Join me 1/19 for Arbitration Backlash CLE webinar

This month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its third decision in the last four years upholding private-party contracts to arbitrate rather than to litigate disputes. Arbitration, however, continues to be attacked by media and government despite being an effective ADR method to resolve disputes and control the rising cost of trying lawsuits. Federal law supports and governs the practice through the Federal Arbitration Act. To be enforceable, a clause must provide a meaningful opportunity for redress, and courts review contractual provisions for fundamental fairness. Because the litigation system has become so expensive, arbitration is often the preferred forum for disputes involving amounts in controversy for which litigation of claims is uneconomical. Next month, UWWM will feature this topic in its complimentary webinar entitled, Arbitration Backlash. Arbitrators Lawrence Kolin and Brandon Peters, along with our guest Phil Calandrino, will explore the backlash against arbitration and remind attendees of the origins and benefits of this dispute resolution process. This content is designed for trial lawyers who represent clients in arbitration and for attorneys who use arbitration clauses in contracts. Attending our complimentary Webinar will entitle you to 1 hour of General CLE credit, pending with The Florida Bar. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining us Tuesday, January 19, 2016 from 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM EST We look forward to your attendance! See registration information here-- https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5506879070378935041

The French Do It Better? Je dis ça, je dis rien

French consumers must currently bring claims against French companies to court. Though come 2016, French companies offering goods and services to consumers will need to provide mediation mechanisms-- free of charge-- in disputes arising from poor performance of a merchandise sale contract or a service agreement. The new requirements come with implementation of recent EU Directives on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes. The rules are applicable to any individual or legal entity, whether public or private, acting as part of a commercial, industrial, non-industrial or free market activity. Both domestic and cross-border disputes are subject to these rules. As such, companies must provide consumers with mediator contact details in a clear and legible manner on their website along with their TOC of sale or services, their purchase orders or any other relevant media. Consumer mediation will be observed, evaluated, and controlled by a new entity called the Commission for the Evaluation and the Control of Consumer Mediation (la Commission d’évaluation et de contrôle de la médiation de la consommation – CECMC). Reportedly, mediation will remain an option for consumers and will not be obligatory. Non-compliance on the part of those parties subject to the rules can be administratively fined up to three thousand Euros for individuals and €15,000 for corporations. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1OdhQvr and http://bit.ly/1JuKjbK

Orlando Mediator Named NLJ Trailblazer

I'm pleased to announce that I've been named as one of only 50 attorneys to be honored as The National Law Journal’s 2015 Litigation Trailblazers. I'll be accepting this award at the inaugural reception of all distinguished recipients in New York City next week. “The National Law Journal proudly recognizes the people who have truly ‘moved the needle’ in facilitating the changing ways that law firms conduct business,” says Kenneth A. Gary, the journal’s vice president and group publisher. “Whether it be technological developments, operational efficiencies, marketing and business development breakthroughs or research – we think this list embodies the spirit that will shepherd and shape modern law firms as a business going into 2016 and beyond.” Only in their second year, the litigation awards recognize top legal professionals who have promoted significant change in the way cases are resolved, using inventive techniques or technologies, bringing unique types of cases to court, or executing novel approaches, according to ALM Media Publisher Tom Larranaga. “They have raised the bar in several meaningful ways and are establishing important new standards as the legal landscape continues to evolve,” he said. Winners last year included David Boies, one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People in 2010, and Ted Olson, who was Boies’ opposing counsel in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore and a former U.S. solicitor general. This year’s group includes Barry Richard, also of the 2000 presidential election case, and famed national trial lawyer Billy Gunn. I attribute this win to chairing of pioneering efforts to modernize Florida’s civil procedure rules to include electronically stored information and to my innovative work in ADR, specifically promoting the use of E-Neutrals through this blog and other legal publications. My colleague at Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation Group, Richard Lord, remarked it is "a great honor reflecting Lawrence Kolin’s serious, deliberate and long-term experience and thought leadership in ADR.” See this week's special Litigation Trailblazer publication from The National Law Journal here-- http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/flipbook/Litigation_TP2015/Litigation_TP2015.html and a full list of all 2015 Trailblazer & Pioneer category winners here-- https://www.eiseverywhere.com/ehome/150001/342183/ Thanks for your continuing support and readership!

New Federal Rules Amendments Now Effective

Last week, the long-awaited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments became effective without changes to the proposed language by Congress. These rules importantly pertain to discovery of Electronically Stored Information or ESI-- a concept first introduced into the FRCP in 2006. The changes are essentially outlined as follows: Rule 1: The very first rule now specifies that both the court and the parties should interpret the rules to secure just, speedy and inexpensive outcomes. Rule 4: Plaintiffs now have only 90 days to serve a defendant after filing the complaint. Of course, courts may still extend the time for service upon a showing of good cause. Rule 16: Conferences set under this rule are now 90 days after service or 60 days after an appearance by a defendant, whichever is earlier. Rule 26: Scope of discovery substantially changes, requiring that discovery requests be proportional to the needs of the case, as opposed to just reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Courts may now allocate discovery costs. Parties are to discuss preservation of evidence in their discovery plan and may serve document requests before the scheduling conference, having been considered served at the first Rule 26(f) conference. Rule 34: Responses to production requests now must state with specificity the grounds for objecting and whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. Rule 37: The proverbial Safe Harbor relating to preservation obligations now lessens a court's power to impose sanctions for failure to preserve information, merely allowing ordering so-called curative measures based on a finding that a party is prejudiced from spoliation of evidence. More severe sanctions, such giving an adverse inference or entering default judgment, are permitted under proposed Rule 37(e)(2), but only after finding a party acted with intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation. Of course, despite a new emphasis on cooperation and proportionality, continuing E-Discovery skirmishes are expected. The use of confidential mediation for the resolution of such disputes by E-Neutrals is encouraged if the parties and counsel cannot settle the entire matter. E-Neutrals are mediators specializing in complex cases involving electronic evidence who can shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies. The mediation process may focus a confidential conference solely on managing ESI, or the neutral may broaden the discussion, reminding parties of risks and perhaps dissuading them from merely using E-Discovery as a sword or shield. Mediation is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings in ESI cases, if performed early enough in the litigation. Getting back to the merits is the goal of this process and these new discovery rules. Until there are orders applying these amendments and some new FRDs reported, it remains to be seen how they will impact litigation in the federal courts. See more on this development here-- http://www.bna.com/new-rules-civil-n57982064088/ and https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp

President as Mediator

This week, American President Obama served as would-be mediator between Russian President Putin and Turkish President Erdogan while all were in Paris. Reuters reported Obama met with Putin on Monday during the COP21 Climate Change Conference there. After the meeting, the White House informed journalists that Obama expressed regret over the death of the Russian pilot, but stressed Russia should de-escalate tensions with Turkey. The Daily Mail wrote that Obama told Putin Russian airstrikes in Syria need to target Daesh militants and not attack rebel groups who oppose Syrian President Assad. Yesterday, Obama met with Erdogan and pledged U.S. commitment to Turkey’s security and sovereignty, according to the AP. Erdogan was also asked to ease the tension with Russia and focus on the campaign against the Daesh. Daesh is apparently an Arabic acronym and the equivalent of Isis or Isil. Obama emphasized the common enemy remains Isil. Of course, Turkey accused Moscow of bombing Syria’s Turkmen region, where no Daesh terrorists exist. Russia claimed its plane was shot down to defend existing oil trade routes between Turkey and Daesh, allegedly taking place on an industrial scale, according to TASS news agency. Erdogan promised to resign if Moscow can prove its claim, but stressed that Putin must be the one to resign if he is lying. Though news headlines touted Obama as mediator between Russia and Turkey, he is not truly a neutral, as America actually leads the anti-Daesh coalition. Similarly, the U.K. Independent reported U.S. officials are pressuring the Turkish government to enforce its Northern Syrian border, still used as a smuggling route by the terrorists. On the humanitarian front, Russian airstrike campaigns in Syria have caused many civilian casualties, killing some three hundred non-combatants. No apologies were made and the situation still seems unsettled. It's hard to be a neutral facilitator when you have a stake in the outcome... See more here-- http://bit.ly/1Pvrr0v and http://ind.pn/1NHulPp

NFL Concussion Settlement Oral Argument

Just before the start of the regular season in 2013, thousands of former players first settled with the National Football League (NFL) over concussion-related suits. The league agreed to pay for medical benefits and injury compensation to retired players, as well as to fund medical exams, research and to pay litigation expenses. The lawsuits accused the league of hiding known risks of concussions and returning injured players to games. After that first deal was rejected by the trial court, a second deal doing away with a cap on the fund from which injured former players would draw was reached. Reportedly, the second settlement approved earlier this year could payout more than $1 billion. The lower court, however, kept out a class of players who had argued that they should benefit from the settlement because in the future they may develop the disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Failure to compensate players with CTE is the primary objection to the previously approved deal which only compensates for CTE if the player has died. Several players appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Currently, CTE can be detected only by an autopsy of the brain, and the families of several former players who died and were found to have the condition stand to receive up to $4 million. Those awards apply only to players found before the settlement was approved last April. Apparently, appellate judges appeared skeptical during oral argument last week, noting that those conditions were widely prevalent in the general population and that players who developed the conditions would not necessarily have CTE. One judge on the panel even remarked that the settlement could be watered down by every depressed field-goal kicker. The case faced significant legal hurdles at the start that could have landed the case in arbitration instead of federal court. At the outset, the district judge signaled a preference for settlement of the case, believing that the interests of all parties would be best served by a negotiated resolution. The settlement was characterized as avoiding litigating thousands of complex individual claims over many years and providing immediate relief and support. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and team owners claim they wanted to "do the right thing" for former players with neurological conditions who believe their problems stem from on-field concussions. The appeals court noted that the settlement included a provision that obligates lawyers for the league and the retired players to have good-faith negotiations in the coming years to consider future science and other issues. The appellants’ lawyers argued that was inadequate because the NFL maintains veto power over any settlement amendments. See more here-- http://nyti.ms/1MYEIHZ

