Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC14-2126 _ IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO RULE REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 4-7.22—LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICES. [September 24, 2015] PER CURIAM. The Florida Bar petitions this Court to amend Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-7.22 (Lawyer Referral Services). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 15, Fla. Const. Over the years, for-profit lawyer referral services in Florida have been considered questionable because they generate money for the owner of the service through referrals of..

The Respondent, Andromeda Preschool (hereafter, Andromeda) seeks a formal hearing on the proposed administrative fine assessed by the Department. The only issue is whether Andromeda knew or had reasonable cause to suspect that an incident of abuse had occurred, and violated Section 415.504(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to report timely the alleged incident.The Department did not show that Andromeda had reasonable cause to report "sexual abuse" to Department.

This is a bid protest case arising from the efforts of Florida State University to obtain a contractor for the maintenance of all elevators and dumbwaiters at Florida State University. On or about April 28, 1988, Florida State University extended an Invitation To Bid, Bid No. K-1193-6, for the maintenance described above. Three bids were received in response to the bid solicitation. All three of the bids were rejected for failure to meet the bid specifications. On May 27, 1988, Petitioner filed a timely notice of protest and on June 2, 1988, Petitioner filed a timely formal written protest incorporating a request for formal hearing. An answer and affirmative defenses and an amended answer and affirmative defenses were filed by Florida State University. A petition for leave to intervene was filed by Montgomery Elevator Company, one of the other unsuccessful bidders. Montgomery's petition asserted that its bid should have been accepted or, in the alternative, that Florida State University was correct in rejecting all bids. At the final hearing, Montgomery's petition to intervene was granted only to the extent that the petition seeks to support the rejection of all bids by Florida State University. Mowery Elevator Company, the third bidder, did not file a protest and did not attempt to participate in this litigation. The three primary issues addressed at the final hearing were: (1) whether the inventory certification required by the bid specifications is a material provision, (2) whether the Petitioner's inventory certification complies with the requirements of the bid specifications, and (3) whether it would be a reasonable exercise of agency discretion for Florida State University to reject Petitioner's bid as unreasonably high. At the hearing the Petitioner and the Respondent both called witnesses and offered exhibits. The Intervenor offered to present the testimony of a witness, but objection to the offer of testimony was sustained. Following the hearing, all parties were afforded a reasonable period of time within which to file proposed recommended orders. Timely proposed recommended orders were received from all parties. All proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this recommended order and all findings of fact proposed by all parties have been specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.Petitioner's bid was nonresponsive; therefore, bid was properly rejected and petition should be dismissed

HRS awarded contract for office furnishings to bid with irregularities not waivable. A higher bidder's irregs. were waivable. No award to latter.