Florida Arbitrator Rule Changes

The Supreme Court of Florida just issued an opinion on its Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy Committee's petition to amend the Florida Rule for Court-Appointed Arbitrators 11.010, entitled Qualification. The amendments to Rule 11.010 are intended to clarify the qualifications for Florida court-appointed arbitrators. Effective immediately, the court modified the rules such that a sole or chief court-appointed arbitrator must be a member in good standing of The Florida Bar for the preceding five years, unless the parties agree in writing that the sole or chief court-appointed arbitrator may be an individual who has been for the preceding five years a member in good standing and eligible to practice law in any United States jurisdiction, which includes the District of Columbia and any state, commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. In addition, the rule is amended to clarify that a non-licensed individual who is not currently disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction may serve as a non-chair arbitrator on an arbitration panel with the written agreement of all parties. This change enables parties to select from a wide variety of neutrals to be utilized in the arbitration process with some safeguards particularly focused on the chair, but allowing for wings such a non-lawyers with related expertise that may not have been otherwise qualified. See more from Florida Supreme Court case number SC24-0442 here-- https://tinyurl.com/fv45n4p6

It's Mediation er, um rather ADR Week!

Each October, we celebrate Mediation Week which has officially changed to Alternative Dispute Resolution or "ADR Week" in recognition of the importance of all forms of dispute resolution utilized in Florida. Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Carlos G. Muñiz, recognized October 13-19th as ADR Week in Florida’s courts, and the members of Florida’s Dispute Resolution Center and The Florida Bar ADR Section are excited to take this time to celebrate Florida’s leadership over the past 35 years in successfully utilizing ADR practices. Of course, these practices include mediation, arbitration, parenting coordination, eldercaring coordination, and other restorative and evaluative processes that encourage joint problem solving and effective resolution of disputes outside of the courtroom. All forms of ADR strive to assist parties to resolve their own disputes through self-determination, without the need for a trial. ADR is quite effective and efficient for the attorneys and litigants involved, and it also conserves resources in Florida’s trial and appellate courts. Florida’s skilled ADR practitioners empower individuals, families, schools, and businesses to foster communication, create solutions, and develop lasting solutions to difficult issues. Locally, the ADR Section is celebrating by having a mixer on 10/22 from 5:30-7:30 PM at Eola Wine Company, 430 E. Central Blvd., Orlando. Please RSVP to alicia@rtmediation.com See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/28pmjrpu and here-- https://tinyurl.com/yxv72eky

Join us 10/30 as we reflect on 10 years!

Join us later this month on 10/30 at noon ET for a free CLE webinar as my esteemed colleague and I celebrate our 10th anniversary with ADR pioneers, Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation Group. We thought we would share our combined wisdom gained from helping lawyers and participants of the process get to yes over the past decade. As the registration blast indicates, veteran circuit-civi mediators of the firm, Jeff Fleming and Lawrence Kolin, will take our attendees on a journey through a decade of lessons learned from serving as full-time professional neutrals, including: - How their perceptions of mediation have changed - Comparing Zoom with in-person mediations - Preparation and mediation summaries - Opening statement by the parties - Best timing for a mediation - How long mediations should last - Why some caucuses take so long - Using brackets effectively - Asynchronous negotiation - Managing expectations The Florida Bar has accredited this webinar for 1.0 hours of General Continuing Legal Education (CLE) and of course you may, as always, self-report Continuing Mediator Education (CME) credit to DRC. Register here-- https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_aMDTyUADSYG38xPgFZCGIg#/registration

Comments on Attorneys Signing Settlement Agreements Due 10/1

The Supreme Court of Florida has received a petition from The Florida Bar Civil Rules Committee stemming from a case reported a couple of years ago, Parkland Condominium Association, Inc. v. Henderson, 350 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) where the court did not enforce a deal when the attorneys signed a mediated settlement agreement, but the parties never did. The proposed rule change to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.730 will no longer require signature of counsel to the parties on mediation settlement agreements and will permit the signature of a party representative (e.g., insurer) if they have full authority to settle. Many cases we see referred to mediation have no Certificates of Authority despite the civil rules saying they must be timely filed before mediation. Mediators compromise their neutrality when they are asked by counsel and their clients to police such compliance. The Civil Rules Committee notes that in reviewing Rule 1.730, it requires, "erroneously," a lawyer's signature on a mediation agreement as Florida law does not otherwise require it. The applicable statute merely requires that a mediated settlement agreement be "signed by the parties and, if required by law, approved by the court." See § 44.404(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Attorneys signing at the end gives a certain gravity to the mediation process and evidences they have read over it and advised the parties signing. I never saw counsel complain in decades of doing this. Comments are due by October 1,2024. Find more on case number SC2024-0774 here--https://tinyurl.com/mrxuxcmj

Did The Mouse Give Arb a Black Eye?