Water Wars

A settlement in an ongoing 25-year water war between Florida and Georgia has not yet been attained, but a move towards compromise was just announced. Special master, Ralph Lancaster, who was previously appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court to help resolve the dispute, said he was delighted to see both the word ‘settlement’ and the word ‘mediator’ in recent status reports, indicating a move to the formal ADR process of mediation. Lancaster already urged attorneys for each state to settle the water wars case amongst themselves, rather than risk an unsatisfactory outcome for all involved. Georgia's Governor set aside $20 million for the latest legal battle pitting Florida’s ailing oyster industry against Georgia’s right to use Chattahoochee River water across metro Atlanta. Florida states that Georgia’s overconsumption of water in the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, which includes Lake Lanier, is creating economic hardship, particularly on the oyster industry in the Florida Panhandle region's Apalachicola Bay. Georgia also seeks to maintain full use of the Flint River and its tributaries for farmers in southwest Georgia. The rivers join at the Florida border, becoming the Apalachicola River. Crucial to Florida's seafood folks is a fresh water-salt water balance for oysters to survive in the Apalachicola Bay. While there's been no material progress on a global settlement since last summer, Georgia now reportedly believes the best way to advance the process is "to engage a mediator acceptable to both sides who can create a framework for formal in-person discussions and periodic exchanges of information specifically directed to settlement.” Florida apparently welcomed the suggestion, along with the special master. See news stories here-- http://on-ajc.com/1NcbBY7 and http://bit.ly/213eZsn

National Love Your Lawyer Day

What do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of...you know the jokes. But joking aside, it's love your lawyer day. Apparently, the idea was first hatched in 2001 by the American Lawyer Public Image Association, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the positive public image of lawyers. This is the first year it's been recognized by the American Bar Association's Law Practice Division, which passed a recent resolution to observe the first Friday of each November going forward. I've read some of the press this week covering this day and have seen mostly disdain for the occasion. Lawyers obviously play a prominent role in American cultural life and, heroes aside, their ethical behavior is sometimes reflected poorly in pop culture, television and movies. In reality, lawyers have been some of the most productive members of our society and have had great impact on our American experiment. In regard to the Framers of the Constitution, more than half of the delegates were trained as lawyers. I would venture to say that the importance of lawyers in society cannot be overemphasized. Alexis d’Tocqueville long ago observed in his commentary on law in the United States, that there are few political questions that that do not become, sooner or later, a judicial question. Lawyers in an adversarial system are agents of order in a society that may not otherwise exist without them. Contributions of lawyers are widely unheralded, especially in pro bono work that almost no other profession takes upon itself to deliver. Of course, it has been said that lawyers perform a critical role in the administration of the rule of law under the requirements of justice, namely fair outcomes arrived at through fair procedures. Settling cases within the legal system remains the best way of avoiding conflict among citizens. I just wish the emphasis of this day of recognition had been more on that. See summary of news coverage here-- http://bit.ly/1iHIca4 and ABA resolution here-- https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/LoveYourLawyerDay.pdf

Cyber Week 2015

It's Cyber Week again! This program focuses on trends in the emerging field of "ODR" or online dispute resolution. Anyone can attend this interesting virtual conference on the future of alternative dispute resolution which is sure to be filled with a wealth of webinars, discussion forums and activities. A content rich website, hosted by the ADRhub-Werner Institute at the Creighton University School of Law in Omaha, contains a variety of webinars discussing the integration of technology and dispute resolution. The link below provides access to registration links for the online educational activities this year. Event organizers encourage visitors to review the entire program to ensure not missing a topic that will meet interests of practitioners considering using technology in dispute resolution processes. Some highlights from the program include presentations entitled: Video Mediation, Power of the e-Apology, and a mobile app demonstration by the developer of Picture It Settled, about which I've blogged before. It seems the topics this year are more domestic focused, as international mediators were more interested in this form of mediation at this juncture last year. Curtailing travel costs can be incentive enough to mediate online, but the efficiency of the software in being able to access negotiations at the user’s convenience seems to be the main feature touted in this modern method of settling lawsuits. Amounts in controversy will likely drive the ODR process to lower value cases with a shorter average duration. Efforts in this area have been around for more than a decade, but I'm still not sure ODR is ready for prime time in larger cases where a human element in decision-making is often intangible without parties participating in person. See more here-- http://www.adrhub.com/page/cyberweek-2015

Joint Sessions and the Use of E-Neutrals in ESI Disputes

I am honored to have been featured in the American Bar Association's Dispute Resolution Section's Just Resolutions eNews during this year’s ABA Mediation Week. The theme was “Mediation: Successes, Challenges, Trends and the Next Generation: Looking to the past, present and future.” In looking at where we’ve been and what is to come in civil litigation, one can find a confluence in the growth of electronic information and the need for cooperation in gathering such evidence that it necessarily creates. Electronic Discovery is everywhere. Corporations and small businesses alike utilize computer systems to cut costs, improve production, enhance communication, store data and improve capabilities in this world of constant technological development. The prevalence of electronically stored information or ESI and its associated impact on litigation are readily apparent. E-Discovery has become vital to most cases. Virtually all business information and much private party information can be found only in ESI. At the same time, the costs of collecting, reviewing, and producing ESI reportedly have reached proportions that rival the amount in controversy, itself. This piece considers the role of the E-neutral who can facilitate the electronic discovery process in complex cases by helping parties to agree on key issues while together in joint session, enabling them to focus on the merits of their case. See article here-- http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/dispute_resolution/just-resolutions/kolin_joint_sessions.authcheckdam.pdf

Other ADR Rules Rejected by Fla. S. Ct.

Last week, the Supreme Court of Florida ruled on the so-called "Other ADR" case that underwent oral argument this past summer on rule amendments proposed by its own ADR Rules & Policy Committee. This effort was opposed by myself and other members of the ADR Section Executive Council for myriad reasons. The stated purpose-- to establish a set of uniform rules and standards of professional conduct applicable to any dispute resolution process selected by a court for which no rules exist-- was not the issue. Though this effort was supposedly intended to instill and promote public confidence in the use and participation in such processes; that was not the problem either. The ADR Rules & Policy Committee believed the proposed rules and standards of professional conduct would increase the use of ADR, increase party self-determination in the selection of an ADR method or methods, and provide safeguards for parties selecting ADR neutrals performing services for ADR processes for which no other standards of professional conduct exist. Perhaps, but the real defects were in the inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the actual language, which failed to address things like confidentiality and conflicts. The proposal stated the public’s use, understanding, and satisfaction with an Other ADR Process could only be achieved if neutrals embrace the highest ethical principles, but most professional ADR practitioners already have to abide by one or more set of established standards. The ADR Rules & Policy Committee claimed that the time is ripe for revising the procedural rules to address court referral to all types of emerging ADR processes. Discipline was left to the trial judges under the proposed set of rules. If, in the future, rules or standards of professional conduct are promulgated for a process, these rules and standards would then be inapplicable to that new process. In response to the changes, there were several strong criticisms filed, including formal comments by Civil Rules Committee and ADR Section of The Florida Bar, as well as from the Sixth and Eighth judicial circuits and other interested parties. In its per curiam opinion, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt the ADR Committee’s proposals: "Given the substantial criticism, alleged deficiencies in the proposals, and other issues raised at oral argument in this matter and in the comments received, we conclude that the time is not yet ripe for rules addressing ADR processes other than those already identified and governed by current court rules." See opinion here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2015/sc14-1852.pdf

Mediation Week 2015

Since 2011, the American Bar Association (ABA) has declared the third week of October “ABA Mediation Week.” The ABA events bolster efforts of many other national, state, and local organizations, including the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR), which have traditionally celebrated conflict resolution during October. According to the ABA, Mediation Week celebrates strides made in institutionalizing mediation as one of several dispute resolution processes. For many years, Florida has led the field of alternative dispute resolution which has grown in acceptance, especially as litigation has become more costly and lengthy with electronic discovery. There is certainly wide recognition that the majority of cases are resolved outside of the traditional adversarial process. Litigants, their attorneys and the judges they appear before routinely embrace multiple paths to settling lawsuits out of court, including mediation. The theme for this year’s ABA Mediation Week is: Mediation: Successes, Challenges, Trends and the Next Generation: Looking to the past, present and future. "As lawyers and mediators, we understand both the challenges and rewards of helping parties in conflict reach an agreement by getting past differences in positions, by understanding each other’s perspectives better, and by finding ways to get their important interests met while staying true to their values and belief systems." Programs held during ABA Mediation Week provide neutrals, advocates and policy makers with inspiration and tools necessary to bridge the gap that often prevents amicable resolution of disputes. This year’s theme seeks to recognize the past, present and future of mediation. Read more here-- http://www.americanbar.org/groups/dispute_resolution/resources/mediation_week_toolkit.html

