tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9590596980365802892024-03-05T12:05:50.921-05:00Orlando MediatorOrlando Mediator Lawrence Kolin explores current issues in Alternative Dispute Resolution, including mediation and arbitration of complex cases by neutrals resulting in settlement of state and federal litigation and appeals. This blog covers a wide variety of topics-- local, national, and international-- and includes the latest on technology and Online Dispute Resolution affecting sophisticated lawyers and parties to lawsuits.LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comBlogger460125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-35780603763801190082024-03-05T12:01:00.004-05:002024-03-05T12:05:19.685-05:00Nonsignatory 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
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha0sqniLbYuPwlqHMEY5k6cWKTv0Dch79ryAHncIatx3f9F0CPqfSBmKtER6sCKLe5UKROg-9SuJUlnw_fW5ZI4Pf1IrXdere4dvi-gRtoxzkSpItAjmcXcP0W4HPoK-k1QPO0H5yOvc3Bz0WrHIpP29qFT__hHfkyJnKmNhX51POURmif2QZ_SRKQKPU/s1584/Screenshot%202024-03-05%20at%2011.56.45%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="684" data-original-width="1584" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha0sqniLbYuPwlqHMEY5k6cWKTv0Dch79ryAHncIatx3f9F0CPqfSBmKtER6sCKLe5UKROg-9SuJUlnw_fW5ZI4Pf1IrXdere4dvi-gRtoxzkSpItAjmcXcP0W4HPoK-k1QPO0H5yOvc3Bz0WrHIpP29qFT__hHfkyJnKmNhX51POURmif2QZ_SRKQKPU/s320/Screenshot%202024-03-05%20at%2011.56.45%20AM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-85442383173408724432024-02-11T15:38:00.003-05:002024-02-11T15:47:05.424-05:00FL Mediator Rule Comments Due 3/4The 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
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuU2TDUUrrnhvCFnQw9Z-JTVvnbGXnn2fiCYhkF6tQWomGmVm1YFXqBexANDA8ZoLBAg1Dg3I-ILTvQ3PsURR9bLv-Hljv9u-4LUzbnzSnOZ6QLVdaAEBSjMqUSrp6COMnaiGTVa18q9QljP6hsT8W-mygbAPURgSuugEsBczWHok_SOYbqQD018mnPjI/s1134/Screenshot%202024-02-11%20at%203.25.51%E2%80%AFPM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="1134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuU2TDUUrrnhvCFnQw9Z-JTVvnbGXnn2fiCYhkF6tQWomGmVm1YFXqBexANDA8ZoLBAg1Dg3I-ILTvQ3PsURR9bLv-Hljv9u-4LUzbnzSnOZ6QLVdaAEBSjMqUSrp6COMnaiGTVa18q9QljP6hsT8W-mygbAPURgSuugEsBczWHok_SOYbqQD018mnPjI/s320/Screenshot%202024-02-11%20at%203.25.51%E2%80%AFPM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-78269773458937061022024-01-12T09:27:00.000-05:002024-01-12T09:27:20.555-05:00Orlando Mediator Top 5Since 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/
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVHuVaME8fMSWO6YzCa2zdtheC2yDz7E37IIfpPTnYZmTqoa1oOh2V8m6DJyHTlQvMfTN45SiiF8mfz_4wfGmzrSmK_eXq53RKqMY2dZ_FhzsGOndBwx851dGS99FUBqz5ZaZiKcBkQNijZiJYV8qfZPG1rbXKFR4q2odcBcG1qOX3ebPWWynwZHdrb4o/s320/Screenshot%202024-01-12%20at%209.23.02%E2%80%AFAM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="187" data-original-width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVHuVaME8fMSWO6YzCa2zdtheC2yDz7E37IIfpPTnYZmTqoa1oOh2V8m6DJyHTlQvMfTN45SiiF8mfz_4wfGmzrSmK_eXq53RKqMY2dZ_FhzsGOndBwx851dGS99FUBqz5ZaZiKcBkQNijZiJYV8qfZPG1rbXKFR4q2odcBcG1qOX3ebPWWynwZHdrb4o/s320/Screenshot%202024-01-12%20at%209.23.02%E2%80%AFAM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-75519683927560010122023-12-02T06:27:00.001-05:002023-12-02T06:29:24.072-05:00Common Ground - Commercial MediationThis month, I'm pleased to be featured in <i>The Common Ground</i> publication by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the Florida Bar fall/winter issue. I have written about the the dynamics of mediating commercial litigation cases and the unique and different challenges of this type of mediation. Getting the proper parties to the table and adequate preparation of counsel and client are keys to success. I also explain the nuances of commercial mediation by discussing relationships, strategy, multi-party cases, impasse, mediated settlement agreements, and more. Most disputes result from the breakdown of a relationship. Commercial mediators are often able to ascertain the root of that breakdown. Just as in other types of cases, there are underlying relationship issues and while it is conventional wisdom to try and separate the personal from the business issues, it is often the interpersonal that needs to be overcome to get to a satisfactory resolution. For commercial litigation, the atmosphere at mediation should be more like negotiating a complex business deal than making closing arguments. Competitors may even end up becoming partners at the end. See the article along with the entire issue here-- bit.ly/ADR_FW23_CG
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIKHFTQwl7vdUAIN2eVIAFdJj_OXnedIwkqpxnK-kkCX6Y65xjKkdN1E9ux2xNU2rZ8TXADbsxdIWbi4G8enCJXtSMi9tUysk8LTTdyPoOa78H9grSoN7-YkuVs94Q6EmwMea2OsGY2c6eBaa7o0gmSWtWv4_hgMQvyK6VDuqPI1ZpRm8Y6N8hB6_9Afs/s1080/LKTCG.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="1080" data-original-width="1080" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIKHFTQwl7vdUAIN2eVIAFdJj_OXnedIwkqpxnK-kkCX6Y65xjKkdN1E9ux2xNU2rZ8TXADbsxdIWbi4G8enCJXtSMi9tUysk8LTTdyPoOa78H9grSoN7-YkuVs94Q6EmwMea2OsGY2c6eBaa7o0gmSWtWv4_hgMQvyK6VDuqPI1ZpRm8Y6N8hB6_9Afs/s320/LKTCG.png"/></a></div>
LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-68516107809399045522023-11-05T08:29:00.000-05:002023-11-05T08:29:07.447-05:00SCOTUS to decide Coinbase ArbitrabilityLast week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert and agreed to hear a cryptocurrency case that would move a dispute with users of a cryptocurrency exchange out of courts and into private arbitration. At issue is whether upon creating their Coinbase accounts, users agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration. A subsequent agreement related to a Dogecoin sweepstakes stipulated that any issues related to the contest must be addressed in state court. Users later accused Coinbase of violating California’s false advertising law by luring them into a sweepstakes offering Dogecoin prizes so they brought a class-action lawsuit in federal court. A federal district judge in California refused Coinbase's request to enforce arbitration, as the company argued its user agreements required. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's decision. In a related dispute last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Coinbase. In that case, the justices supported Coinbase’s request to suspend customer lawsuits while seeking appeals to move disputes from courts to private arbitration. The review of the current case will likely impact the current status of arbitrability decisions by courts verus arbitrators and the utilization of arbitration clauses and enforcement of user agreements, especially in digital currency trading. When parties enter into successive contracts, and the first contains an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause but the second does not, who decides whether the first contract’s arbitration agreement governs any later disputes? This may finally resolve a regional circuit split. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/ycy8xr67 and https://tinyurl.com/32s87z6t and https://tinyurl.com/2z57nbez