Recent stories of a wrongful death case that Disney sought to arbitrate through a clickwrap-type agreement from its streaming service have caused an uproar. After a media frenzy, Disney relented yesterday, waiving arbitration and stating: "'We strive to put humanity above all other considerations. With such unique circumstances as the ones in this case, we believe this situation warrants a sensitive approach to expedite a resolution for the family who have experienced such a painful loss.'” Though Disney has withdrawn its motion to arbitrate and will proceed in Orange County Circuit Court, those legal clauses still exist across Disney’s platforms, including on its streaming services and park entrance tickets. For instance, when you create a Disney+ or ESPN+ account, you also agree to the Walt Disney Company’s Terms of Use that include waiving a jury trial. Disney said it was defending against the attempt to include them in the lawsuit against a restaurant, an Irish pub inside Disney Springs where the decedent dined, at the shopping complex Disney leases to other companies. The lawsuit alleges it was billed on Disney’s website as having allergen free food and that the waiter then “'guaranteed'” that the food was allergen-free. The patron, a physician, later died from anaphylaxis, even after self-administering an EpiPen. Arbitration was sought based on an older Disney+ subscription, as well as use of the company's website in 2023 to buy theme park tickets. These headlines, combined with the recent controversy over Olympic gymnastics medals, seemingly gives pause to those that would otherwise utilize an ADR process that often leads to faster outcomes with less associated costs and finality in deciding disputes. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/35dva36a and https://tinyurl.com/nhkbkrrm and https://shorturl.at/6qU3C (image via Deviant Art)

FL Case Management Comments due 8/6

The Supreme Court of Florida recently put forth new Case Management procedures under Rules 1.200 and 1.201 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, but because they did so without a formal comment period beforehand, members of the bar may weigh in by August 6, 2024. These rule changes would otherwise take effect on January 1, 2025. I have been working with the ADR Section of The Florida Bar on a comment regarding the lack of a clear definition for exactly what alternative dispute resolution processes are contemplated by the rule. We are seeking to add the following italicized language into the revised Rule 1.200(d)(2)(H) entitled Case Management Order for completion of alternative dispute resolution including mediation, arbitration and other processes available under Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Defining what “alternative dispute resolution” includes or means (as it is not clearly defined in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure) will reduce confusion by specifically mentioning the most commonly utilized methods and alluding to additional methods available under Florida Statutes and Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby supporting the Supreme Court's purpose to promote fair and timely resolution of cases. This also allows for future methods of dispute resolution to be incorporated without the need for rule amendments, such as perhaps Early Neutral Evaluation. In their commentary to the rules, the court notes Rule 1.200 as amended is intended to supersede any case management rules issued by circuit courts and administrative orders on case management to the extent of contradiction. The rule is not intended to preclude the possibility of administrative orders issued by circuit chief judges and local rules under Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.215 that refine and supplement the procedures delineated in the rule, including rollover practices for situations where a trial is not reached during the scheduled trial period. See more here at case number SC2023-0962 here-- https://tinyurl.com/yujktxpf

FL Non-Binding Arb Rule Changes Effective 7/1

The Supreme Court of Florida accepted most of the Florida Bar Civil Rules Committee’s proposal to amend Rule of Procedure 1.820 regarding the Non-Binding Arbitration process, though rejected requiring that an arbitration decision be served on the parties, but not filed with the court. The Committee proposed this change because the move to electronic filing made rule 1.820(g)(3)’s requirement to file an arbitrator’s decision under seal unworkable, as it is difficult to shield certain parts of an electronic case file from review by the presiding judge. Though they agreed the rule needs to be amended to better align with existing electronic filing practices, they believe an arbitrator’s decision needs to be filed with the court after the arbitration process has concluded to avoid unnecessary confusion and to ensure that the court can timely act on the decision under rule 1.820(h) if no request for trial de novo is made. Still, the court might revisit this matter and suggested a possible solution may be to simply require arbitrators to use a coversheet when filing their decisions with the court reminding the presiding judge not to review the decision-- unless no request for trial de novo is made in accordance with Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes (2023). As for the changes going into effect this summer, Rule 1.820(h) is now retitled “Notice of Rejection of the Arbitration Decision and Request for Trial” and clarifies the process for rejecting an arbitrator’s decision and requesting a trial de novo. Under the amended rule, an arbitration decision will be deemed rejected only if such notice is filed with the court within 20 days of service of the arbitrator’s written decision. See more here-- Fla. S. Ct. Case number SC2022-1719 https://tinyurl.com/5c5wbttn

Florida Arbitrator Rule Comments Due 6/4!