Pres. Carter to Conduct MLK Mediation

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s heirs wish to settle a lawsuit over the ownership of his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize and his famed traveling bible. In Atlanta, a Fulton County Superior Court judge set a mediation deadline that passed last month and previously granted a stay in the case so that the King's daughter could negotiate a deal with her brothers. According to reports, former president, Jimmy Carter, has now agreed to serve as the King siblings’ mediator the ongoing court battle over sale of their father’s possessions. Brothers Martin Luther King III and Dexter Scott King are suing sister Bernice King over the ownership of the fifty-year-old Nobel Prize and King Bible, apparently used and signed by President Obama during his second inauguration. Bernice King has argued the items are sacred and should remain with the family. King’s estate is controlled by his sons who already sought an order for their sister to surrender the items which are in her possession. In a board of directors meeting last year, they voted 2-1 against Bernice King to sell the two valuable artifacts to a private buyer. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. His widow, Coretta Scott King, died in 2006. Yolanda King, the eldest King child, died in 2007. Originally, as previously covered by this blog, the case was set to go to trial last February. Sibling rivalries are among the toughest challenges for a mediator to solve. There are times when celebrity adult children can navigate their own conflict, but other times require a process affording for the airing of grievances in a non-public forum, such as mediation. President Carter, who recently revealed to the world that he’s begun treatment for cancer that has spread from his liver to his brain, said he is honored to be working with the King family in an effort to resolve the outstanding legal issues relating to their legacy and believes he will be able to resolve the difficult dispute once and for all. See story here-- http://bit.ly/1VDaW0u

ODR Adopted in EU

Online Dispute Resolution or "ODR" has been a niche area for resolving merchant disputes in North America. Our friends across the pond have implemented this technique as of last summer on the heels of a more traditional ADR directive. The new ODR Regulation will enable consumers to bring claims easily, intending the result of a unified EU approach to consumer disputes. The cost of the ODR procedure should be nominal, further reinforcing the aim of the EU to encourage the free movement of goods. However, use of the new procedures will not be mandatory and the procedures will not apply to traders established outside the EU that sell there. Despite the absence of an obligation on the parties to engage in ADR, traders are obliged under the prior EU ADR Directive to provide consumers with certain information relating to ADR entities and ADR schemes which are relevant to their business sector. ODR Regulation further requires that online traders provide a point of contact, as well as a link to the ODR Platform. The ODR Platform offers a single point of entry to EU consumers and traders seeking to resolve disputes out of court which arise from online transactions. Complaints can be filed electronically in all official languages of the EU. The ODR Platform will subsequently transmit the online complaints to the ADR entity competent to deal with the specific dispute. Finally, the ODR Platform provides its own case management tool that enables the ADR entity to conduct the ADR procedure through the ODR Platform. It should be interesting to see the statistics on use and settlement once ODR has taken hold in the EU. See more here from Morrison & Foerster-- http://bit.ly/1O86RSZ

Eminent Domain Mediation

Just having conducted an eminent domain mediation this week between a municipality and property owner, I was reminded of dispute resolution features contained in the statutory process here in Florida codified in Chapter 73, Florida Statutes. Under this section, at any time in the presuit negotiation process, the parties may agree to submit the compensation or business damage claims to "nonbinding" mediation. It is interesting this language is used as a qualifier. Though the process is certainly designed for self-determination of the outcome, any agreement reached containing the formalities referenced below would likely be binding when reviewed by a court. Under this process, the parties shall agree upon a mediator certified under Chapter 44, Florida Statutes. Records used to substantiate business claims include federal income tax returns, tax withholding statements, state sales tax returns, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, state corporate income tax returns for five years preceding notification attributable to the business operation on the property to be acquired, and other records relied upon by the business owner as evidence. In the event that there is a settlement reached as a result of mediation or other mutually acceptable dispute resolution procedure, the agreement reached shall be in writing. The written agreement provided for in this section shall incorporate by reference the right-of-way maps, construction plans, or other documents related to the taking upon which the settlement is based. In the event of a settlement, both parties shall have the same legal rights that would have been available under law if the matter had been resolved through eminent domain proceedings in circuit court with the maps, plans, or other documents having been made a part of the record. As such, the property or business owner who settles compensation claims in lieu of condemnation shall be entitled to recover costs in the same manner as provided by statute. Evidence of negotiations or of any written or oral statements used in mediation or negotiations between the parties under this section is inadmissible in any condemnation proceeding, except in a proceeding to determine reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1L8bKuw

EEOC Seeks Carve-outs in Employment Arbitration Clauses

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) processed nearly ninety thousand charges last year. Reportedly, the EEOC will not hesitate to take action against employers that prevent employees from filing EEOC claims, which includes mandatory arbitration agreements. Such agreements should contain a carve-­outs that expressly allow employees to file EEOC charges, as one franchisee of major restaurant chains in Florida recently learned. The company had a mandatory arbitration provision with no exception for the filing of administrative charges by employees with the EEOC. The EEOC sued, alleging such agreements constitute a pattern and practice of resistance to rights secured by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Thus far, a federal court ruled that the EEOC was authorized to file suit against employers in the absence of an underlying charge of discrimination. The court also ruled that the EEOC had standing to sue, itself, even if not a party to the arbitration agreement in question. In what was perhaps a subsequent remedial measure, the company already amended its agreements. Interestingly, the EEOC is on record in strong support of voluntary alternative dispute resolution programs that resolve employment discrimination disputes in a fair and credible manner, and are entered into after a dispute has arisen. It has even recognized that while even the best arbitral systems do not afford the benefits of the judicial system, well-designed ADR programs, including binding arbitration, can offer in particular cases other valuable benefits to civil rights claimants, such as relative savings in time and expense. However, it seems depriving employees of their right to file EEOC administrative charges will not be tolerated by the current EEOC, even if the employees will ultimately have to arbitrate their claims rather than litigate them in court. See more here--http://onforb.es/1KRSqS9 and http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/mandarb.html

Cosby Confidentiality

Last summer, The New York Times published an article referring to the full transcript of Bill Cosby's 2005 deposition in Constand v. Cosby. Andrea Constand sued Cosby for sexual assault and agreed to a confidential settlement in 2006. Portions of the deposition transcript were previously released by a U.S. District Judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, when referenced in an unsealed court document. Cosby's lawyers portrayed confidentiality as what induced them to make a settlement with his accuser in the first place. Court records can be sealed if there is good cause, which generally means the harm caused by making information available to the public is greater than its benefit. However, with the strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents, it is incumbent on parties and their attorneys to seek protection before filing confidential information in the court record. The federal judge denied motions from both sides over the release of the transcript from that decade-old deposition in the sexual-assault lawsuit against Cosby. Last week, decisions were issued denying Cosby's motion for leave to take discovery on how the transcript was released, as well as denying a motion for sanctions against Cosby's attorney for trying to take discovery. After the release of the full transcript, it reportedly became clear in court documents that a court reporting service provided the document to the press under the impression that it was a publicly available document. Cosby's lawyers alleged the release breached the confidentiality conditions of the settlement agreement. Interestingly, however, the presiding judge said such limitations were set forth in the settlement agreement, not in a court order and therefore, the court cannot conclude whether the disclosure would constitute a violation of of the parties' confidentiality agreement. See more in full story here-- http://bit.ly/1VNnEMe

UNCITRAL & International Settlements

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) was established by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2205 in 1966 to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of international trade law. Lack of framework for the enforcement of settlement agreements is why international parties are often reluctant to resort to mediation, notwithstanding its effectiveness as a method of ADR. In order to promote mediation and solidify the enforceability of settlement agreements, efforts by UNCITRAL are underway to find a solution. Last summer, during a session of UNCITRAL that took place in New York, a proposal to undertake work on the preparation of a convention on the enforceability of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation/conciliation was put forward to UNCITRAL by the United States. Accordingly, Working Group II (WGII)-- one of six working groups established by UNCITRAL, specifically relating to arbitration and conciliation-- was assigned to perform the substantive preparatory work. This group was requested to consider the proposal and report back to UNCITRAL on the feasibility and possible form of work in that area. During a recent session of UNCITRAL that took place in Vienna, WGII reported to UNCITRAL a summary of its findings, its concerns and recommendations. UNCITRAL approved giving WGII a mandate to work on the topic of enforcement of settlement agreements resulting from international commercial conciliation. Reportedly, the mandate given by UNCITRAL to the WGII is broad enough to include different possible forms of work, namely: (i) a guidance text, (ii) a model legislative provisions, and perhaps most significantly, (iii) a convention. It will be interesting to see what develops as a result of this important work. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1Xbd9no and http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/commission/working_groups/2Arbitration.html

A look back: President's Mediation Commission

While recently researching Justice Frankfurter of the U.S. Supreme Court, I discovered that before he became an associate justice, he was appointed almost a century ago to a body known as the President's Mediation Commission. This represented a partial federal response to two vital aspects of wartime labor policy: 1) the spreading wave of strikes which interfered with the production of goods deemed vital to the war effort, and 2) the growth of labor radicalism associated with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Samuel Gompers, the president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL and later AFL-CIO), feared both the growth of the IWW and the ensuing vigilantism, which threatened AFL unions. Apparently, Gompers desired a federal policy that would simultaneously curb the IWW and protect "legitimate" trade unions. Gompers urged Washington to form a special presidential commission to investigate labor-capital relations. In August 1917, the secretary of labor convinced President Woodrow Wilson of this policy and a five-person commission was created. The secretary desired a commission that would effectively mediate the substantive issues causing labor discontent and would also eliminate the IWW. More influential than any of the five suggested commission members, was Felix Frankfurter. Officially appointed by President Wilson, the President's Mediation Commission operated on the basis of guidelines set by Frankfurter. Those guidelines recommended the promotion of AFL-style trade unionism, the elimination of subversvie IWW locals, and the encouragement of industrial democracy. The Commission began its formal investigations and hearings later that year. Its members later traveled to various industries and investigated their disputes, studying labor discontentment. The following year, the Commission presented its findings and recommendations to the President, which largely followed the original Frankfurter guidelines and which were subsequently published as a special bulletin by the Department of Labor. See more at Guide to the Papers of the President's Mediation Commission on microfilm collection number: 5751 mf-- http://rmc.library.cornell.edu and Report of President's Mediation Commission-- http://bit.ly/1Ubu2Kw