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFPZSOIrWIQYXK81moyDfNntGI1VODFUO9C0FGUO_ToQeGS_3R16v0LCnMXNk53F8k5o5IGP6HWVgvNxthuApZgiQdb0SF5VW41P3Imt5_5NBNO-Kurp8FkuD68nhpnjcByY_OH2ruakxsX9Mh8MJQyX7_6EYziRQwKhA0iKwdn15D15WOQ7re7Drkxt0/s218/Screenshot%202023-11-05%20at%208.05.08%E2%80%AFAM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="212" data-original-width="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFPZSOIrWIQYXK81moyDfNntGI1VODFUO9C0FGUO_ToQeGS_3R16v0LCnMXNk53F8k5o5IGP6HWVgvNxthuApZgiQdb0SF5VW41P3Imt5_5NBNO-Kurp8FkuD68nhpnjcByY_OH2ruakxsX9Mh8MJQyX7_6EYziRQwKhA0iKwdn15D15WOQ7re7Drkxt0/s320/Screenshot%202023-11-05%20at%208.05.08%E2%80%AFAM.png"/></a></div>
LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-88376926658466945462023-10-11T19:58:00.000-04:002023-10-11T19:58:27.560-04:00Mediation Week 2023 MixersThe American Bar Association recognizes the third week in October as Mediation Week to educate the public about mediation. During Mediation Week, the ABA encourages all to recognize the importance of the work of neutrals, advocates, and policy makers and celebrate the strides we have made in institutionalizing mediation as a dispute resolution process. October 15-21, 2023 is Mediation Week in Florida under a proclamation of the Supreme Court of Florida. Mediation has been used by Florida courts for more than 30 years. Online Dispute Resolution now serves as an official option following the pandemic through sessions conducted with readily available remote attendance technology. Florida's Dispute Resolution Center continues to require specific standards set by the Florida Supreme Court in the areas of county, family, circuit, dependency, and appellate mediation during these virtual sessions. Mediation week brings annual focus on our dispute resolution work and highlights how individuals, administrative agencies, and businesses can use mediation to develop efficient and customized solutions to conflicts. Next week there are several mixers around the state hosted by members of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of The Florida Bar. We enjoy camraderie and hope to see you there! See more here-- https://flabaradr.com/mediation-mixers
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMNlhdDYZOT42cK3yqFCHZoMlUt21A-OkKV1erK4g2PqH_ptlrnxG4pc472rYDZfz2Cn8KpWBPgB42ZUSpGqpiLaCRrQS3zLmudkcesmGk6R-Z9iST2am46pZV5AbTx83wTdoxlLXsthny4TAvCVkJjjUaaTb4V5I6pfyAguNtmZrkDDoNO3vD5Q9vdVg/s1652/Screenshot%202023-10-11%20at%207.49.31%20PM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="1174" data-original-width="1652" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMNlhdDYZOT42cK3yqFCHZoMlUt21A-OkKV1erK4g2PqH_ptlrnxG4pc472rYDZfz2Cn8KpWBPgB42ZUSpGqpiLaCRrQS3zLmudkcesmGk6R-Z9iST2am46pZV5AbTx83wTdoxlLXsthny4TAvCVkJjjUaaTb4V5I6pfyAguNtmZrkDDoNO3vD5Q9vdVg/s320/Screenshot%202023-10-11%20at%207.49.31%20PM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-4888127756780024502023-10-02T18:06:00.001-04:002023-10-02T18:06:15.358-04:00Now Available as AAA PanelistOrlando Mediator Lawrence Kolin is now available as a panel neutral for the American Arbitration Asoociation (AAA). Though Lawrence was a party-selected AAA arbitrator and mediator in the past, and has even presented educational programs in conjunction with AAA, he has officially become a member for purposes of resolving cases under the auspices of AAA. As a reminder, Mediation is used to resolve a broad range of conflicts within a variety of settings. Mediation is a process in which an impartial third party facilitates communication and negotiation and promotes voluntary decision making by the parties to the dispute. Mediation agreements may be included as part of a contract that specifies what procedures will govern the mediation process. Alternatively, parties frequently agree to mediate following the onset of a dispute regardless of whether their contract stipulates mediation as a means of resolution, or when there is no contract between the parties. Mediation serves various purposes, including providing the opportunity for parties to define and clarify issues, understand different perspectives, identify interests, explore and assess possible solutions, and reach mutually satisfactory agreements, when desired.
See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/bdzj99bw
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTtyh6E9ovYcNxgUc_I6j3XBE3Jhh9Y978FFAtxrT6V7kzIQrrRJh6nudzmAaJ1thrcAusobmEJMKb6NlU2TcRDkuPEvkaSssFvcQ0Hfv8cSM3qzGnL3TcRdtOHbYVBZUfvUfXlKIk5FFIdHeY3HFKPmO49Ahm47CeXsQn3qD_iSoSavHdbGgp03f-XgA/s840/Screenshot%202023-10-02%20at%202.48.09%E2%80%AFPM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="284" data-original-width="840" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTtyh6E9ovYcNxgUc_I6j3XBE3Jhh9Y978FFAtxrT6V7kzIQrrRJh6nudzmAaJ1thrcAusobmEJMKb6NlU2TcRDkuPEvkaSssFvcQ0Hfv8cSM3qzGnL3TcRdtOHbYVBZUfvUfXlKIk5FFIdHeY3HFKPmO49Ahm47CeXsQn3qD_iSoSavHdbGgp03f-XgA/s320/Screenshot%202023-10-02%20at%202.48.09%E2%80%AFPM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-56706880669393257532023-09-02T06:17:00.006-04:002023-09-09T09:01:02.210-04:00Join us for AI in Mediation 9/7 at noon! We'll be giving a free CLE/CME online September 7th at noon in conjunction with the University of Florida Levin College of Law Institute for Dispute Resolution looking at the current state of artificial intelligence as used by legal professionals. We will also discuss the reaction AI is garnering and how it is not necessarily all good or all bad news for the 3,000 plus-year-old tradition of mediation. Mediation is almost as old as conflict itself. The best mediators can resolve disputes discreetly, effectively, and, most importantly, with fairness to both parties, but there is no doubt AI is a negotiation-changing and career-changing tool in the law. Along with my colleague at UWWM, mediator Michelle Jernigan, with whom I serve as Emertius Member of The Florida Bar ADR Section Executive Council and our guests Christy Foley and Christina Magee (current and former chairs of the ADR Section), we also survey the pros and cons of AI in the legal field and ethical issues associated with the use of AI. Panel members will draw conclusions and make recommendations based on their research and personal experience. The Florida Bar has accredited the Webinar 1.0 hours of Technology Continuing Legal Education (CLE). You may submit questions in advance and register here-- https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/3125289667036333659 Replay available here-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYjgRL4UUA8
