Florida Bar Compliance

How Trial Commander helps you stay out of trouble

Generic legal tech treats Florida as one of fifty equivalent jurisdictions. We treat it as the entire product.

Important disclaimer

This page describes product features designed to help with Florida Bar rule compliance. It is not a guarantee of compliance and is not legal advice. Every attorney remains responsible for their own compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. Trial Commander is a software tool; you are the lawyer.

Rule 5-1.1

Trust Accounts (IOTA)

5-1.1(b) Commingling prohibited

Per-client sub-ledgers enforce segregation. A withdrawal that would drive any client's sub-ledger negative is rejected at the database level before it can be recorded.

5-1.1(c) Notice and delivery

Trust transactions are logged with reference numbers and purpose. Required notices can be generated from the audit trail.

5-1.1(e) Book entries and records

Every transaction creates an append-only audit event chained via SHA-256. Monthly reconciliation is tracked with alerts when overdue.

5-1.1(g)(3) Only lawyers may withdraw earned fees

Role permissions enforce this at the action level. Paralegals and associates cannot disburse earned fees. Only ATTORNEY and FIRM_ADMIN roles can.

Rule 5-1.2

Trust Accounting Records

5-1.2(b) 6-year retention

Default data retention is 6 years for trust records. Customer data deletion on cancellation respects this requirement.

5-1.2(b)(2) Receipts and disbursements journal

Complete transaction journal with date, client, purpose, amount, direction, reference number. CSV and PDF export.

5-1.2(b)(5) Individual client ledgers

Automatic per-client sub-ledger maintenance. Visible alongside firm-wide balance at all times.

5-1.2(b)(6) Monthly reconciliations

Structured reconciliation workflow with statement balance, adjustments, variance calculation. Overdue reconciliation alerts via email to firm admin.

Rule 4-1.5

Fees and Costs for Legal Services

4-1.5(a) Excessive or unreasonable fees

Fee petition AI applies all 8 factors of Rule 4-1.5(b) with structured prompts.

4-1.5(b) Factors

Fee petition workflow structures attorney analysis around each factor. AI drafts incorporate attorney-provided analysis.

4-1.5(e) Written agreement

Agreements are stored with encrypted body, version history (supersede-not-delete), SHA-256 integrity hash, and signature tracking.

4-1.5(f)(4)(B) Contingent fee schedules

Built-in calculator for all four schedules: PI pre-answer (33⅓% / 30% / 20%), PI post-answer (40% / 30% / 20%), liability admitted (33⅓% / 20% / 15%), medical malpractice (30% / 10%).

4-1.5(f)(4)(B) Appeal surcharge

Optional 5% appeal surcharge calculation for contingent fees.

Rule 4-1.6

Confidentiality of Information

4-1.6(e) Technological safeguards

Multi-tenant data isolation at the database level. AES-256-GCM field encryption. AI runs on the Anthropic API with no training on your data and strictly limited retention (zero under our Zero-Data-Retention configuration; see the AI disclosure for the active mode).

4-1.6(c)(3) Prevent inadvertent disclosure

PII redaction on AI inputs. Audit logging of every data access. Role-based access control with 6 role levels.

Rule 4-1.15

Safekeeping Property

4-1.15 Safekeeping

See Rule 5-1.1 and 5-1.2 implementation above. Trust funds are tracked separately from operating funds with strict role gating.

Rule 4-1.16(d)

Declining or Terminating Representation

Refund of unearned fees

Structured refund workflow for unearned portions of advance fees on termination. Audit-logged with reason.

Rule 4-5.3

Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants

Nonlawyer AI framing

AI is framed as a nonlawyer assistant under Rule 4-5.3. Every AI output is flagged 'DRAFT — ATTORNEY REVIEW REQUIRED' and includes case verification warnings (Mata v. Avianca).

Controlling Case Law

Built-in case law references

Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)

Lodestar methodology applied in AI fee petition generator.

Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom, 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990)

Category-based multiplier analysis for tort/contract cases.

Searcy Denney Scarola Barnhart & Shipley v. State

Referenced in fee petition templates for reasonableness analysis.

Compliance is an ongoing commitment

The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar change. We monitor amendments through The Florida Bar's website and update the product when rules change. Current as of publication — see our changelog for specific updates.

Start 14-day trial