The Evolution of the Joint Session

Recently, Kim Taylor, COO of JAMS, questioned the survival of the long-held practice of commencing mediation conferences with a joint session of all parties and their counsel. Usually, that provides an opportunity for each viewpoint of the case to be expressed to the other side and to outline the settlement process with participants, before breaking into individual caucuses. Over eighty percent of mediators surveyed earlier this year used such sessions twenty years ago. Lately, a resistance to joint sessions is reported to have arisen. That survey of neutrals revealed a decline in the use of the joint sessions. Regionally, some seventy percent of neutrals based in the east said they still regularly use joint sessions. I find them to be helpful and estimate that I start that way over ninety percent of the time. However, the report from Southern California is that joint sessions are held merely a quarter of the time. Perhaps the process has become confrontational or maybe both sides already understand the positions and everyone just wants to get down to the business of negotiating, supposedly saving costs. Of course, there are certain cases where a joint session is not productive and could actually prove detrimental to the process. Ms. Taylor suggests that because of self-determination, most mediators will not insist on a joint session if the parties do not want one. However, to skip an initial joint session could impact the process that follows, limiting options for settlement or finding common ground and the path to a deal. I try to use it regularly, as our rules require disclosures and I find it assists in laying some foundation for the process and expectations. Caucuses can remain confidential and the parties retain control over information to be shared. Using the open ended question in joint session to get positive responses from the parties at the outset on areas where there already may be overlap in agreement on facts or damages is essential to reaching a successful outcome. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1KajjyN

Fla.11th Jud. Cir. Responds to Mediator Rules Proposals

Florida's Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County formally commented on proposed amendments to the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. The proposed changes completely revise Mediator Rules relating to disciplinary matters. The stated intent of the proposal is to address inconsistencies, gaps and omissions found in the present version. However, the Miami judicial circuit claims inconsistencies, gaps and omissions require further consideration by the committee before being approved by The Supreme Court of Florida. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Mediation/Arbitration Unit stated they recognized the importance of clear and concise guidelines and rules to maintain the ethical standards of the profession and to maintain the public confidence in the mediation process. Their comment emphasizes that the rules, as proposed in the amendments, blur the fundamental principles of equity, due process and neutrality. They find certain amendments are vague, arbitrary, and impose an inequitable burden on the mediator who is the subject of disciplinary action. After a thorough review in which they enumerate the new language and procedural changes, they suggest that instead of promoting a more comprehensive uniformity and consistency, the broad nature of the changes perpetuates further inconsistency and general confusion in the proposed disciplinary procedures. The Florida Bar ADR Section is also considering filing formal comments to these rules proposals and has sought an extension for such period to and including August 24, 2015. Accordingly, the Supreme Court Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy is allowed to and including September 14, 2015, in which to file its response. See more here-- Case Number: SC15-875 - IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES FOR CERTIFIED AND COURT-APPOINTED MEDIATORS http://jweb.flcourts.org/pls/docket/ds_docket_search

Seminole Mediation

The Seminole Tribe of Florida formally requested mediation in its ongoing dispute with the state over whether it can still offer card games, including Blackjack, in the future. Five years ago, the parties entered into a 20-year compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The agreement gave the tribe exclusive rights to operate banked card games at most its facilities for five years. Lawmakers failed to pass a renewal of the compact or a new deal during this spring’s legislative session. Now, without the agreement renewed, the Seminoles find themselves within a 90-day period at which time they must discontinue such games. For five years of exclusivity, the Seminoles pledged to pay Florida a minimum of $1 billion during that period, an amount the tribe has actually exceeded. The tribe and its lawyers contend violation of exclusivity by allowing other gambling operators to operate banked card games. Last week, a mediation request stated that “The Tribe seeks to confirm: (1) its present right to continue offering banked card games for the remaining term of the Compact, which expires in 2030; (2) its right to stop making exclusivity payments to the State under the Compact and to instead make those payments into an escrow account; and (3) its right to expand the locations at which it is permitted to offer banked card games.” Last month, the tribe's chief sent the governor “notice of commencement of compact dispute resolution procedures” which outlined what the tribe considers violations of the agreement that expired without agreement. That letter included a claim the tribe has made for years regarding slot machines that look like Blackjack and Roulette and are authorized by state gambling regulators at non-tribal pari-mutuels. Reportedly, the tribe seeks to add other games, such as Craps and Roulette, as out-of-state casinos look for a foothold in Florida. The tribe is asking that a mediation conference take place within the next month. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1IAVhrm and http://cbsloc.al/1KwJKNC

NFL - Brady Settlement Not Looking Good

As the New England Patriots begin training camp, there is no certainty about whether Tom Brady will be available for game one of their NFL season. While there have been reports regarding a possible settlement for Brady’s appeal of his four-game suspension, with leaks that he is seeking either a complete exoneration or only a fine, others say he may be willing to accept a reduced suspension. It is unlikely that Brady would agree to miss games without taking the case to court to avoid admitting any guilt. They say a fine could be interpreted as putting the so-called Deflategate distraction behind his team. But now, the NFL could reject Tom Brady’s appeal and uphold the four‐game suspension. The NFL claims the quarterback's actions were detrimental to the integrity of the sport. ESPN today reported Commissioner Roger Goodell will not reduce or overturn Brady’s suspension and that Brady may have actually destroyed his own personal cell phone rather than just refusing to turn it over. The NFL was annoyed Brady would not give up relevant text messages and emails that might help clarify his level of involvement in Patriots equipment managers allegedly letting air out of game balls. Now it appears that electronic evidence may have been spoliated. Still, NFL Media's National Insider reports that the NFL and NFL Players Association exchanged offers for a potential settlement on Brady's suspension, according to sources informed of the negotiations. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1Jq4HuT and http://bit.ly/1fEbJ39 and http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000504228/article/nfl-nflpa-exchange-offers-on-brady-settlement

Masters Conference for Legal Professionals

Please join me tomorrow as I speak about streamlining electronic discovery at the Masters Conference for Legal Professionals on Tuesday, July 21, in New York City. Having chaired the recent effort to amend Florida Civil Procedure Rules to include e-discovery and previously taught for the state’s Advanced Judicial College, I'll join other industry experts in taking attendees through the life cycle of a complex case. We'll be focusing on fixing problem areas for a more cost-effective approach in a panel discussion titled “How to Streamline E-Discovery,” which runs from 11 am to noon. All eight of the conference’s sessions will take place at New York’s famed Harvard Club. The conference will concentrate on e-discovery, data protection, records management and related topics. My emphasis will be on avoiding discovery disputes in the courts through the use of E-Neutrals, Mediated Case Management and Special Masters by culling the universe of information available to parties, in order to let them focus back on the merits of the claims and defenses. E-Neutrals or mediators specializing in complex cases involving electronic evidence can shape discovery plans, allocate costs and suggest and create efficiencies. The mediation process may focus a confidential conference solely on managing ESI, or the neutral may broaden the discussion, perhaps dissuading parties and counsel from merely using e-discovery as a sword or shield. Mediation is an avenue that can present parties with significant cost-savings in ESI cases, if performed early enough in the litigation. For more information about our panel at the Masters Conference, please visit-- http://themastersconference.com/agenda/how-streamline-ediscovery and for the full agenda tomorrow, see-- http://themastersconference.com/events/new-york-city

Frank Lloyd Wright Preservation Mediation

A Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home near Camelback Road in Phoenix was bought a few years ago by the David & Gladys Wright House Foundation while facing demolition. However, a battle with neighbors has arisen over plans to host events and build an events center at the property just south of Camelback Mountain in a wealthy Phoenix enclave. The former mayor there strongly supports preserving the mid-century home Frank Lloyd Wright designed for his own son and daughter-in-law before the architect's death in 1959, and wants to see a resolution of the dispute with concerned neighbors. Supporters want the Wright House to be open for public viewing as a historic site but are sensitive to concerns about events, traffic and noise in the residential neighborhood. Reportedly, they are looking for an independent knowledgeable mediator that all parties agree upon in order to bring about a resolution. This story caught my attention because we have gone through similar disputes in the Orlando suburb of Winter Park, where I was raised. James Gamble Rogers II was a noted architect here and a significant historic property designed by him, Casa Feliz, faced the threat of demolition. More than a million dollars was raised in private donations to save and restore the home which required moving the house. The event became a media spectacle, as the 750 ton behemoth, balanced on 20 pneumatically leveled dollies, rode the 300 yards across the street to its new home. Once the house was positioned in its new location, complete restoration began. Full disclosure: I served on the board of directors for a time and remain a friend of the Rogers family. Today, Casa Feliz serves the community as a historic home museum and venue for public cultural, private party and business events. Its rescue even inspired the saving of another of home, known as the Capen House, which was recently floated across Lake Osceola to a new location. See story here-- http://bit.ly/1DkWIsy and information on Casa Feliz here-- http://www.casafeliz.us and the Capen House here-- http://preservationcapen.org/