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy has filed a petition with the Florida Supreme Court to amend the qualifications for court-appointed arbitrators to clarify the language of Rule 11.010, Florida Rules for Court Appointed Arbitrators, entitled Qualification, which provides the requirements for qualification as a non-binding arbitrator. Apparently, the impetus is that the current rule is internally contradictory, or at best confusing. The first sentence basically nullifies itself– “Arbitrators shall be members of The Florida Bar, except where otherwise agreed by the parties.” So, the parties can decide an arbitrator is anyone off the street despite the first clause in the sentence requiring them to be members of The Florida Bar. The second sentence of the current rule is vague or ambiguous. It says, “The chief arbitrator shall have been a member of The Florida Bar for at least five years” with no reference to good standing or whether the “five years” are immediately preceding or even consecutive. The third and final sentence then says, “Individuals who are not members of The Florida Bar may serve as arbitrators only on an arbitration panel and then only upon the written agreement of all parties.” By its terms, this sentence limits the seemingly absolute ”where otherwise agreed by the parties” in the first sentence of the rule and allows individuals who are not members of The Florida Bar to serve as arbitrators only on panels even “where otherwise agreed by the parties [from the first sentence].” Some members of the Arbitration Committee of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of The Florida Bar are considering a comment with concern for out of state lawyers. The proposed rule only adds permission for them to be the chief or sole arbirator “if agreed to by the parties.” Otherwise, they have the same opportunity to be arbitrators as under the first sentence of the current rule. The new language purports to maintain the protection of the qualification requirement for arbitrators, but allows the parties to continue to select arbitrators from a broad field. The petition is styled In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules for Court-Appointed Arbitrators, and the court has assigned case number SC2024-0442. The court has announced a public comment period through June 4, 2024. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/2p9mcx8r and https://tinyurl.com/bdhc43c4

SCOTUS Broadens FAA Transportation Industry Exemption

This month, The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case about franchisees who transported packaged baked goods, including Wonder Bread, from a warehouse and distributed them to local shops. The distributors contracted with Flowers bakery which incorporated arbitration agreements requiring “any claim, dispute, and/or controversy” to be arbitrated under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). They later sued Flowers for wage-and-hour claims under state and federal law. Flowers moved to compel arbitration under the FAA. The Franchisees argued that they fell within an exemption in Section 1 of the FAA: “nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The federal district court granted Flowers’ motion, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Second Circuit reasoned that the interstate commerce exemption only exempts from the FAA’s coverage “workers involved in the transportation industries,” not breads, buns, rolls, and snack cakes. SCOTUS held that “there is no such requirement,” explaining that Section 1 “focuses on ‘the performance of work’ rather than the industry of the employer,” and that the statute “says nothing to direct courts to consider the industry of a worker’s employer.” The Second Circuit decided that an entity would be considered within the transportation industry if it “pegs its charges chiefly to the movement of goods or passengers” and its “predominant source of commercial revenue is generated by that movement.” But SCOTUS said that test would often turn on arcane riddles about the nature of a company’s services. For example, does a pizza delivery company derive its revenue mainly from pizza or delivery? Extensive discovery might be necessary before deciding a motion to compel arbitration, adding expense and delay to every FAA case. That “complexity and uncertainty” they said would result in litigation the statute seeks to avoid. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/2yyykup5 and opinion here-- https://tinyurl.com/yc53j85p

Join us 4/2 for a Free Risk Assessment CLE/CME

Join me and my old friend and new UWWM colleague, Frank Bedell, for a free CLE Webinar at noon ET on Apri 2, 2024. We will explore a foundational understanding of risk assessments. The risk assessment is not about numerical accuracy. It is about reducing a complex claim environment to an easily understandable frame of reference so the client has a clear understanding of where they sit and the relative risk environment (understanding the litigation process and options for resolution). This includes finding agreement on the core claims, defenses, and issues, enough to make an informed valuation of the case. In the end, the objective of the risk assessment is alignment between client and counsel so a path forward can be responsibly outlined – and reevaluated as developments occur. We intend to offer some ideas in the problem-solving role of mediation and to encourage some innovation in the daily approach of settling lawsuits. This complimentary CLE is approved by the Florida Bar for 1.0 hour of general CLE credit. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Register here-- https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2621743033060336982