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgErzyaMICw-YETUU0XK7UvuFfrv2ea_-FSna3AFe85EW2zU6gw4CzriiYO2NyjZX-q_jbkXi40T9EG69NH-aNODTweYTD741xgWwyK6I3p1mtSrvvKYoC6BJ_l1VI_7RrLTf5GJgdFSkNu7s1I35V2OFR91Hd7tN1_i7V3aJa5-psbE43fsB86ncovxSM/s2144/Screenshot%202023-09-02%20at%206.05.23%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="636" data-original-width="2144" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgErzyaMICw-YETUU0XK7UvuFfrv2ea_-FSna3AFe85EW2zU6gw4CzriiYO2NyjZX-q_jbkXi40T9EG69NH-aNODTweYTD741xgWwyK6I3p1mtSrvvKYoC6BJ_l1VI_7RrLTf5GJgdFSkNu7s1I35V2OFR91Hd7tN1_i7V3aJa5-psbE43fsB86ncovxSM/s320/Screenshot%202023-09-02%20at%206.05.23%20AM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-16825014233772154032023-08-01T08:38:00.009-04:002023-08-01T08:49:04.175-04:00MDFL Seeks Comment on Mediation RulesThe U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has put forth local rule amendments for comment including Mediation. The federal court proposal requires the attendance <i>in-person</i> unless otherwise ordered by the judge or agreed by the mediator — of lead counsel, the parties or a party’s surrogate satisfactory to the mediator, and any necessary insurance carrier representative. This default has been a feature of other courts' rules in recent times since Covid has mostly waned, though many have made the exception to be through stipulation or agreement by the parties, not the mediator. By way of example, the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 now states that mediation must be conducted in person, unless the referral order directs, the state court or party moves, or the parties stipulate othewise and also permits a combination of in-person and use of commuication technology. The federal court seeks comment on this change and these can be submitted by by mailing them to Elizabeth Warren, Clerk of Court, Attention: Local Rules Comments, 401 W. Central Blvd, Ste. 2100, Orlando, FL 32801-0201 or submitting through a link here-- <a href="https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/webforms/comment-proposed-amendments-local-rules" target="_blank">https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/webforms/comment-proposed-amendments-local-rules</a> All comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. EST on August 21, 2023. See the proposed amendments linked to public notice posted here-- https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/announcements/public-notice-and-opportunity-comment-proposed-amendments-local-rules
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8B4FFJz0IFIFntznQoBdVAsgi2-7ui3HKvmXToyLK6FXNlSrDuta4-sf9pDq8hTImTNepsQbtGROUvDJ5b1AnoT0toz3dzyD5yfEUO_F1NUOSWNc3PUySsnpkIiMkF2RoZFX0UvHjdZtJMSJP0yty98E-UC3IfVMamugUGCcY3pgPW3kLa0En6PO8rxY/s404/Screenshot%202023-08-01%20at%208.20.18%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="292" data-original-width="404" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8B4FFJz0IFIFntznQoBdVAsgi2-7ui3HKvmXToyLK6FXNlSrDuta4-sf9pDq8hTImTNepsQbtGROUvDJ5b1AnoT0toz3dzyD5yfEUO_F1NUOSWNc3PUySsnpkIiMkF2RoZFX0UvHjdZtJMSJP0yty98E-UC3IfVMamugUGCcY3pgPW3kLa0En6PO8rxY/s320/Screenshot%202023-08-01%20at%208.20.18%20AM.png"/></a></div>
LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-34507895718623674372023-07-01T05:10:00.002-04:002023-07-02T18:17:18.762-04:00SCOTUS Stays Cases during Arb AppealsThe U.S. Supreme Court held last week that non-final appeals on arbitrability would stay litigation automatically while decided. This case arose from a class action between the cryptocurrency platform Coinbase and its users. The terms and conditions of the site required users to submit disputes to mandatory arbitration. The named plaintiff sued in federal court, arguing that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable. When the district court agreed, Coinbase appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit seeking an interlocutory order that would stay the lawsuit until the appeal on arbitration could be heard. In conflict with decisions from other federal appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit rejected that position. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, finding a right to an interlocutory appeal of a decision not to enforce a mandatory arbitration agreement. The Court noted requiring cases to proceed to trial before hearing such appeals would defeat the purpose of using arbitration in the first place. As a result, an appeal of a district court’s decision to invalidate or enforce and arbitration agreement will be given an automatic stay of the matter pending the appeal. The Court opined it makes sense that absent an automatic stay of district court proceedings, Congress’s decision to afford a right to an interlocutory appeal in Section 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) would be largely nullified. Beyond this reasoning, the majority also noted the purposes of arbitration and explained that automatic stays will preserve those objectives of efficiency, reduced litigation cost, and reduced discovery burdens on the parties. See more on Case No. 22-105 here-- https://tinyurl.com/546zn456 and https://tinyurl.com/2r5snu79
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9sXKHNWDuiXMk9Nmth50xqyyckgl3_3-Ikazera53u746XKvIUlWHLgk0rPUTTTNtlj1vIYkw6Nh-v5AbaowuDjzc1ba7JVsu-URu3UnZn8NEuiNJqSynLFASSwD_kvNZFWiSrNbM0KZUL4Doofr3UrcaEC0NzT7uhX2ewGmljgK4KfU2PvCTzf6L_lI/s520/Screenshot%202023-07-01%20at%204.58.48%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="520" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9sXKHNWDuiXMk9Nmth50xqyyckgl3_3-Ikazera53u746XKvIUlWHLgk0rPUTTTNtlj1vIYkw6Nh-v5AbaowuDjzc1ba7JVsu-URu3UnZn8NEuiNJqSynLFASSwD_kvNZFWiSrNbM0KZUL4Doofr3UrcaEC0NzT7uhX2ewGmljgK4KfU2PvCTzf6L_lI/s320/Screenshot%202023-07-01%20at%204.58.48%20AM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-85796234587073773202023-06-09T10:06:00.002-04:002023-06-09T10:10:39.647-04:00Comments Sought for Non-Binding Arb ChangesThe Supreme Court of Florida governed Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules and Policy has put forth proposals in Case No. SC2023-0810. The court is now considering amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration) that would provide a non-exclusive list of factors for a judge to consider when deciding whether to refer a contested civil action to non-binding arbitration. The amendments would also provide minimum hearing procedures that must be included in an order of referral to non-binding arbitration, absent agreement of the parties, among other things. The court has placed the proposals online and any comments should be filed with the Florida Supreme Court on or before July 31, 2023. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the Portal. Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 See more here-- https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/Case-Information/Rules-Cases-Proposed-Amendments and https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/search/case