Join me for the Masters Conference NYC

Please join me this month as I've been invited to speak about streamlining electronic discovery at the Masters Conference for Legal Professionals on Tuesday, July 21, in New York City. Having chaired the recent effort to amend Florida Civil Procedure Rules to include e-discovery and previously taught for the state’s Advanced Judicial College, I'll join other industry experts in taking attendees through the life cycle of a complex case. We'll be focusing on fixing problem areas for a more cost-effective approach in a panel discussion titled “How to Streamline E-Discovery,” which runs from 11 am to noon. All eight of the conference’s sessions will take place at New York’s famed Harvard Club. The conference will concentrate on e-discovery, data protection, records management and related topics. “Whether you’re dealing with e-discovery in a new, socially networked world, find your company expanding globally and thus facing international discovery issues, or planning for the future of e-discovery in your firm or company, you know there’s a divide between what is in practice today and where your firm needs to be in the near future,” according to conference organizers. “Legal professionals must develop strategies for spanning this e-discovery divide before it expands further across traditional borders, whether physical or technical.” My emphasis will be on avoiding discovery disputes in the courts through the use of E-Neutrals, Mediated Case Management and Special Masters in culling the universe of information available to parties, in order to let them focus back on the merits of the claims and defenses. For more information about our panel at the Masters Conference, please visit-- http://themastersconference.com/agenda/how-streamline-ediscovery and for the full agenda in New York, see-- http://themastersconference.com/events/new-york-city

BP Settlement

Over the course of the next 18 years, British Petroleum (BP) will pay Florida $3.25 billion or more for its role in the biggest offshore spill in U.S. history. The Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded in 2010, killing eleven men aboard and spewing crude oil from the sea floor for almost 90 days. Along with Florida, some $18.7 billion will be paid to Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama. BP already spent $42 billion in cleanup efforts, penalties and payouts for people whose livelihoods were directly affected by the spill. For businesses and individuals, about $5 billion was paid out. The accident led to thousands of lawsuits against BP, as well as Transocean, the rig’s owner, and Halliburton, which provided contract services for the project. Last week's settlement was the largest of BP’s agreements since the spill. BP agreed in 2012 to plead guilty and pay the government $4 billion to resolve a criminal case. BP also agreed that year to pay another $525 million over allegations of understating the size of the spill. The company also reached an estimated $10.3 billion settlement with most Gulf area residents and businesses harmed by the spill who did not opt out. That deal will probably cost more because claims that haven’t been fully processed. The settlement didn’t cover banks, casinos, insurance companies and businesses or residents in large swaths of Texas and Florida. It also didn’t include shareholders or businesses blaming BP for the Obama administration’s moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf following the spill. BP has increased the amount set aside to pay for the spill to $53.8 billion which may not be enough. Investors filed a securities-fraud lawsuit, claiming BP downplayed the disaster, which goes to trial next year in Texas. A class action covers investors who bought BP’s U.S. shares from a period days after the blowout. BP will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans this month to block them from suing as a group, which could delay the case. Investors are seeking as much as $2.5 billion, according to court filings. BP's defense seeks to deny responsibility for those damages because the U.S. government ordered and extended the drilling ban for months. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1H5iMIs and http://bit.ly/1NLxrOg

The Florida Bar ADR Section Turns 5

The ADR Section of The Florida Bar, now in its fifth year, will meet at the annual convention in Boca Raton tomorrow, to continue advancing new programs and opportunities for continued growth and participation in the section. The ADR Section was established in 2010 to provide a forum for lawyers interested in alternative dispute resolution and to provide a forum for discussion and exchange of ideas leading to an improvement of individual ADR skills and abilities. The ADR Section will keep the Bar membership informed and updated regarding legislation, rules, and policies in connection with mediation and other ADR processes and the responsibilities they impose on mediator and arbitrator members, as well as provide quality continuing legal education programs. During The Florida Bar’s 2014 Annual Convention, the ADR section hosted a working meeting for ADR section members. Those in attendance nominated new executive council members. I was pleased to be nominated, having already founded and chaired the ADR Committee of the Orange County Bar Association in Orlando. New members elected to the ADR executive council included my Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation Group (UWWM) colleagues, Robert A. Cole and Michelle Jernigan, who edits our section newsletter. Additionally, ADR section committees were established that plan and execute section activities, events, and programs to benefit section members. Among the busiest were: Website, Newsletter, and Legislation. The Website Committee, which I chaired, worked with the executive council and a vendor and launched the new ADR section website, www.fladr.org. The immediate goal is to make the ADR section and its benefits more accessible to all Florida Bar members, which will provide information on available CLE programs and links to MEAC opinions. In addition, each of the section’s News & Tips can be viewed from the website. The CLE committee plans to host programs with other Florida Bar sections that will not only benefit members of the ADR section, but all members of The Florida Bar. We recently presented a June UWWM webinar on issues relating to "Other ADR" in Florida with incoming ADR Section Chair, Bob Hoyle, who plans to present additional webinars on ADR through the section this year. The ADR Section will also present a seminar on mediation and arbitration today at the 2015 Florida Bar Annual Convention. For additional information on how to join the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section, visit the ADR section website-- www.fladr.org

Arbitration Questions

This week, perhaps because of the recent depiction of an arbitration on a couple of episodes of HBO's popular Sunday night show, Silicon Valley, I've been getting some queries on the process. One question was whether confidential matters could be disclosed when the arbitrator renders detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a reasoned award. Often we are asked not to provide reasoned awards for this purpose. Confidentiality can be preserved is through the use of confidentiality agreements or by including liquidated damages clauses within the arbitration provisions of the subject contract itself. Parties subject to such an arbitration clause agree that they would be entitled to specified damages for breach upon disclosure of information designated as confidential. Another topic that arose was whether there is a right to appeal an arbitrator’s award as one might a judgment rendered in a trial court. Under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), a court must confirm an arbitration award except in limited circumstances. The FAA provides few grounds for vacating an arbitration award. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed only a handful of exclusive means for vacating an award under the FAA. These are limited to narrowly defined procedural irregularities and are difficult to prove, except in egregious cases. A few courts have vacated awards based on review of an arbitrator’s “manifest disregard of the law,” but federal circuits remain split as to whether that constitutes valid basis for independent review. However, appellate review under the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) recent optional rules is now available. The rules provide parties with a streamlined, standardized review of arbitral awards. AAA maintains this appellate rubric remains consistent with the objective of an expedited, cost effective and just arbitration process. An appellate arbitral panel applies a standard of review more expansive than that allowed by existing federal and state law in vacating awards. This process was really developed for large, complex cases where parties heavily value the ability to appeal. Parties may use these rules with agreement by contract or stipulation. Appeals are only permitted on the grounds that the underlying award is based on errors of law that are material, prejudicial or is made on clearly erroneous determinations of fact. Generally, AAA appeals will be determined upon the written documents submitted by the parties, with no oral argument, and completed in about three months. Interestingly, the parties may apply the rules whether or not the underlying award was conducted pursuant to AAA or International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) rules. See rules here-- http://bit.ly/1cDPGXy

Medicaid Mediation

In an unusual move, a federal judge denied the Florida Governor's request to order mediation with President Obama's administration over federal hospital funds for the Low Income Pool or LIP. Rick Scott is suing the Obama administration, alleging it is withholding federal hospital funds because Florida won't expand Medicaid. He asked a judge this week to compel mediation, but the Obama administration responded that they have been engaged in ongoing and productive discussions and that mediation could delay a final decision. It is alleged that the Obama Administration violated the U.S. Constitution by threatening to withhold Low Income Pool dollars if Florida did not expand Medicaid under the new federal healthcare law. Gov. Scott, Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the Agency for Health Care Administration are the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the acting administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, are the defendants. The Low Income Pool program is a supplemental Medicaid financing program. The federal government initially approved an extension for three years, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services then announced it would not extend the Low Income Pool beyond June 30, 2015. Florida's legislature is in special session because it was unable to pass a budget during the regular session over whether LIP dollars should be included. The Florida Senate budget is $4 billion more than the House’s, including both LIP and Medicaid expansion that the House didn’t in its own proposed budget. The federal government advised Florida that it can expect to receive $1 billion in LIP funding for the 2015-16 year and $600,000 in the 2016-17 year. Gov. Scott claims the legislature has no final approval figure and that such delay is preventing lawmakers from completing the budget. The administration has reportedly given Gov. Scott a tentative decision to extend the funds for two more years at a much lower price. Gov. Scott wants to finalize the state budget by June 30th to avoid a state government shutdown. See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1GC9PME and http://bit.ly/1C31Qky

Join me for UWWM's "Other ADR" CLE June 18th

This month, along with my Upchurch, Watson, White & Max colleagues and a special guest, we'll explore major changes being proposed by The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy in our free webinar. This webinar at noon on Thursday, June 18, is set following The Florida Bar Alternative Dispute Resolution Section and formal commenters to "Other ADR" proposals at oral argument this week the Florida Supreme Court. Incoming Chair of the ADR Section, Bob Hoyle, will share highlights of his presentation and the reception of rules by the bench at oral argument set in this matter. See more information on these rules here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml#altdispute and be sure to tune in here-- http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/live.php As CLE presenters, we will review the perceived potential outcome based on this oral argument, as well as explain the new rubric for use of these added settlement techniques. All three presenters-- Lawrence Kolin, Bob Hoyle and Michelle Jernigan-- are members of The Florida Bar ADR Section's Executive Council and will bring special insight to the debate over proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules and Family Law Rules, and brand-new Florida Rules for Court-Appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution Neutrals Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes for which No Other Supreme Court Rules or Standards for Professional Conduct Exist. This CLE webinar is geared toward litigation practitioners who mediate frequently, as well as mediators who may be eligible for CME. After registering at-- https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8638477297530214914, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining our upcoming GoToWebinar program. Look forward to having you join us and if not, the program will be available for replay at-- http://www.uww-adr.com/downloadable-webinars, along with our other CLE programs.