ADR Rules & Policy Approves Language

This week, the Florida Supreme Court's ADR Rules and Policy Committee approved in its response regarding rule amendments (by a vote of 16 to 0) my suggested change submitted through the ADR Section Executive Council comment regarding revisions to Rule 10.340(d)(2) on conflicts of interest as follows: “(2) the mediator previously provided services (other than mediation services) for, or represented one or more of the mediation participants in, the matters current case or dispute at issue in the mediation; or…" The ADR Rules and Policy Committee found this narrows the scope of the proposed language. They agree since this provision addresses “clear” conflicts of interest, which are not waivable, the scope should only be broad enough to address the harm to be avoided. The Committee’s language, “matters at issue in the mediation,” is broader than my suggested language. The broader scope would require a mediator to decline serving as a mediator even if the potentially conflicting interests are not directly related to the case or dispute being mediated. For non-waivable conflicts of interest, a narrower scope may be preferable in order to ensure that parties have the widest latitude in selecting a mediator, while still ensuring mediator impartiality. Therefore, the Committee supported narrowing the scope through alternate language and has asked the court to adopt it and other changes pending a decision to grant oral argument. See more here-- http://tinyurl.com/eedckhhj

Nonsignatory Attorneys Bound by Settlement Agreement?

In a recent decision out of Florida's Fourth District Court of Appeal on cases 4D2022-3194 and 4D2022-3438, an attorney that did not enter an appearance, nor sign either settlement agreement at issue, authored a blog post commenting about the outcome of the underlying litigation and remarking negatively about one of the parties. The trial court hearing a claim for breach of contract then reasoned that the lawyer was bound by the settlement agreements' plain language, recognizing that Florida law does not require a signature as a prerequisite to be bound by a contract. The trial court also found that the blogging lawyer's undisputed conduct breached the settlement agreements' applicable confidentiality and non-dissemination provisions. On appeal, the sole issue as defined by the appellate court was a narrow one: whether the nonsignatory attorney to the settlement agreements that his clients signed, is bound by the settlement agreements because they include provisions purporting to bind the lawyer specifically by name or by his role as "counsel" or "attorney." The 4th DCA answered this question in the negative from a purely contractual standpoint. While it may be true that the lawyer negotiated the settlement agreements, transmitted them to his clients for their signatures, returned the settlement agreements to the attorney representing them in court, and benefited from the settlement agreements, these are customary actions performed by attorneys. Because the blogging lawyer did not sign the settlement agreements, is not named as a party, and did not manifest consent to be bound, the appeals court found that he is not bound, and the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor in the breach of contract lawsuit. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/eye7xme9 and https://tinyurl.com/2np7rp4

FL Mediator Rule Comments Due 3/4

The ADR Rules and Policy Committee of The Supreme Court of Florida has proposed revisions to the rules governing certified and court-appointed mediators. While the changes are outlined in the links below and mostly consist of revisions to form such as "shall" being replaced with "must," they do have some substantive changes as requirements in becoming a certified mediator and in the conflict rules, so please consider weighing in on these amendments by March 4th. You may comment by sending your correspondence to the ADR Committee Chair, Honorable Michael S. Orfinger, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Volusia County Courthouse, 101 N. Alabama Avenue, Ste. C-443, DeLand, FL 32724, morfinger@circuit7.org, and the OSCA Staff Liaison to the Committee, Thomas A. David, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927, davidt@flcourts.org, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. The ADR Committee then has until March 25th to respond to commments. It is always important to participate in rulemaking as a member of the bar and the ADR profession so that the Committee can get proper feedback for what is actutally going on in the trenches. See more here-- http://tinyurl.com/395rat8k and http://tinyurl.com/eedckhhj

Orlando Mediator Top 5

Since 2010, upon my becoming a full-time neutral, I have tried to bring awareness to our little corner of the world in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) through blogging about mediation and arbitration online. Once again, the Orlando Mediator blog received the honor of being named in the top five and moved up to fourth among Alternative Dispute Resolution blogs out of sixty ranked on the web by traffic, social media followers, domain authority and freshness. I'm certainly in some good company on this list with established dispute resolution blogs around the world that actually have professional writers. Orlando Mediator is recognized by Feedspot among the best, including such distinguished blogs published by big names like Kluwer and even above those by prominent ADR organizations like the American Arbitration Association (AAA), The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (Ciarb) and International Institute for Conflict Prevention & Resolution (CPR). Feedspot's experts chose Orlando Mediator as number four in the world for what their founder calls the most comprehensive list of Dispute Resolution Blogs on the planet! Feedspot says it is the internet’s largest human curated database of bloggers and podcasts. Their list combines RSS feeds allowing users to keep track of many different websites in a single news aggregator. I am humbled to know this labor of love for my chosen field is appreciated. I do enjoy keeping everyone informed on the latest trends and happenings in mediation and related fields through this outlet. Thanks again for your readership and support over the years! The full list is available here-- https://legal.feedspot.com/dispute_resolution_blogs/ and https://rss.feedspot.com/dispute_resolution_rss_feeds/