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiXM0wM88eBQR7XjQ3erT03PL4GJL7zSKN0NNtk65u5CS7G2Qu0z9-hCEUREKxq56NdJ0CkM_siWwfYpyJU8HtHOrVutoqXA52oRnGGeUVqmunxNbNyKMYMSH8wN2_Izn9ER5dcOGpP7PwB0n9Jg36zjNPgH0MZ7Gt-Kj34koG8pBPxb9I3GT_SDdx/s752/Screenshot%202023-06-09%20at%209.56.22%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="356" data-original-width="752" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiXM0wM88eBQR7XjQ3erT03PL4GJL7zSKN0NNtk65u5CS7G2Qu0z9-hCEUREKxq56NdJ0CkM_siWwfYpyJU8HtHOrVutoqXA52oRnGGeUVqmunxNbNyKMYMSH8wN2_Izn9ER5dcOGpP7PwB0n9Jg36zjNPgH0MZ7Gt-Kj34koG8pBPxb9I3GT_SDdx/s320/Screenshot%202023-06-09%20at%209.56.22%20AM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-34772842157593079972023-05-25T13:11:00.000-04:002023-05-25T13:11:42.345-04:00My Pillow CEO Faces Confirmation of AwardMyPillow CEO Mike Lindell offered to pay $5 million to anyone who could debunk his evidence of interference in the 2020 presidential election. A vocal supporter of the former President, Lindell believed that the 2020 election was stolen, and that he had the evidence to prove it. There was a catch, however, as Lindell required that any such claims be submitted to an arbitrator, and the terms were written quite narrowly–but perhaps not narrowly enough. A computer forensics expert who had apparently voted for Trump twice, took Lindell up on his challenge. He analyzed the supposed evidence and demonstrated there was nothing of any sort of election interference. Lindell's terms required that he show the data had nothing to do with the 2020 presidential election. When Lindell refused to pay, the matter went to arbitration. There, despite Lindell having written the terms to make recovery difficult, the arbitrators sided with the forensic expert, Robert Zeidman, who has now filed in federal court. According to Case Western Reserve University School of Law Professor Jonathan Adler, Lindell may not have learned much about election administration through these travails, but it appears he is about to learn something about the enforceability of arbitration awards. Reportedly, Lindell is also facing multiple defamation suits from Dominion Voting Systems and former Dominion executives, and has been hit with legal sanctions for frivolous legal claims. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/s4vr4rd2
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHgs4cRQv_WZb5tC9FFf2djBB_i-mRnokQdKzZ4QjQckLGSOr5yQTKUZNdGeX8C71bbqVFCE4L6DRMXD87meXoiCBXyUVqrwf_Truf1v25zK45wE9q3CNZtxhlfLh2bMpq-OKQvuZm_YAhGrvK-4Ro1C47OHsmhf9Uk2DuPOHVSPxPEEsUR2SUHif7/s380/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%201.01.41%20PM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="220" data-original-width="380" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHgs4cRQv_WZb5tC9FFf2djBB_i-mRnokQdKzZ4QjQckLGSOr5yQTKUZNdGeX8C71bbqVFCE4L6DRMXD87meXoiCBXyUVqrwf_Truf1v25zK45wE9q3CNZtxhlfLh2bMpq-OKQvuZm_YAhGrvK-4Ro1C47OHsmhf9Uk2DuPOHVSPxPEEsUR2SUHif7/s320/Screenshot%202023-05-25%20at%201.01.41%20PM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-80505154319798697712023-05-25T12:49:00.000-04:002023-05-25T12:49:20.111-04:003M CEO Required at MediationA Florida federal judge has ordered 3M CEO Michael Roman to attend mediation to resolve some 260,000 lawsuits alleging its military earplugs caused hearing loss. The judge wants the executive present so that he may "listen and engage directly with the mediators." Reportedly, mediation so far has been "encouraging," but requires 3M senior leadership to push ahead per the judge's order.
Attendance of the CEO will ensure that 3M's board will have "firsthand knowledge of the current state of the negotiations" when evaluating any settlement offer. The lawsuits brought by veterans and members of the military allege that 3M's combat arms earplugs were defective. The company utilized bankruptcy of its subsidiary Aearo Technologies LLC, which manufactured the earplugs to try resolving the cases. 3M had opposed efforts to renew global mediation efforts in Florida federal court while Aearo's bankruptcy case is pending. 3M states it continues to believe that Aearo's bankruptcy provides a better option for resolving the earplug claims "more quickly, with more certainty and with more balanced recoveries among claimants." Aearo's bankruptcy strategy has been fiercely opposed by plaintiffs, who said that 3M was merely trying to escape litigation in Florida, following a series of unfavorable legal rulings and trial losses. See story here-- https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2023-05-22/3m-ceo-must-attend-mediation-in-earplug-litigation-judge-rules
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5VBYh3MVcTmgC59KVoQSvWLYqsMb1k80xgGE7UiEkBCcfe8GKlJegDx_gs_6dtGW0hA8-8JJdHlB333fwJy9XzTl4oXHTatEwZuNec9BVTwqCR35W70qDVk5x0rbFJods1BayDSYUdasPxxB9IjwAc5yhQqW6cTv3d5BzzGP4rM8llOQkRg_LfOZz/s500/3M.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="366" data-original-width="500" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5VBYh3MVcTmgC59KVoQSvWLYqsMb1k80xgGE7UiEkBCcfe8GKlJegDx_gs_6dtGW0hA8-8JJdHlB333fwJy9XzTl4oXHTatEwZuNec9BVTwqCR35W70qDVk5x0rbFJods1BayDSYUdasPxxB9IjwAc5yhQqW6cTv3d5BzzGP4rM8llOQkRg_LfOZz/s320/3M.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-12317106111741673262023-04-22T08:51:00.000-04:002023-04-22T08:51:12.906-04:00ADR Rules and Policy Needs You!The Supreme Court of Florida governed Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules and Policy is currently accepting applications for six member appointments to the Committee on ADR Rules and Policy. The Committee on ADR Rules and Policy provides the Supreme Court with recommendations relating to ADR legislation, and all aspects of ADR policy and rules including, but not limited to, ADR practices, mediator certification and renewal requirements, continuing education requirements, and mediation training program requirements. All seats are three year terms that commence on July 1, 2023. Of the appointments, two appointees must be non-lawyer mediators who have been Florida Supreme Court certified for more than five years. The remaining four appointees may be either lawyer mediators or non-lawyer mediators who have been Florida Supreme Court certified for more than five years. All mediator appointees must be Florida Supreme Court certified mediators. All lawyer appointees must be members in good standing of The Florida Bar and have practiced law for a minimum of five years and conducted or attended 15 mediations. Appointments will be made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida. Please see AOSC20-59PDF Download for more information. To be considered for appointment, please submit a letter of interest and current résumé on or before April 25, 2023, to:
Florida Dispute Resolution Center
Supreme Court Building
500 S. Duval Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Fax: (850) 922-9290
mail: DRCmail@flcourts.org
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioVcTbOa9AMLlyl-y8qCeWgIupsvLTimW40aWpzclLwWQFSTAEndb8vmS5_9xnAg8Sr2owbm116tltIKYtmlE301cZGeBqfwIRq1FN5U14VQulawQVl-FEgc1ZBHBz-E42HtUxrynkvi8itp7nL7yfOj1nVyZdjI8z-8dB-8uqBzpDo-AeTKThDplS/s578/Screenshot%202023-04-22%20at%208.47.55%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="531" data-original-width="578" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEioVcTbOa9AMLlyl-y8qCeWgIupsvLTimW40aWpzclLwWQFSTAEndb8vmS5_9xnAg8Sr2owbm116tltIKYtmlE301cZGeBqfwIRq1FN5U14VQulawQVl-FEgc1ZBHBz-E42HtUxrynkvi8itp7nL7yfOj1nVyZdjI8z-8dB-8uqBzpDo-AeTKThDplS/s320/Screenshot%202023-04-22%20at%208.47.55%20AM.png"/></a></div>
LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-8010139157080967052023-04-22T08:39:00.004-04:002023-04-22T08:57:15.447-04:00Fox Settlement Shows Remote Mediation WorksSince the advent of the virtual mediation essentially with the rise of remote attendance resulting from the pandemic, lawyers seem skeptical of the effectiveness of this mediation technique. This skepticism persists, even after many polls of over a thousand full-time neutrals revealed that settlement rates remain as before largely the same as in-person cases. As evidenced by employing a mediator colleague of mine from the National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals (<a href="NADN.org" target="_blank">NADN.org</a>) floating down the Danube during a high-stakes, eve of trial negotiation in a high profile case with results certain to be impactful, it is possible to achieve resolution by remote attendance. This method is pretty much the default in the state of Florida and around the country and is usually possible despite standing orders that may not specify so in the name of self-determination with agreement of the parties. People are now facile with off the shelf technology like Zoom and are quite used to interacting with others in this medium. Likewise, mediators using this space are in their third year of building rapport without actually being there, not counting prior experience with telephone negotiation, etc. (also used here among as many as 50 calls and was always an option before Covid). Don't underestimate the ability to get things done in short order without sitting down at the same table. But if you must, we still do that too! See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/tfj4bttt and https://tinyurl.com/ybp3zy5j
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRyQWRyo4xWJgaF4RwX_siSYS1bAqJYc-JQ1yvzSsUBV4ypN1elvyWcFwheV_IFG4iSgkn08eyveGljVMWp389CZPhweM5DI3qK3BLt7qsJjUCT_4jZdtEmvmSGo711-BQzRfQj7_fFxyNs3pc0Xo6ygwhQ835CBGi8jmdGI0PGS7O7V3om0B5WVsF/s729/Screenshot%202023-04-22%20at%208.33.11%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="387" data-original-width="729" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRyQWRyo4xWJgaF4RwX_siSYS1bAqJYc-JQ1yvzSsUBV4ypN1elvyWcFwheV_IFG4iSgkn08eyveGljVMWp389CZPhweM5DI3qK3BLt7qsJjUCT_4jZdtEmvmSGo711-BQzRfQj7_fFxyNs3pc0Xo6ygwhQ835CBGi8jmdGI0PGS7O7V3om0B5WVsF/s320/Screenshot%202023-04-22%20at%208.33.11%20AM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-34258358370313517072023-03-15T18:35:00.002-04:002023-03-15T18:35:48.640-04:00Non-binding Arb Rule Comments due 5/2!The Civil Rules Standing Committee of The Florida Bar is proposing changes to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 regarding hearing procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration. This informal and expeditious Alternative Dispute Resolution process is being utilized more and more to clear dockets backlogged from Covid, Hurricanes and general lack of trial dates. Judges in many Florida Circuit Courts are referring cases to this process and so some changes are being put out for comment. Among the changes are serving the award on the parties rather than filing with the court under seal. This is likely because many of our 67 counties have no pull down menu for filing under seal and can lead to awards being seen inadvertently by the judicial officer presiding over the case. Another change contemplates maintaining the original exhibits through the end of the case. I'm not sure arbitrators want to become deputy court clerks warehousing records, but parties can agree to do it themselves. Interested persons should send comments to: midavis@floridabar.org before May 2, 2023. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/58j7xa4t
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglRf_LCIBzoAZhIx7O38wDl34ad35V0yFBl1ysRLNKQUDK7wm8Wh1BNlEwXi54KrAoX6iEsOXe3mT21zKHu0W8EgduuoQIYFckV6Lx0vH3sh0-sN_1YIPrR_MuARwXZy-rvbOcBZJGdpnab_huqVB6_YPTO2vefBTgE4OC8Cs7zl00Q9JoeVlyYAiV/s1019/Screenshot%202023-03-15%20at%206.27.29%20PM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="400" data-original-height="330" data-original-width="1019" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglRf_LCIBzoAZhIx7O38wDl34ad35V0yFBl1ysRLNKQUDK7wm8Wh1BNlEwXi54KrAoX6iEsOXe3mT21zKHu0W8EgduuoQIYFckV6Lx0vH3sh0-sN_1YIPrR_MuARwXZy-rvbOcBZJGdpnab_huqVB6_YPTO2vefBTgE4OC8Cs7zl00Q9JoeVlyYAiV/s400/Screenshot%202023-03-15%20at%206.27.29%20PM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-26214671538386071572023-03-01T16:39:00.001-05:002023-03-01T16:39:18.077-05:00Arb Going Back To CaliThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently blocked a California law that prohibited employers from requiring their workers to resolve legal disputes in private arbitration, ruling that it conflicts with federal law. A panel affirmed the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 51 with respect to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Since 2020, California was first to ban mandatory arbitration of all employment-related disputes in the wake of the #MeToo movement. New York and New Jersey similarly passed laws prohibiting mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment and discrimination claims, but California's statute was much broader. Employers were prohibited from requiring individuals to sign as a condition of employment or employment-related benefits arbitration agreements concerning disputes arising under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or Labor Code. In affirming the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction, a majority of the Ninth Circuit panel used U.S. Supreme Court precedent that states rules burdening the formation of arbitration agreements are an obstacle to legislative intent of and preempted by the FAA. The court also noted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First and Fourth Circuits reached similar conclusions when confronted with state laws that attempted to prevent parties from entering arbitration agreements. The court rejected arguments from the State of California that it should sever clauses that were deemed preempted by the FAA and leave the remainder of the law intact. The court found AB 51 could not be dissected as the statute’s provisions all work together to burden the formation of arbitration agreements and there was no authority in the legislation to sever the penalty portions of the law. If the State of California does not get a rehearing en banc or pursue further appeal, the matter will return to the district court to proceed for a final determination on the legality of AB 51. See reporting here-- https://bit.ly/3ZtxpoU and https://tinyurl.com/mvvfn6um and latest decision here-- https://tinyurl.com/54u4jukp