MLK Mediation

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s heirs are reportedly closer to a settlement in a lawsuit over the ownership of his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize and his famed traveling bible. In Atlanta, a Fulton County Superior Court judge agreed to a mediation timeframe today-- to be completed before this fall-- during a brief hearing with attorneys from both sides. Earlier this year, the judge granted a stay in the case so that the King's daughter could negotiate a deal with her brothers. According to news reports, her attorney said, "...we feel like we have gotten the parties as far as we can get, which is substantial. With a third party-neutral, we can close the gap." Brothers Martin Luther King III and Dexter Scott King are suing sister Bernice King over the ownership of the fifty-year-old Nobel Prize and King Bible, apparently used and signed by President Obama during his second inauguration. Bernice King believes the items are sacred and should remain with the family. Her brothers want to sell them. King’s estate is controlled by his sons who already sought an order for their sister to surrender the items which are in her possession. In a board of directors meeting last year, they voted 2-1 against Bernice King to sell the two valuable artifacts to a private buyer. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated in 1968. His widow, Coretta Scott King, died in 2006. Yolanda King, the eldest King child, died in 2007. Originally, the case was set to go to trial last February. Sibling rivalries are among the toughest challenges for a mediator to solve. There are times when celebrity adult children can navigate their own conflict, but other times require a process affording for the airing of grievances in a non-public forum, such as mediation. See full stories here-- http://on-ajc.com/1LIkt2o and http://bit.ly/1ExGVpg

Arbitrate Deflategate?

This week, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a four game suspension without pay of quarterback Tom Brady and fined the Super Bowl XLIX-winning New England Patriots $1 million and draft picks for deflating footballs during last year's AFC Championship playoff game where the beat the Indianapolis Colts 45-7. Now there will be an appeal. The NFL Players Association (NFLPA) maintains the NFL's history of inconsistent and arbitrary decisions in disciplinary matters requires that a neutral arbitrator hear an appeal. The league believes Brady's suspension is a fair punishment. An attorney hired by the league to investigate found in a lengthy report that the Patriots used underinflated footballs to their advantage and that Brady probably had at least a general knowledge about it. The report points its finger at equipment assistant and Brady denies being involved. Appeal hearings reportedly begin within 10 days of the league's receipt of an appeal. An attorney for the Patriots published an extensive online rebuttal of the NFL's findings. The NFL claims the quarterback's actions were detrimental to the integrity of the sport. The NFL has not been without controversial decisions of late. Recently, a United States District Judge vacated an arbitration award that upheld Commissioner Goodell’s discipline of Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, concluding that Goodell erred in applying a new policy which was not applicable retroactively in that matter. Prior to the vacation of that punishment, an independent and neutral arbitrator, found Goodell abused his discretion when he arbitrarily disciplined running back Ray Rice for a second time. Last month, the Missouri Supreme Court even reviewed the scope of the role of commissioner in arbitration proceedings and found terms designating the commissioner as sole arbitrator unconscionable and unenforceable, being an individual in a position of bias. Accordingly, Goodell is precluded from reviewing, and ruling on the decisions of his employer in arbitration. This aligns with the trend in employing independent and neutral arbitrators to oversee NFL disputes. See more news here-- http://bit.ly/1bTivjm and http://cnn.it/1cXtTfz and at the NFLPA https://www.nflpa.com/news/all-news/nflpa-files-appeal-on-behalf-of-tom-brady

Armstrong Seeks To Vacate Arbitration Award

When cyclist Lance Armstrong finally confessed doping to Oprah Winfrey in 2013, the Dallas sports insurance company that paid him millions of dollars in victory bonuses sued for fraud, asking for its money back. After SCA accused Armstrong and filed suit which was sent to arbitration, Armstrong unsuccessfully tried for an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court to have the case blocked. The dispute with Armstrong actually began over a decade ago, after the former U.S. Postal Service team member won the 2004 Tour de France, the sixth of his seven consecutive victories. Following doping allegations, that case went to arbitration in 2005. SCA Promotions paid Armstrong $7.5 million in 2006. Evidence from that arbitration was used later against him, including testimony from a former teammate and his wife, who said they heard Armstrong admit to using performance-enhancing drugs back in 1996. Armstrong was banned for life by the United States Anti-Doping Agency and stripped of his Tour titles in August 2012. Last February, SCA won a $10 million ruling against him after this case went back to the same arbitration panel that handled the 2005 dispute. The panel said Armstrong used perjury and other wrongful conduct to secure millions of dollars of benefits from SCA. One of the three neutral panelists dissented, noting that the parties entered into a final and binding settlement agreement the last time around. The dissenter apparently believes the majority's sanction is an unwarranted, unlawful reversal of a prior settlement agreement already made and effectuated. Armstrong's attorneys reportedly say the arbitration panel exceeded its authority with its recent ruling. According to news reports, Armstrong's attorneys claim the panel's issuance of sanctions violates well-established Texas public policy favoring settlements and arbitrations for efficient and final resolution of disputes. Court documents show Armstrong and Tailwind Sports, which owned the U.S. Postal Service team for which Armstrong raced, are seeking to vacate the award, insisting it “effectively eviscerated a fully negotiated and binding settlement agreement” reached between Armstrong and SCA Promotions in 2006. The arbitrators have said, “Perjury must never be profitable.” SCA Promotions is now asking a Texas state judge to confirm the arbitration award against Armstrong. It wants the court to enter a $10 million judgment against Armstrong and the former team owner so it may proceed to collect payment. Armstrong’s lawyers maintain the dispute settled voluntarily and finally years earlier. Interestingly, Armstrong previously offered to pay SCA despite the absence of any legal basis for the sanction, and SCA refused to accept. Armstrong is also facing a $100 million fraud lawsuit from the federal government. See full stories here-- http://bit.ly/1F4qXrH and http://usat.ly/1Kqgxm2 and link to motion to vacate pleading here-- https://www.scribd.com/doc/264558280/Lance-Armstrong-Does-Not-Want-to-Pay-SCA-10-Million

Blackbeard Shipwreck Mediation

Nearly 300 years after Blackbeard the Pirate was shipwrecked off the North Carolina coast, a treasure-hunting company is battling that state over "treasure" linked to his vessel. The claims really involve some $14 million in disputed lost revenue and contract violations. Intersal Inc. of Florida, which originally discovered the wreck, filed a petition last month against North Carolina's Department of Cultural Resources. It claims breach of contract in the state's displaying images of artifacts from the flagship Queen Anne's Revenge on websites without a time code stamp or watermark. North Carolina actually owns the ship's contents and has created a tourist industry since its initial discovery in 1996. The legal dispute is pending with the Office of Administrative Hearing and is being sent to mediation next month to avoid a hearing before an administrative law judge. While North Carolina denies the allegations, saying they have no merit, Intersal has issues with rights related to filming the wreck's recovery, as well as study and reproduction of its artifacts. Intersal says the state continues to violate the terms of a 2013 renewal of a 1998 agreement for exclusive media rights, by improperly publishing or improperly permitting the publication of photos and video of the wreck and treasures. Reportedly, wrecks in state waters, such as Blackbeard's ship, belong to a state, even if they are undiscovered. Blackbeard was a notorious sea robber who plagued the shipping lanes of North America and the Caribbean. His ship ran aground in the early 1700s and its remains lie in shallow water about a mile offshore North Carolina. Researchers have been excavating it since the late 1990s and have recovered anchors, cannons and other items. Normally, companies that find such wrecks split any treasures found. In this case, researchers believe that most valuables on board Queen Anne's Revenge were removed before the ship went under which is why a media deal was made. See news stories here-- http://bit.ly/1IjnjLu and http://bit.ly/1Rfsro4 and the educational website-- http://www.qaronline.org/History/TheShipwreck.aspx

Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015

There is a new bill in Congress to amend Title 9 of the United States Code with respect to arbitration over which increasing debate on fairness as a pre-dispute agreement has intensified. The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015 was introduced by Minnesota Senator Al Franken and Georgia Representative Hank Johnson to eliminate mandatory arbitration clauses in employment, consumer, civil rights and antitrust cases. Companies provide almost all consumer financial products and services under written contracts with such clauses. Arbitration agreements in those contracts often require that parties resolve any subsequent disputes through privately-appointed arbitrators, rather than through the court system. The use of arbitration clauses has increased with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions supporting corporate enforcement efforts of those agreements. A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) report found that 75% of consumers surveyed did not know if they were subject to an arbitration clause in their credit card contract. Among consumers whose contract included an arbitration clause, fewer than ten percent recognized that they could not sue their credit card issuer in court. It is claimed so-called "forced arbitration" does not provide important procedural guarantees of fairness and due process that are the hallmarks of courts of law. According to Senator Franken’s office, the Arbitration Fairness Act would restore the intent of the original Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) passed by Congress in 1925. When the FAA was passed, it was intended to target commercial arbitration agreements between two companies of generally comparable bargaining power. Over the years, court decisions broadened the reach of the law to include consumer and employment disputes. Under the newly introduced Arbitration Fairness Act of 2015, agreements to arbitration of employment, consumer, civil rights and antitrust disputes could only be made after the dispute has arisen. The Act does not prohibit companies and consumers from going to arbitration to settle a dispute once the dispute has actually taken place. The Act reportedly seeks to ensure transparency in civil litigation by protecting the integrity of Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, among others. The Act would continue to allow pre-dispute mandatory arbitration to continue in business-to-business agreements, and does not apply to collective bargaining agreements. The National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of Consumer Advocates support the new measure. Both proponents and critics of the new act take hard-line stances on the perceived ills or benefits of arbitration, rather than trying to address some criticisms while preserving its benefits. Under the Bill, the applicability of an agreement to arbitrate and the validity and enforceability of an agreement is to be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement. See proposed legislation here-- http://1.usa.gov/1GC7gEr and CFPB report to Congress here-- http://1.usa.gov/1EPG8nT

