In its ruling, the Florida high court said that Judge Siegel encroached on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to adopt rules for the state courts. Therefore, the court said, the judge must vacate the orders he issued regarding insurance company attorneys.

The petition to the Supreme Court for a writ overturning the orders was filed on behalf of 11 lawyers on the payroll of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. by Arthur England, a former Florida Supreme Court chief justice who is currently a partner in the Miami law firm Greenberg Traurig.

At the time of filing the appeal, Mr. England said that Judge Siegel's order was indirectly related to an ongoing battle in Florida over how much control insurance companies should exert over the defense of lawsuits against their policyholders.

Mr. England explained that in Florida most liability insurers use their own salaried employee-attorneys to represent policyholders.

The attorneys are located in offices that bear the name of the managing attorney plus the words "and Associates" and "employees of ___ Insurance Company."

When these attorneys appear in court on behalf of policyholders, they identify themselves as members of their offices, Mr. England said.

He stated that Judge Siegel had found it unethical and misleading to use such law office names in court. In fact, a concurring opinion by a member of the Supreme Court noted that the judge's orders had referred to concerns about fraud and misrepresentation.

The American Insurance Association, of Washington, D.C., with the National Association of Independent Insurers, of Des Plaines, Ill., and the Alliance of American Insurers, of Downers Grove, Ill., had filed an amicus brief last fall urging the high court to vacate the orders.

Speaking of the Supreme Court's ruling, Katherine E. Giddings, AIA national coordinating counsel on litigation management, said it was "a victory for policyholders."

She pointed out that insurance staff attorneys are fully accredited members of the bar who provide "efficient and cost-effective legal services that help keep insurance premiums at reasonable rates."

Ms. Giddings also noted that staff attorneys organized as a law office "that is physically and functionally separate from the insurance company have every right to use law firm names."

She added that as early as 1969, the Supreme Court had concluded that representation by staff attorneys was acceptable in the absence of any actual conflict of interest.

Ms. Giddings also noted that in those earlier rulings, the Supreme Court had stressed that the rules governing the conduct of attorneys cannot be used to discriminate against staff attorneys simply because they receive all of their income for providing legal services from one source.

The Supreme Court's order also referred to the fact that the Florida Bar's Special Commission on Insurance Practices II has conducted a study of issues similar to those identified by Judge Siegel and that the commission would be submitting its recommendations from the study to the court.