DRC Call for CME Presentations

The Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) is calling for proposals for this summer's annual mediator conference. The conference will be held virtually on August 11 - 13, 2021. If your workshop submission is selected, you may be asked to present twice during the conference. You and your second presenter, if applicable, will receive a conference registration waiver. By submitting a workshop proposal, you agree to allow your presentation to be recorded and agree to submit to the DRC prior to the conference any materials you intend to distribute in conjunction with the conference. The recording and materials will become public records. If you believe copyright or trademark interests exist, you must notify DRC upon submission of your proposal. If no copyright or trademark interests exists when you submit your proposal, all such rights are otherwise waived upon submission of the proposal. Presenters should be familiar with virtual conference software (such as Swoogo, Pathable or Zoom) and have experience presenting their session during a virtual conference. See more info here-- https://bit.ly/2ZX0IUk

Fla. S. Ct. Declines to Adopt New Mediator Rules

Last month, the Supreme Court of Florida quietly rejected a multi-year rules proposal effort by its own ADR Rules & Policy Committee attempting to ensure that the mediation process operates in accordance with mediator rules and standards already adopted. The proposed revisions pertained to the practice and procedures of mediation in the court system and added requirements that those who mediate court connected cases as part of the machinery of the judicial process must observe the existing rules of mediators, regardless of certification. The committee found it inconsistent and illogical to have one group of professionals in the court process who are subject to no ethical standards involving the vitally important mediation service they provide the public. Florida certified court mediators are already obligated to follow rules related to mediation in the court system. However, the court chose to leave existing rules in place such that parties are still free to choose whomever they want (clergy, rabbi, spiritual advisor) to mediate their case without the beneficial boundaries of mediator ethics and a system of enforcement. While the committee made clear it does not believe the creation of an exempt group of compensated court professionals was the intent of the court for mediation in Florida, the court left it alone with only a dissent from Justice Polston emphasizing the need for instilling public confidence through principled ethical protections in mediation of pending state court cases. See more in Case Number: SC20-565 here-- http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org