Join me for Free Keys to Commercial Mediation CLE

I'll be moderating a webinar September 30, 2026 at noon ET featuring fellow UWWM panelists Alan Espy and Charlie Green as we explore the keys to conducting commercial mediation. We will examine strategic decisions that can improve the outcome of complex commercial disputes before, during and throughout the mediation process. We will also discuss when to schedule mediation, how commercial mediations differ from other civil disputes, effective preparation by counsel and mediator, and practical negotiation techniques that help parties reach resolution. The program is designed for attorneys who handle business, commercial and complex civil litigation and want practical strategies they can apply immediately for better odds at successful settlemnt. Commercial mediation concerns business-to-business disputes involving one or more contractual relationships where there is generally no insurance for the alleged loss or liability– meaning that the checkbook at the table belongs to the disputants, and discussion about the merits of the dispute at hand will only get you so far. The parties’ respective business realities and a host of other external factors need to be considered. The Florida Bar has accredited our firm Webinar for 1.0 hours of General Continuing Legal Education (CLE). You may also self report Continuing Mediator Credit (CME) to the Dispute Resolution Center upon renewal. See more and register here-- https://www.uww-adr.com/event/keys-to-successful-commercial-mediations/ and https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/9117889608951/WN_SDud1Z8gRsmyjzMQKsPy3g#/registration

OA on Civil Rule 1.820 Nonbinding Arb 10/8

The Supreme Court of Florida has scheduled oral argument for October 8, 2026 in a pending civil procedure rules case following submission and comment period on The Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee's proposed amendments regarding outcome of cases under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820. The standing Civil Rules Committee of The Florida Bar seeks to amend Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 after confusion arising from People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Hernandez, 413 So. 3d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) where the Fourth District Court of Appeal interpreted nonbinding arbitration notice language as requiring a party to state both that it was “rejecting” the arbitration decision and that it was “requesting a trial” in the written filing. In Hernandez, while the party filed a request for trial de novo, the request did not include language that the party was “rejecting” the arbitration award. The court said the request for trial de novo did not strictly comply with Rule 1.820 (h) and was therefore ineffective. When the Civil Rules Committee last proposed amending Rule 1.820, it was not their intention to create a requirement to use “magic words” to reject an arbitration award-- it was to create a requirement that a request for trial de novo be accomplished by a written filing. Members of the committee now agree that it is duplicative and unnecessary for a party to say both that the arbitration award is being rejected and that a trial de novo is being requested. Rather, it is implicit that a request for a trial de novo is a rejection of the arbitration award. There was also a concern that Article I, Section 22 of the Florida Constitution states “[t]he right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate” and a procedural rule should not invade that right by creating a trap for the unwary. To address the Hernandez decision’s interpretation, Civil Rules proposes amending subdivision (h) to clarify that only a written request for trial need be filed; the filing does not have to be a “notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial.” Just decided by the 6th DCA while this change is pending was a similar case, The Waterfront in Naples Condominium Association, Inc. v. Reynolds, Consolidated Case Nos. 6D2025-0624, 6D2025-0623 on August 21, 2026. In that opinion, the court found the goal of interpretation is to arrive at a fair reading of the rule text on the basis of how a reasobable reader would understand it at the time of issue. They declined a magic words test, such that a timely filed document (not a specific form) served as enough notice required for the trial court to conclude the award was rejected because a trial de novo was requested in compliance with the statute, FS 44.103. See official rules amendment petition case pending before the Florida Supreme Court docketed here-- https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/court/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/case/14463DCF-4E3D-428D-B801-B5BC1DC7570A and case that brought about the need for clarification-- https://law.justia.com/cases/florida/fourth-district-court-of-appeal/2025/4d2024-3274.html and most recent case from which a conflict was certified-- https://flcourts-media.flcourts.gov/content/download/2494192/opinion/Opinion_2025-0623.pdf