Court Approves NFL Concussion Settlement

After the first deal was rejected by the trial court just over a year ago, a second deal doing away with a $675 million cap on the fund from which injured former players would draw was reached. Reportedly, the National Football League (NFL) projects 6,000 of some 20,000 retired football players will suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's disease. The approved settlement could payout more than $1 billion. Plaintiffs lawyers not involved in negotiations on the second deal may still appeal over previously expressed concerns about the settlement terms. One attempt to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit failed last fall, with that court declining to exercise jurisdiction on review of an order granting or denying class certification. The issue on appeal involved preliminary approval of the settlement and granting conditional certification of the class for settlement purposes. Even now that approval of the settlement is final, it could be appealed which would delay benefits to eligible players. Failure to compensate players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is the primary objection to the deal which only compensates for CTE if the player has died. The case faced significant legal hurdles at the start that could have landed the case in arbitration instead of federal court. At the outset, the district judge signaled a preference for settlement of the case, believing that the interests of all parties would be best served by a negotiated resolution. The settlement has been characterized as avoiding litigating thousands of complex individual claims over many years and providing immediate relief and support. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and team owners claim they wanted to "do the right thing" for former players with neurological conditions who believe their problems stem from on-field concussions. The lawsuit accused the league of hiding known risks of concussions for decades to return players to games and protect its image. See more here-- http://bit.ly/1x1uRxX and settlement info here-- http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32420600 and http://bit.ly/1bAyhjS and www.nflconcussionsettlement.com

Media Prompts Sunshine Law Mediation

Florida's Governor and cabinet members will mediate their differences next week in Tallahassee with more than a dozen news outlets in a lawsuit accusing officials of violating Florida's Sunshine Law. The mediation postpones a scheduled videotaped deposition of the recently ousted commissioner of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The sudden dismissal triggered the lawsuit, leading to a series of reforms designed to improve cabinet oversight of state agencies. Former FDLE Commissioner, Gerald Bailey, will likely repeat allegations of political interference by gubernatorial campaign staff and state officials who secretly arranged his ouster. Reportedly, news outlets will seek that high-level state officials post all text messages and emails on the state-run "Project Sunburst" website and to permanently prohibit state officials from using private email accounts to conduct public business. Media editors plan to attend the ironically confidential mediation session in the case on April 22, 2015. A former Florida Supreme Court justice has been brought in to mediate the lawsuit. Additional items up for negotiation are the adoption of policies to keep cabinet proceedings covered by the Sunshine Law, including a return to the recording and broadcasting aides' meetings. The parties will also discuss a prohibition on using liaisons or conduits to communicate about any official business. Finally, the suit seeks to void the appointment of Rick Swearingen, current head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and to conduct a full and open process to appoint a permanent leader. Discussions are to include the formation of an Open Government Commission, similar to the Ethics Commission, with the power to investigate alleged Sunshine Law violations. As Justice Brandeis once quipped, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Read more here-- http://bit.ly/1bbuGsn and http://bit.ly/1b5ElQy and see http://www.flgov.com/sunburst

Mediating Professor: Mediation Theory & Practice

Last week, I had the privilege of teaching the Mediation Theory & Practice class of my UWWM colleague Brandon Peters at FAMU College of Law. I was glad to find students bright and eager to learn the practical side of our profession. Our topic was representing clients at mediation. This required putting back on the advocacy hat and thinking about the process of mediation in a different way than in my daily job as mediator. As a neutral, we are motivated to facilitate the parties in making a decision for themselves. In examining how attorneys should represent clients at mediation, we reviewed the traditional role of a zealous advocate and what issues might arise during negotiations, such as lawyer-client conflicts of interest, non-economic concerns, and other potential inhibitors to a deal. Selecting attendees was also a big topic. In discussing this, we went over scenarios of a multi-party case and explored the attributes and potential influences of both large and small contingents at mediation, while keeping in mind confidentiality as paramount. Finally, we looked at preparation for mediation, including preparing the client and managing expectations for settlement. These components cannot be underestimated in achieving a successful result at mediation. It was truly refreshing to talk with law students about what we do as full-time neutrals on a regular basis and to be reminded of the important service that alternative dispute resolution neutrals provide to our court system.

Mork Mediation: Robin Williams Estate

The widow of Robin Williams and his adult children will try and settle their dispute over the late actor’s estate this month in a court-ordered mediation. Susan Schneider Williams petitioned the court, saying his three children are claiming memorabilia that was left to her. She also claimed some of her husband’s belongings were taken from their marital home without permission. Reportedly, a bitter fight over property of the late comedian may ultimately be decided by his trustees. It has been asserted in court documents that his trust is clear and unambiguous about authority to determine the disposition of the tangible personal property. Attorneys said the entire battle for the legendary comedian’s estate should have been kept private because Robin Williams was an intensely private person who had carefully constructed his estate plan to keep it out of public view. One of the issues is establishing a date to transfer possession of items to the late actor’s wife and children after trustees received input regarding the dispersal of his property. An inventory of the personal property identified almost a thousand items. Williams’s will entitles his children to clothing, jewelry, personal photos taken prior to his latest marriage to Schneider, as well as awards, memorabilia and tangible personal property from his home. In the months after their father’s death, the children claim their stepmother spent her time appraising his memorabilia, jewelry and other personal effects for her benefit. One of the items referenced are the iconic suspenders worn on the “Mork & Mindy” show. Perhaps mediation will solve the ugly dispute between kin without a "Nanu Nanu" to the judge. See stories here-- http://lat.ms/1ytwnWU and http://ti.me/1HhvXrv

Rapid Arbitration in Delaware

Delaware lawmakers are moving quickly to approve legislation streamlining the closed-door resolution of corporate disputes, after an earlier state-sponsored secret arbitration program was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal court. Delaware lawmakers previously passed legislation allowing state judges to preside over private corporate arbitration proceedings. The Delaware Coalition for Open Government challenged the program on constitutional grounds, arguing that citizens have a First Amendment right to access court hearings. The new legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee without debate and already passed the House. Delaware Senators were expected to take up the measure and send it to the governor for signature this week. The bill's supporters say the revised rapid arbitration process doesn't run afoul of the Delaware or U.S. Constitution because, unlike the earlier secret arbitration scheme, the new program would not be run by sitting state judges. Delaware's Chief Justice advocated for a new arbitration program, and the legislation was drafted by a committee of the Delaware State Bar Association. A longtime corporate darling, Delaware is legal home to more than 1 million corporate entities, and more than two-thirds of Fortune 500. Corporations choose Delaware for access to friendly business laws and the Delaware Chancery Court, which is widely recognized for its judicial expertise in matters of corporate law. The new legislation requires resolution of arbitration disputes in 180 days or less, and gives the parties flexibility in choosing expert arbitrators. Other provisions also allow for the speedy resolution of disputes, which state officials claim offer Delaware another advantage as a legal home for corporate entities. See stories here-- http://delonline.us/1FIOcZP and http://bit.ly/1CdZst6

ADR Rules & Policy Proposals Oral Argument Set June 3rd

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy is proposing amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, Family Law Rules, and brand-new Florida Rules for Court-Appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution Neutrals Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes for which No Other Supreme Court Rules or Standards for Professional Conduct Exist. The Florida Bar ADR Section Executive Council has filed its comments in The Florida Supreme Court and has been granted a brief time for oral argument along with others who commented. Among the comments by the ADR Section is a criticism that there is no provision in the proposed rules which mandates that all communications of all "Other ADR Processes" participants are confidential and privileged, as set forth in the Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act (though some proponents say that is for the legislature to handle). There is nothing that provides that decisions, awards, or evaluations are sealed (as are the "awards" in mandatory non-binding arbitration) and may not be considered by the presiding judge in the event that the dispute proceeds to trial. However, apparently the neutral, without agreement of the parties, can impose confidentiality upon the parties. New rule 16.100 (a)(2) states that the neutral upon commencement of an “Other ADR Process” session shall "inform the participants the extent to which communications may be confidential." The concept of an evidentiary "privilege" as to mediation communications, which is not the same as "confidentiality," is nowhere set forth in the proposals, nor do the proposed rules provide for any sanctions which can be imposed upon any party for breaching "confidentiality." In the proposal, “Other ADR Process” is defined as “[A]ny method used to resolve disputes other than litigation for which no other Supreme Court rules or standards of professional conduct exist.” The comment by the section specifically points out that rules 16.010 (b), 12.760 (d)(2), 1.840 (c)(2) incorrectly define a "Neutral" as an "impartial third party who participates in a dispute at the request of the parties or the court in order to help facilitate settlement or resolution of a dispute." The terms "Neutral" and "Impartial" are not one and the same. The term "Impartial" as defined in Rule 11.080 of the Florida Supreme Court Rules for Court-Appointed Arbitrators “means freedom from favoritism or bias in word, action, and appearance." The same definition appears in Rule 10.330 of the Florida Supreme Court Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed mediators. The term "Neutral" means not being predisposed to the resolution or outcome of the ADR process. As such, the proposed rules need to be drafted so as to comport with the existing Court Rules. The ADR Section will divide its presentation with others responding to the presentation at oral argument set for 9:00 am EST June 3, 2015 in this matter. See more information here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml#altdispute and be sure to tune in here-- http://www.wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/live.php

Orlando City SC Lions Owe Inaugural MLS Game to Mediation

It could be said that mediation saved the start of the Major League Soccer (MLS) season and the kickoff of the expansion Orlando City SC Lions before a crowd of over 65,000 at the Citrus Bowl stadium. The sides in MLS’s labor impasse negotiated in Washington, D.C. to avert a work stoppage. MLS had never finalized its labor contract for the past five years, a situation players and management sought to rectify following their agreement in principle last week on a new deal through 2019. The settlement created free agency for the first time in the MLS. Players 28 and older can become free agents after eight MLS seasons when their contracts have expired. Free agents earning under $100,000 this year are capped at 125 percent for 2016, with the limit lowering to 120 percent for those making $100,000-$200,000 this year and 115 percent for those earning more than $200,000. The new labor agreement increases minimum salaries but cuts the roster size of each team from 30 to 28. The union said the last few players on each side never saw much time on the field. Representatives for management and the union utilized the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service with marathon sessions stretching into early morning hours. Reportedly, dozens of players participated in the mediation talks, with several owners also involved. A snowstorm further complicated matters for out-of-town participants. In the end, it was a great weekend of season openers thanks to mediation! See stories here-- http://bit.ly/1Ai9fLz and http://wapo.st/18kNALi and http://bit.ly/18j1ZaA

"You can't turn a no into a yes without a maybe."

