In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Substance Use Terminology

── In Re: Amendments to Rules Regulating the Florida Bar - Substance Use Terminology ── Court: Supreme Court of Florida Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General Supreme Court of Florida ____________ No. SC2025-1172 ____________ IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR - SUBSTANCE USE TERMINOLOGY. April 16, 2026 PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar petitions this Court to amend Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 2-3.2 (Powers), 2-9.11 (Assistance to Members Suffering From Impairment Related to Chemical Dependency or Psychological Problems), 3-7.1 (Confidentiality), 3-7.10 (Reinstatement and Readmission Procedures), 6-10.3 (Minimum Continuing Legal Education Standards), and 21-3.1 (Continuing Legal Education). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. The Bar’s proposals were approved by the Board of Governors. In accordance with rule 1-12.1(g), the Bar published formal notice of its intent to file this petition in The Florida Bar News, and the notice directed interested parties to file comments directly with the Court. No comments were received.  Having considered the Bar’s petition, we adopt the amendments to replace references to “chemical dependency” with “substance use disorder,” and references to “psychological problems” with “mental health conditions.” In addition, subdivision (d)(11) of bylaw 2-3.2 is amended to provide that the Board of Governors may establish “a program for providing enhanced opportunities and participation in the profession.” Finally, we amend bylaw 2-9.11 to update the title and to reflect that “[f]unding must satisfy the restrictions applicable to Florida Bar mandatory and voluntary bar groups in the Standing Board Policies.” Accordingly, we amend the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar as set forth in the appendix to this opinion. Deletions are indicated by struck-through type, and new language is indicated by underscoring. The amendments become effective June 15, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. It is so ordered. MUÑIZ, C.J., and LABARGA, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. TANENBAUM, J., dissents with an opinion. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS. -2- TANENBAUM, J., dissenting. These changes to some of our bar rules (save one 1) appear to mirror several of those that the American Psychiatric Association (“APA”) made to its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fifth Edition (“DSM-5”), ostensibly as part of that organization’s larger “destigmatization” campaign. 2 We should not be outsourcing our rule revisions to organizations like the APA.3 The rules are statements of our policy governing matters under our administrative control. If the text being amended truly has caused some operational problem—say, the text is too broad or too narrow to fully accomplish our policy objectives—we should carefully consider that issue and make amendments that will 1. See the change to bar-regulation rule 2-3.2(d)(11). 2. See Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Stigma, Prejudice and Discrimination Against People with Mental Illness (2024), https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/stigma-and- discrimination. 3. Relatedly, I note that, with this latest edition, the APA switched from its decades-old tradition of using Roman numerals for the edition number to an Arabic numeral. The stated reason for this: to designate the manual “as a ‘living document.’ ” DONALD W. BLACK & JON E. GRANT, DSM-5 GUIDEBOOK, at xii (2014). Under the current approach, we could be frequently amending these rules to keep up with the APA’s ever-changing manual. -3- address it most effectively. The bar, in proposing these changes, offers no such policy justification, instead explaining the changes in terms of the latest language aesthetics, as determined by the APA. I fear this approach will lead to unintended (or unconsidered) policy cons