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaIZFV4LYm8IXNKMY1fr0eNUMCHjIZ7kS-vbKu36h59cTI9Ec3S-27rijlhwYIs1DwSfPll8NXGIru_M1hQSI50BDZ_dTOHaoCqlgg4hndxvUnGAq2GGcmPZC2ktMTZCCBmmdn4N1fC-AvDK4Nxl1PWfuTXa6L-WZwSWKYE53MkwnN0tZMCAtfHqby/s509/Screenshot%202023-03-01%20at%204.34.17%20PM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="429" data-original-width="509" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgaIZFV4LYm8IXNKMY1fr0eNUMCHjIZ7kS-vbKu36h59cTI9Ec3S-27rijlhwYIs1DwSfPll8NXGIru_M1hQSI50BDZ_dTOHaoCqlgg4hndxvUnGAq2GGcmPZC2ktMTZCCBmmdn4N1fC-AvDK4Nxl1PWfuTXa6L-WZwSWKYE53MkwnN0tZMCAtfHqby/s320/Screenshot%202023-03-01%20at%204.34.17%20PM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-21689342187053121112023-02-05T08:22:00.000-05:002023-02-05T08:22:11.203-05:00Valentine's date? Arb Forum 2/14Join us for the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section of the Florida Bar's next Arbitrator's Forum on February 14, 2023 at 8 am EST live on Zoom. Invite a fellow arbitrator or litigator to this complimentary event on Valentine's Day as we speak to statewide practitioners about their preferences and practices. This month, we will discuss “What Arbitrators Need To Know About Remedies, Attorney's Fees, Punitive Damages, and More!” The Florida Bar ADR Section's standing Arbitration Committee instituted the forum series last year to create a community of better informed arbitration neutrals in our state. We listen and learn from each other by talking through common arbitration challenges and how they might be better resolved. Our discussion is frank and encourages participation by all. Please also consider becoming an official ADR Section member as lawyers from those practice areas dealing with arbitration join their full-time neutrals colleagues to discuss what works, what confounds, and how to improve skills in this growing field. See more here-- bit.ly/ADR_ArbForum_6
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgorKTxazHzChTQsKvsyIhIX4VF0iZm8-KcXZmD9ceDeERYyVUd2GIaUETpCHrU3T5uRyr_vPh6dyWMSLU1rwpmjH1lTxCFjexMHF_M9AcxIvSU8QLem3T0Vb03tmzDY9oioLrXndZj9uH9EKkEX9GmSzvVi2gCWcNdzfmuzf4eLyo1VsEIU0-F0yfG/s1200/arb%20forum.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgorKTxazHzChTQsKvsyIhIX4VF0iZm8-KcXZmD9ceDeERYyVUd2GIaUETpCHrU3T5uRyr_vPh6dyWMSLU1rwpmjH1lTxCFjexMHF_M9AcxIvSU8QLem3T0Vb03tmzDY9oioLrXndZj9uH9EKkEX9GmSzvVi2gCWcNdzfmuzf4eLyo1VsEIU0-F0yfG/s320/arb%20forum.jpeg"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-71056792386833502172023-01-04T14:27:00.002-05:002023-01-04T14:27:42.835-05:00Orlando Mediator Top 5 Dispute Resolution BlogHappy New Year! My little old legal blog, now a dozen years online, again received the honor of being named among the top five Alternative Dispute Resolution blogs out of thousands of blogs on the web ranked by traffic, social media followers, domain authority and freshness. I'm certainly in some good company with top dispute resolution blogs around the world that actually have staff. Orlando Mediator is recognized by Feedspot among the best, including such distinguished blogs published by big names like Thompson Reuters, Harvard Program on Negotiation and Kluwer. Feedspot's experts chose Orlando Mediator as number five in the world for what their founder calls the most comprehensive list of Top 20 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 for your readership and support over the years! The full list is available here-- https://blog.feedspot.com/dispute_resolution_blogs/
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE-d_zqq3wyHvKomed0CK_yF5JKR3wSKTfynwO3wg2D4opJThc3vsiP-jVEZNXeK8PX16VrpVlZu7VPkgy7iMfjCRq8_kVgLPIsL0luWIVKGCA_q-pbnlwe26MvzX5mufMpZUOSAWjPiH4FTcDVJS89rTKRqdyqLYRkj9mf7f7kghdJd0uSZukoTnK/s338/Screenshot%202023-01-04%20at%202.06.56%20PM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="238" data-original-width="338" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjE-d_zqq3wyHvKomed0CK_yF5JKR3wSKTfynwO3wg2D4opJThc3vsiP-jVEZNXeK8PX16VrpVlZu7VPkgy7iMfjCRq8_kVgLPIsL0luWIVKGCA_q-pbnlwe26MvzX5mufMpZUOSAWjPiH4FTcDVJS89rTKRqdyqLYRkj9mf7f7kghdJd0uSZukoTnK/s320/Screenshot%202023-01-04%20at%202.06.56%20PM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-57141513097298544182022-12-08T10:37:00.026-05:002022-12-09T14:06:17.179-05:00FL S. Ct. Improved Resolution Workgroup Rules OAThe Supreme Court of Florida heard oral argument today on a package of rules proposed by their appointed Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases that might forever impact our state court system in a major way. These amendments are proposed as a paradigm shift to change the legal community and the perceived problems such as that current rules engender delay culture and firmer deadlines move cases. Firm trial dates, dates for discovery cutoffs and dispositive motions that are enforced by active case management can promote efficient resolution of cases according to the judges creating these proposed rules. Hearing time is a precious commodity that is often wasted with cancellation as are trial weeks according to Chief Judge Morris of the 2d DCA who reports that a mere 0.04% of cases end up in trial. Some judges appearing advocated the integration of county clerks' computer systems and the judicial case systems to alleviate duplication and promote standardization such as PACER in the federal system. The Civil Rules Committee chair said the adoption of the federal summary judgment rule brought the case law relied on in that system for clarity, but cautioned that the wide swath of changes to aggressive case management would shock the system and create growing pains with litigation on those changes. Justice Canady, who oversaw the Covid-19 crisis in the courts, said serving the litigants was the reason emergency procedures were ordered and now the court wants to see how to institutionalize those changes that proved successful in getting cases at issue during the pandemic. Justice Polston expressed concern with cases that are falling far behind or that just plain languish. He was also concerned parties should be exempt from the case management rubric in cases that are subject to Arbitration. Justice Labarga said when he was a trial judge, lawyers did not adhere to deadlines, especially with experts. Justice Muniz questioned why not implement proportionality in discovery like federal court and was told by a sophisticated commenter that our state system was just not ready to address that. The bar's Business Law Section is in favor of proportionality and also agreed with imposing track rules on cases except for presumptive streamlining of bench trials. The Appellate Rules Committee did not like substantive standards of review found in a few of these procedural rules. Probate practitioners were concerned about the disparity in dockets around the state and increased judicial decisionmaking versus routine uncontested proceedings. Critics of the sweeping package took issue with the lack of resources to implement these changes and technical irreconcilable differences between some of the rules. Others feared increased sanctions and less continuances. Judge Bailey responded on behalf of her workgroup arguing that because civil justice costs too much and takes too long, the public has lost faith and these case management changes are needed. While there were concerns over standardizing hearing procedures, everyone agreed an educational effort is needed in conjunction with the rollout of these rules. See more here-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq8gHr2FQP8 and Case No. SC22-122 https://bit.ly/3UGns4K
