
Lead
counsel
for
a
major
sports
stadium
group
was
forced
to
file
motions
containing
increasingly
personal
information
after
his
request
for
a
paternity
leave
continuance
was
denied
three
times
and
even
then
only
after
a
widely
publicized
article
criticizing
the
judge’s
ruling.
In
many
other
cases,
COVID-19
administrative
orders
were
issued,
some
denying
requests
for
continuances
without
a
hearing.
Does
The
‘Parental
Leave
Rule’
Carry
Any
Weight
At
All?
I
remember
the
day
clearly,
in
December
2019,
when
I
celebrated
the
ruling
by
the
Florida
Supreme
Court:
the
landmark
adoption
of
Florida
Rule
of
Judicial
Administration
2.570.
Leading
up
to
the
hearing
in
August
2019,
I
had
the
good
fortune
and
privilege
to
participate
in
the
many
hours
of
writing,
gathering
testimonials,
and
preparing
counterarguments
for
the
hearing.
Fla.
R.
Jud.
Admin.
2.570,
affectionately
referred
to
as
the
“Parental
Leave
Rule,”
states
that
the
“court
shall
grant
a
timely
motion
for
continuance”
in
the
absence
of
a
written
finding
by
the
court
that:
“(1)
another
party
would
be
substantially
prejudiced
by
the
requested
continuance;
or
(2)
the
requested
continuance
would
unreasonably
delay
an
emergency
or
time-sensitive
proceeding
or
matter”
(emphasis
added).
Effective
as
of
January
1,
2020,
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
was
a
win.
Unfortunately,
two
and
a
half
months
after
its
implementation,
the
world
shut
down.
Courts
closed,
Zoom
had
its
heyday,
trials
were
continued,
and
attorneys
worked
from
home.
Simply
put,
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
was
never
tested.
Until
now.
In
the
wake
of
the
onslaught
of
COVID-19
administrative
orders,
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
is
finally
being
put
to
the
test.
However,
given
the
aforementioned
anecdotes,
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
appears
to
have
come
up
wanting.
In
May
2021,
the
Florida
Association
for
Women
Lawyers
published
a
statement
regarding
their
concern
regarding
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
in
the
wake
of
the
new
COVID-19
administrative
orders.
“With
so
many
cases
waiting
in
the
wings
to
move
forward,
in
most
circumstances,
a
three-month
continuance
pursuant
to
Rule
2.570
should
not
prejudice
any
one
case
over
the
many
others
that
could
be
scheduled
in
its
place.
Particularly
where
there
is
no
objection
to
the
continuance
by
the
opposing
party,
the
courts
should
not
deprive
a
client
of
its
lead
counsel.
The
adoption
of
Rule
2.570
was
an
important
step
forward
for
gender
equality
in
our
profession.
FAWL
encourages
the
judiciary
to
continue
this
path
forward,
even
under
the
unusual
circumstances
of
these
times.”
FAWL
goes
on
to
suggest
that
a
specific
note
to
the
court
should
be
submitted
along
with
proposed
case
management
orders.
“FAWL
suggests,
upon
agreement
of
the
parties,
that
a
date
up
to
three
months
out
is
proposed
in
the
case
management
report
with
a
note
to
the
court
that
the
date
outside
of
the
time
required
by
the
administrative
order
is
due
to
the
birth
or
adoption
of
a
child
and
that
a
motion
pursuant
to
Rule
2.570
will
be
filed
contemporaneously
with
the
case
management
report.”
Id.
The
problem
is
that
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
specifically
requires
a
motion
and
therefore
a
hearing.
As
many
of
us
in
the
legal
field
know,
timing
is
everything.
I
just
casually
checked
hearing
dates
on
the
local
court
docket
and
found
that
they
are
booking
about
two
to
three
months
out.
I
decided
to
switch
gears
and
look
to
courts
on
Florida’s
east
coast
—
where
I
stumbled
upon
an
article
on
Law.com
called
“Fast
Burn:
Understaffed
South
Florida
Courts
are
Denying
Continuances,
Rocketing
Through
Dockets.”
Seems
like
an
attorney
requesting
a
hearing
would
not
have
much
luck
there
either.
If
a
rule
of
judicial
administration
requires
a
motion
and
hearing,
but
an
administrative
order/case
management
order
dictates
that
those
motions
will
likely
not
be
granted,
which
prevails?
The
authority
to
issue
administrative
orders
is
established
by
Article
V,
section
2(b)
of
the
Florida
Constitution.
The
chief
justice
of
the
Florida
Supreme
Court
has
unilateral
discretion
on
whether
to
recognize
an
emergency
that
justifies
entry
of
“such
order
or
orders
as
may
be
appropriate
to
suspend,
toll,
or
otherwise
grant
relief
from
time
deadlines.”
See
Fla.
R.
Jud.
Admin.
2.205(2)(B)(4),
(5).
According
to
the
most
recent
Supreme
Court
Order
No.
AOSC21-17,
chief
judges
“Must
direct
all
judges
within
their
circuits
to
strictly
comply
with
Florida
Rule
of
General
Practice
and
Judicial
Administration
2.545
(a),
(b),
and
(e),
which
respectively
require
judges
to
conclude
litigation
as
soon
as
it
is
reasonably
and
justly
possible
to
do
so,
to
take
charge
of
all
cases
at
an
early
stage
and
control
the
process
of
the
case
thereafter
until
it
is
determined,
and
to
apply
a
firm
continuance
policy
allowing
continuances
only
for
good
cause
shown.”