President Frank Underwood on Netflix's new season of House of Cards uses this phrase when negotiating with his Russian counterpart. It reminded me of Roger Fisher and William Ury's classic book, Getting to Yes. Commonly, parties bargain over positions, their thesis goes, tending to lock themselves into those positions. The more one clarifies a position and defends it against attack, the more committed they become to it. Agreement becomes less likely as more attention is paid to positions, their argument goes, and less attention is devoted to meeting the underlying concerns of the parties. The problem with negotiating to the "yes" lies not in conflicting positions, but in the conflict between each side’s needs, desires, concerns, and fears, they say. In contrast to positional bargaining, they maintain principled negotiation methods of focusing on basic interests, mutually satisfying options and fair standards more typically result in a "yes" agreement. This method, they assert, permits reaching gradual consensus on a joint decision efficiently without all the transactional costs of digging into positions-- only to give have to dig out of them. Further, people often come into a negotiation realizing that the stakes are high and feeling threatened. Fisher & Ury state emotions may quickly bring about a "no" ending in an impasse. Therefore, they assert separating the people from the problem allows dealing directly and empathetically with the other side as human beings, making possible an amicable agreement. Importantly, they identify the skill of inventing options as one of the most useful assets a negotiator can have. They say when looking behind opposed positions for the motivating interests, one can often find an alternative position which meets not only its own interests but theirs as well. Perhaps this is where the "maybe" is achieved on the road to settlement?

Armstrong Arbitration

A three-arbitrator panel in Texas found 2-1 in favor of SCA Promotions, a Dallas sports insurer that paid cyclist Lance Armstrong millions of dollars in bonuses for winning seven Tour de France titles. SCA’s dispute with Armstrong began over a decade ago, after the former U.S. Postal Service team member won the 2004 Tour de France, the sixth of his seven consecutive victories. Following doping allegations, that case went to arbitration in 2005, and SCA Promotions was forced to pay $7.5 million in 2006. Evidence from the SCA arbitration dispute was used against him, including testimony from a former teammate and his wife, who said they heard Armstrong admit to using performance-enhancing drugs back in 1996. Armstrong was later banned for life by the United States Anti-Doping Agency and stripped of his seven Tour de France titles in August 2012. Armstrong did not admit to taking banned drugs until a January 2013 televised interview with Oprah Winfrey. SCA accused Armstrong of fraud and filed suit in early 2013, and after the case was sent to arbitration, Armstrong unsuccessfully tried for an appeal with the Texas Supreme Court to have the case blocked. In a filing yesterday, SCA Promotions asked a Texas state judge to confirm the arbitration award against Armstrong. It wants the court to enter a $10 million judgment against Armstrong and former team owner that may enable it to collect payment. Armstrong’s lawyer maintains that the dispute was fully and finally settled voluntarily years earlier. However, reportedly, Armstrong offered to pay SCA the entire $10 million, despite the absence of any legal basis for the sanction, and SCA refused the offer. Armstrong is also facing a $100 million fraud lawsuit from the federal government. See stories here-- http://on.wsj.com/17L3fUG and http://on.si.com/1zkTpzc

FLADR.org is new ADR Section Website

The ADR Section of The Florida Bar has launched its new website at www.FLADR.org. The ADR Section provides a forum for lawyers practicing in alternative dispute resolution, including discussion and exchange of ideas leading to an improvement of individual ADR skills and abilities. Any member in good standing of The Florida Bar interested in the purpose of the section is eligible for membership upon application and payment of $35 in addition to the regular annual Bar dues. The ADR Section keeps Bar members informed and updated regarding legislation, rules and policies in connection with mediation and other ADR processes and the responsibilities they impose on mediator and arbitrator members, as well as provide quality continuing legal education programs. I am pleased to have chaired the initial website effort and thank our Executive Council for their effort in creating content and launching our young section’s website-- as well as, Lani Fraser, Bar Liaison. We invite every member to utilize the resources there which include MEAC opinion links, the ADR News & Notes newsletters, and CLE postings. Visitors may also provide us with suggestions on how we can improve the site and our section. Please use the Contact page to provide us with your thoughts and recommendations. We hope you find it informative and helpful. So now go and check out www.FLADR.org

Guess Who’s Coming To Mediation - Next Thursday 2/19 at Noon!

Register for our free Upchurch Watson White & Max CLE webinar: "Guess Who’s Coming To Mediation" February 19. 2015 at noon. UWWM has applied for 1.0 hour General Credit (50 min) CLE from The Florida Bar. Program Speakers include distinguished UWWM mediators: Michelle Jernigan, Lawrence Kolin, and Dominic Brandy. At this unique online seminar, designed to increase or maintain the attorney’s professional competence and skills as a lawyer, you will be exposed to Florida rules under the topic of attendance and authority at mediation. Effective speakers in the areas of mediation certificates of authority and local rules, and use of technology for attendance will engage the audience and inspire conversation and questions on the related topics. The seminar is geared toward litigation practitioners whose clients utilize recognized processes in Florida’s courts to resolve cases, as well as mediators and arbitrators who may be eligible for CME. Michelle Jernigan will serve as our Moderator and review recent state rule changes for certifying attendance under Rule 1.720, FRCP. This rule redefines party attendance/authority and significantly, requires that the parties file a “certification of authority,” 10 days prior to appearing at a mediation conference, identifying the person or persons who will be attending the mediation conference as a party representative or as an insurance carrier representative, and confirming that those persons have the authority required by the amended rule. Lawrence Kolin will continue the discussion of appellate attendance rule, Rule 9.720, FRAP and local rules for court annexed mediation in the U.S. District Courts for the MDFL and NDFL and business court. The new language in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.720 was originally suggested by Kolin and designed to mirror what has been in effect for mediation of trial court level cases since 2011. Mediated settlement conferences pursuant to this rule are meant to be conducted when the participants actually engaged in the settlement negotiations have full authority to settle the case without further consultation. Local court rules for the Middle and Northern Districts of Florida will also be covered. Finally, Dominic Brandy will outline of new rule in U.S. District Court for SDFL and requirement for court approval, if variations are required. Unless excused in writing by the presiding Judge, all parties and required claims professionals (e.g., insurance adjusters) shall be physically present at the SDFL mediation conference (i.e., in person if the party is a natural person or by personal attendance of a corporate representative if the party is an entity) with full authority to negotiate a settlement. The mediator shall report non-attendance to the Court. Failure to comply with the attendance or settlement authority requirements may subject a party to sanctions by the Court. A Question & Answer session will follow the webinar presentation. Information on panelists at http://www.uww-adr.com/webinar/guess-whos-coming-to-mediation and link to your registration here--https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/628144760073036802 so sign-up now!

ADR Rules & Policy Responds to Comments on ADR Process Rules for which No Other Standards Exist

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy is proposing amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, Family Law Rules, and brand-new Florida Rules for Court-Appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution Neutrals Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes for which No Other Supreme Court Rules or Standards for Professional Conduct Exist. Comments were filed at the end of last year to which Committee Chair, Hon. William D. Palmer, Fifth District Court of Appeal has responded, stating the new rules and standards provide basic rules intended to provide some level of guidance to practitioners and protection to consumers for ADR processes for which no guidance or protections currently exist. Current ADR processes which have promulgated rules and standards would not be subject to these rules. According to the committee's response, some of the "Other ADR Processes" are currently authorized in statute (such as Voluntary Trial Resolution) and others are being utilized by courts and parties with no particular statement of authority (such as Early Neutral Evaluation). The ADR Rules and Policy Committee seeks to encourage expanded and innovative use of ADR processes without fear of placing parties in jeopardy. The committee feels there is no way of knowing what Other ADR Process will be selected or created by parties or the court, and so there is no way to suggest specific qualifications, certifications, definitions or an appropriate disciplinary process. Due to the unknown nature of which process may be selected, the committee feels it must be up to the court ordering the process to establish some guidance for the process. With regard to confidentiality, the committee states there are many ADR processes for which confidentiality is neither appropriate nor expected. The committee did agree to modify defining a neutral as follows: an impartial third party who is not predisposed to the resolution or outcome of the process who participates at the request of the parties or the court in order to help facilitate settlement or resolution of a dispute. The committee concludes that the adoption of new rules may lead to experience necessary for novel ADR processes to gain popularity, after which time the courts and/or legislature may have confidence to adopt more specific rules for those utilized successfully over a period of time. It is unclear whether the Supreme Court of Florida will hold oral argument on this proposal. See more in filings for Case No. SC14-1852 at http://www.floridasupremecourt.org