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9ovS4zX1oekELWxXbBVPsEqf2_b5Eic3FtVRoZ35TMH_aXNnDkrhbSfjB-jfUZVfbXp2CcOvh0BXO1-Q9sA8rqrWcsXqPqUyXmcPIIqCbpgipc9ERegWyQmpmZ7rEqFFygDLa4Nz_tYMxGhqUxGxLWmEvXrCCF0kkaY6T_0beK2ED5wO7U8PvHaiF/s646/Screenshot%202022-12-08%20at%209.42.33%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="294" data-original-width="646" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9ovS4zX1oekELWxXbBVPsEqf2_b5Eic3FtVRoZ35TMH_aXNnDkrhbSfjB-jfUZVfbXp2CcOvh0BXO1-Q9sA8rqrWcsXqPqUyXmcPIIqCbpgipc9ERegWyQmpmZ7rEqFFygDLa4Nz_tYMxGhqUxGxLWmEvXrCCF0kkaY6T_0beK2ED5wO7U8PvHaiF/s320/Screenshot%202022-12-08%20at%209.42.33%20AM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-72995160609839214862022-11-03T13:42:00.003-04:002022-11-03T13:53:07.554-04:00SDFL Rules Favor Remote AttendanceNext month, new mediation rules take effect in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After hearing from the bar on format and giving the public an opportunity to comment, the federal court decided in favor of remote attendance. Unless the court orders otherwise, under Local Rule 16.2, Court Annexed Mediation, the parties shall decide whether their mediation conference will be conducted in person or by video-conference and, if the parties cannot agree, the mediation conference shall be held by video-conference. Additionally, unless excused in writing by the court, all parties and required claims professionals (e.g., insurance adjusters) must participate in the mediation conference with full authority to negotiate a settlement which includes connecting and participating by video and audio. Lately, we've seen some parties appear with black screens, muted on Zoom. This change seems to attempt to address that trend and level the playing field, alleviating the need for mediators to compromise their neutrality in acting as policemen for the process. See more here for rules that take effect December 1, 2022-- https://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/sites/flsd/files/adminorders/2022-88.pdf
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRjpcii7kjZIDDr-2gqTSSsKjIkrvXA5XBaYCEtKukPlo4S1DaLXVQ7913XKyCViEvNtFMSbDo-GnMz5Vq-6yPOxw7quK8SWJE_NbJ_J2gmAmKwKTSKBrylsbflDn8PduXLk36zrpNU9VWZxYhhN_zeUyS0tfGcdJCDway3P6PRIoagT1uMP2qjnsK/s1126/Screenshot%202022-11-03%20at%201.39.58%20PM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="924" data-original-width="1126" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhRjpcii7kjZIDDr-2gqTSSsKjIkrvXA5XBaYCEtKukPlo4S1DaLXVQ7913XKyCViEvNtFMSbDo-GnMz5Vq-6yPOxw7quK8SWJE_NbJ_J2gmAmKwKTSKBrylsbflDn8PduXLk36zrpNU9VWZxYhhN_zeUyS0tfGcdJCDway3P6PRIoagT1uMP2qjnsK/s320/Screenshot%202022-11-03%20at%201.39.58%20PM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-74688006779060430952022-10-17T18:27:00.000-04:002022-10-17T18:27:50.232-04:00Mediation Week 2022Every October, we celebrate the impact of the mediation process and its professionals on the many disputes in the world. Mediation Week in Florida and elsewhere marks the importance of dispute resolution as an effective substitute to litigation. In fact, mediation has helped litigants get through our recent challenges, evolving to widely accepted remote attendance allowing parties to resolve disputes without trial in a still backed-up court system. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been used by Florida courts for more than 30 years. Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) will now serve as an official option following the pandemic through sessions conducted with readily available technology. Florida's Dispute Resolution Center continues to require specific standards set by the Florida Supreme Court in the areas of county, family, circuit, dependency, and appellate mediation during these virtual sessions. Mediation week brings annual focus on ADR work and highlights how individuals, administrative agencies, and businesses can use mediation to develop efficient and customized solutions to conflicts. Just by searching #mediationweek online, you may find a variety of resources from venerable organizations like the American Bar Association (ABA) or the Federal Mediation and Concilliation Service (FMCS) which is celebrating its 75th anniversary with free programs on cutting-edge topics, practices, and examinations on conflict prevention, management, and resolution this week. See more here-- https://fmcs.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_b03eGSkmQ_uK2CiCk0U1vQ
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEWoG_pkbRm6TMWLHbeI3EVH62eni52MPvBAb3sRGSofa6FZFSFbm0qXEUF-i5XPNn78AvIDaBni3kwzJXkWKXoMrreO_rCnRZRipX2WC0dTo5HdiSTQFSv9geBpdRBC4kMLG3GwuBv9Setq5TbN_MsSX6s7wxqxRwN3jcs2J01vKUhDAFU089R_bk/s679/MW22.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="679" data-original-width="412" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEWoG_pkbRm6TMWLHbeI3EVH62eni52MPvBAb3sRGSofa6FZFSFbm0qXEUF-i5XPNn78AvIDaBni3kwzJXkWKXoMrreO_rCnRZRipX2WC0dTo5HdiSTQFSv9geBpdRBC4kMLG3GwuBv9Setq5TbN_MsSX6s7wxqxRwN3jcs2J01vKUhDAFU089R_bk/s320/MW22.jpeg"/></a></div>
LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-13513833251002295902022-09-01T16:02:00.004-04:002022-09-01T16:05:45.137-04:00What is a Special Master anyway?All federal courts have the power to appoint a Special Master (or as it is known in Florida state courts Special Magistrate) to assist with reviewing and deciding discovery in contentious cases. Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the appointment of masters in federal court usually, but not always, with consent of the parties. In our state court, it is found in various procedural rules and Florida Statutes that empower judges, as well as bodies like county commissions, to obtain assistance in deciding matters. Many federal and state court judges use masters and likely more will do so in the future. Because of their substantial caseloads, many federal district judges and their assigned magistrate judges do not have sufficient time for the tasks inherent in the administration of complex, multi-party, and class action cases. Judges need to conserve and preserve their time to rule on pretrial matters and to try cases. With demanding dockets and tight court budgets, judges turn to skilled neutrals for help in getting the parties relief. These special court appointees usually come with specialized knowledge and are ordered to perform a broad or limited scope of duties such as monitoring discovery, resolving time-consuming disputes, helping with complex E-discovery problems involving electronically stored information (ESI) (typically in high-stakes cases involving employment, intellectual property, products and technology), and coordinating multi-party and multi-district litigation (MDL) cases. A Special Master can markedly reduce the burden on a judge and the court’s administrative staff. When assigned to a case, I routinely review the potentially relevant discovery in camera and provide the court with findings or recommendations regarding the legal status and factual nature of the information. Parties and lawyers recognize that the appointment of a master can save them substantial fees and costs, and can lead to a much quicker resolution of their disputes. Sophisticated parties who regularly use professional and experienced masters know how valuable we can be to expedited case handling and in getting quicker resolution. See more here-- https://bit.ly/3AJ6j2r <div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXOmFsnGdQ2Bd8XKhGzmucSmwzGKYm1yntfNNBSGZN7TTmnx-mF0A5lwl8uSDMjD61YgkhdH0y2gyoxb5liRDUm8cpwq5mvA2av6YzGtXMHzJvX64Lv-2d8NmaAIXfI_JDGabMPMc7qP_z1iN4q4zIYkreJJpfugGrudTNDvs-6-rKQO1qAZzL6ZTT/s1654/Screen%20Shot%202022-09-01%20at%203.44.15%20PM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="770" data-original-width="1654" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXOmFsnGdQ2Bd8XKhGzmucSmwzGKYm1yntfNNBSGZN7TTmnx-mF0A5lwl8uSDMjD61YgkhdH0y2gyoxb5liRDUm8cpwq5mvA2av6YzGtXMHzJvX64Lv-2d8NmaAIXfI_JDGabMPMc7qP_z1iN4q4zIYkreJJpfugGrudTNDvs-6-rKQO1qAZzL6ZTT/s320/Screen%20Shot%202022-09-01%20at%203.44.15%20PM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-75392445913489561522022-08-01T10:44:00.002-04:002022-08-03T08:13:22.288-04:00Permanent Remote Mediation Authorized By Fla. S. Ct.This summer, the Florida Supreme Court provided permanent civil rule changes authorizing the remote conduct of certain court proceedings including mediation, appellate mediation and arbitration. The court's Workgroup on Continuity of Court Operations and Proceedings During and After COVID-19 was directed to identify whether certain proceedings, due to efficiencies beneficial to stakeholders, could continue to be conducted remotely when COVID-19 no longer presents a significant risk to public health and safety. The Workgroup determined that permanent, broader authorization for remote proceedings was warranted based on the positive outcomes and efficiencies observed during the pandemic. Beginning with Rule 1.700, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, common to mediation and arbitration, the amended language now provides for use of communication technology (as that term is defined in Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530) authorized in mediation and arbitration by stipulation of the parties or by court order. Absent direction in the order of referral, mediation or arbitration must be conducted in person, unless the parties stipulate or the court, on its own motion or on motion by a party, otherwise orders that the proceeding be conducted by communication technology or by a combination of communication technology and in-person participation. Also of note, is that Rule 1.720 now states a party is deemed to appear at a mediation conference if physically present or, if authorized, participating through the use of communication technology. Please note under Rule 1.730, if an agreement is reached, it must be reduced to writing and signed by the parties and their counsel, by original signature, electronic signature, or facsimile and may be in counterparts. Importantly, the parties may not object to the enforceability of an agreement on the ground that communication technology was used for participation in the mediation conference if such use was authorized. Similar language is found in Rule 1.750 in regard to county court mediation. The communication technology provisions also apply to appellate mediation and are found in revised Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.700, 9.720 and 9.740. These amendments become effective October 1, 2022 and recognize the sea change that took place during court closures. The shift to remote proceedings helped ease a backlog of cases by litigants being able to access hearings and alternative dispute resolution though Zoom and other available online platforms to resolve matters. See complete opinion here-- https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/843197/opinion/sc21-990.pdf
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4y9LX8xG_J0DowTiO9vZJxZPsv69V-snVVUZRp1zUtVbh5gdKIOgmnO-lV9BZOBnfVsEIL6f9XX4YmLuEryVRFuNhLY-tfBAEnU6NJa4XJ6x4lzW9syffF7czFWNNYQrne9ZrbEUmUpVtAAEntKMtBh4Stq1nsqoTTItFhMX_qo06Q3twPqtAC1v/s326/Screen%20Shot%202022-08-01%20at%2010.31.28%20AM.png" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="236" data-original-width="326" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhm4y9LX8xG_J0DowTiO9vZJxZPsv69V-snVVUZRp1zUtVbh5gdKIOgmnO-lV9BZOBnfVsEIL6f9XX4YmLuEryVRFuNhLY-tfBAEnU6NJa4XJ6x4lzW9syffF7czFWNNYQrne9ZrbEUmUpVtAAEntKMtBh4Stq1nsqoTTItFhMX_qo06Q3twPqtAC1v/s320/Screen%20Shot%202022-08-01%20at%2010.31.28%20AM.png"/></a></div>LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-959059698036580289.post-15714923368926541692022-07-01T14:43:00.002-04:002022-07-02T00:33:12.041-04:00SCOTUS Arbitration DecisionsAs this tumultous term comes to a close, a pair of recent employment case rulings has given some to insight into the future of the U.S. Supreme Court's direction on arbitration which has been pretty firm as of late. Traditionally, the Court has relied upon precendent and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in enforcing the right to arbitrate as contractual in nature and upholding those agreements. More recently, the Court is reversing decisions that apply even-handed rules to the FAA. In <i>Morgan v. Sundance</i>, a unanimous Court rejected the two-part test applied by most federal circuits in evaluating whether a party has waived its right to compel enforcement of an arbitration agreement. Under that test, waiver would be found only if a party acted in a manner inconsistent with its arbitration rights and that inconsistency caused prejudice to the other side. The principal justification for requiring prejudice was federal policy favoring arbitration. Finding that the usual test for contractual waiver typically requires only inconsistent conduct, the Court held it improper to add a prejudice requirement onto the waiver analysis just for arbitration agreements. The text of the FAA makes clear that courts are not to create arbitration-specific procedural rules. In <i>Viking River Cruises v. Moriana</i>, eight of nine justices agreed with the result relying in part on a severability provision in the arbitration agreement to narrow an otherwise invalid wholesale waiver of state Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims. This suggests that whether courts will compel arbitration of individual PAGA claims may turn on the specific language of the arbitration agreement at issue. The lone dissent came from Justice Thomas, who long has viewed the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to cases in state courts. The FAA also can preempt rules “that are generally applicable as a formal matter” but have the effect of making arbitration agreements ineffective because they are inherently inconsistent with arbitration. Such rules would include those that would require a party to arbitrate on a class basis or not at all. See decisions-- http://tinyurl.com/3e6hbek9 and http://tinyurl.com/57r87jzc and more here-- http://tinyurl.com/yeaw7sdd and http://tinyurl.com/yc4ktrmv
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH5KKwmUaqiLgwMxD3ZZblVGn6GbASpSlxWLiVd-aWuP98aa30FHb0wQyw4bZoJLX9zjiIZlj-qQFb69KoyytLaFIbx4EGpoZJCHMuc8ZPCSzGJNgLmrgzr_od8vWRxeRwufAfmBmOzHuGimdDTndKlDkD70Vbz5sQ7vqK4jPxqNzDrrk1RuLW2khv/s864/SCtBuilding.jpeg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" width="320" data-original-height="481" data-original-width="864" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH5KKwmUaqiLgwMxD3ZZblVGn6GbASpSlxWLiVd-aWuP98aa30FHb0wQyw4bZoJLX9zjiIZlj-qQFb69KoyytLaFIbx4EGpoZJCHMuc8ZPCSzGJNgLmrgzr_od8vWRxeRwufAfmBmOzHuGimdDTndKlDkD70Vbz5sQ7vqK4jPxqNzDrrk1RuLW2khv/s320/SCtBuilding.jpeg"/></a></div>
LAWRENCE KOLINhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10131321953836385872noreply@blogger.com