Fla.
R.
Jud.
Admin.
2.545(e)
provides
the
general
policy
for
continuances:
“Continuances.
All
judges
shall
apply
a
firm
continuance
policy.
Continuances
should
be
few,
good
cause
should
be
required,
and
all
requests
should
be
heard
and
resolved
by
a
judge.
All
motions
for
continuance
shall
be
in
writing
unless
made
at
a
trial
and,
except
for
good
cause
shown,
shall
be
signed
by
the
party
requesting
the
continuance.
All
motions
for
continuance
in
priority
cases
shall
clearly
identify
such
priority
status
and
explain
what
effect
the
motion
will
have
on
the
progress
of
the
case.”
The
Parental
Leave
Rule
is
the
only
other
mention
of
continuances
in
the
Rules
of
Judicial
Administration.
The
rules
were
amended
in
2019
to
provide
this
special
amendment.
The
effect
of
the
promulgation
and
codification
of
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
is
that
it
presumes
good
cause.
The
trial
courts
are
misinterpreting
the
Supreme
Court’s
emergency
orders.
The
Supreme
Court
in
its
emergency
administrative
orders
provides
guidance
on
general
continuances
under
Rule
2.545
(e),
but
does
NOT
explicitly
limit
good
cause
continuances
under
Rule
2.570.
Again,
parental
leave
is
obviously
a
good
cause
for
a
continuance,
because
the
Supreme
Court
itself
adopted
the
rule.
Without
an
opportunity
for
a
hearing,
and
with
the
courts
stifling
continuances,
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
has
not
even
been
given
a
fighting
chance.
We
encourage
the
courts
to
grant
good
cause
continuances,
as
they
comply
both
with
the
Supreme
Court
Order
No.
AOSC21-17
and
Fla.
R.
Jud.
Admin.
2.570.
It
is
also
the
right
thing
to
do.
Being
a
lawyer
is
a
noble
profession,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
it
is
just
that
—
a
profession.
Welcoming
a
child
into
this
world,
which
likely
only
happens
once
or
twice
in
a
career,
is
a
time
to
be
cherished.
The
toll
that
the
emergency
administrative
order
takes
on
the
mental
health
of
lawyers
who
are
balancing
learning
to
become
a
parent
while
juggling
often
too
many
cases
is
overwhelming.
The
need
to
move
cases
along
is
understandable,
and
I
am
sympathetic
to
judges
who
are
under
pressure
to
keep
their
dockets
moving.
However,
it
should
not
be
done
at
the
expense
of
the
mental
health
and
well-being
of
litigators.
I
do
not
know
of
a
single
litigator
who
is
not
overworked,
overburdened,
stretched
too
thin,
or
stressed
out.
Stress
is
one
of
the
most
significant
challenges
faced
by
Florida
attorneys,
particularly
in
the
post-COVID
practice
environment.
A
story
concerning
mental
illness
suffered
by
a
practicing
Florida
attorney
even
recently
appeared
in
the
national
news.
The
courts
must
not
lose
sight
of
the
fact
that
the
litigators
are
people
too,
with
families
and
children
that
sometimes
require
their
needs
to
be
put
first.
That
is
one
of
many
reasons
why
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
was
created.
That
is
sufficient
good
cause.
There
is
a
sufficient
basis
to
assert
that
courts
denying
continuances
based
on
parental
leave
without
a
hearing
is
in
violation
of
the
Florida
Parental
Leave
Rule,
provided
that
the
aforementioned
criteria
have
been
met.
However,
the
Florida
Supreme
Court
has
not
made
an
explicit
ruling
as
to
this
apparent
conflict.
Until
a
specific
ruling
has
been
made,
it
is
up
to
litigators
to
continue
fighting
for
their
right
to
parental
leave
and
the
trial
courts
to
enforce
Fla.
R.
Jud.
2.570.
In
short,
the
Parental
Leave
Rule
should
prevail
despite
the
COVID-19
administrative
orders,
and
courts
should
grant
these
continuances
for
good
cause.
Jennifer
Feld
is
a
full-time
Florida
Supreme
Court
Certified
Circuit
Civil
mediator
at
Feld
Legal.
As
a
full
shareholder
at
a
firm
with
over
200
attorneys
in
Florida,
Jennifer
was
a
civil
litigator
for
over
a
decade.
Jennifer
is
an
advocate
in
and
out
of
the
courtroom.
Her
experiences
as
a
mother
and
a
trial
attorney
have
made
her
a
pioneer
for
maternity
leave
and
lactation
space
awareness.
As
a
devotee
to
community
service,
Jennifer
holds
a
position
on
Statewide
FAWL
(Florida
Association
for
Women
Lawyers)
as
the
Lactation
Task
Force
Chairperson.
She
sits
on
the
Boards
of
PJ
Library
and
TJFS,
which
provides
a
community-wide
food
bank,
financial
and
social
wellness
services
to
those
in
need.
Alexandra
Paez
serves
as
Of
Counsel
at
Kubicki
Draper.
She
graduated
cum
laude
from
the
University
of
Florida,
where
she
earned
her
Bachelor
of
Arts
in
Political
Science
and
History.
She
earned
her
Juris
Doctor
from
the
University
of
Florida
Levin
College
of
Law,
graduating
cum
laude.
Alexandra
practices
in
the
areas
of
bad
faith
and
claims
administration
defense,
automobile
negligence
and
premises
liability.