FL Nonbinding Arbitration Rules Clarification

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, 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.” This is now an official rules amendment petition case pending before the Florida Supreme Court found 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

Florida Mediation Reporting Rule Comments Due 3/31

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules and Policy is seeking comments on proposed revisions to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Small Claims Rules, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure. These rules are revised to include subdivisions entitled Report of Mediation and Adjournment for Further Mediation, which are intended to compliment and clarify the scope of Rule 10.360(e), Reporting Outcome, and Rule 10.360(f), Presence, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. With these changes, after an initial mediation session, a mediator could report agreement, no agreement, partial agreement, or adjournment for further mediation. No other descriptors, modifiers, comments, or recommendations may be included in the report unless all parties consent in writing. However, nothing in the amendment prohibits the mediator from identifying the parties, counsel, and participants present at the mediation and whether present physically or by communication technology. In a mediation involving more than two parties, a mediator may now report agreement or partial agreement as to any parties who agree and no agreement as to the other parties. The proposed revisions to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Small Claims Rules, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure also contain a subdivision entitled Status Reports in response to recent civil case management rules adopted by the Florida Supreme Court that have changed the way lawsuits are handled in state court with more of a federal-style scheduling track. Comments to the ADR Rules and Policy Committee should be made care of the Florida Dispute Resolution Center at: drcmail@flcourts.org on or before Monday, March 31, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. EDT. See more on the proposed language here-- https://tinyurl.com/4yj3cv5x

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

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

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

ADR 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

Comments on Non-Binding Arbitration due 5/6

The Supreme Court of Florida's Standing Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy is charged with monitoring and making recommendations to improve and expand the use of court-connected Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) not limited to mediation through the recommendation of the adoption of statutes, rules, policies, and procedures. This Committee is seeking feedback on two proposed amendments related to statutory non-binding arbitration. Specifically, they are considering revisions to Rule 1.820, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration) and Section 44.103, Florida Statutes (Court-ordered, nonbinding arbitration). While the ADR Section of the Florida Bar whose Executive Council on which I serve will be commenting on behalf of its almost one thousand members, please consider individually responding to these proposals. The Florida State Court System consists of 20 judicial circuits that encompass Florida’s 67 counties and so practice in this area of ADR varies widely under local administrative orders. Comments are due to the Florida Dispute Resolution Center on or before Friday, May 6, 2022, via drcmail@flcourts.org. The proposed revisions can be found here-- https://tinyurl.com/3r986y25 and https://tinyurl.com/4w2tfuje

FL S. Ct. ADR & MEAC Vacancies

For those inclined to stay up on the very latest in our profession, the Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) is currently accepting applications for six member appointments to the Florida Supreme Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules and Policy Committee. The committee provides the court with recommendations relating to ADR legislation, and all aspects of ADR policy and rules including, but not limited to, model ADR practices, mediator certification and renewal requirements, continuing education requirements, and mediation training program requirements. The committee consists of 17 volunteer members and may include mediation trainers, Florida Supreme Court certified mediators, arbitrators, trial court administrators, parenting coordinators, attorneys, and judges. Terms are staggered and no member shall serve more than nine years. Additionally, the Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee (MEAC) is a nine member body that issues written advisory ethics opinions for mediators subject to the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. MEAC is accepting applications for three vacancies of four year terms as follows: One certified mediator from the Northern Division encompassing the First, Second, Third, Eighth and Fourteenth judicial circuits; One certified mediator from the Central Division encompassing the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eighteenth and Nineteenth judicial circuits; and One certified mediator from the Southwest encompassing the Sixth, Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Twentieth judicial circuits. Applicants shall not also serve on the Mediator Qualifications and Discipline Review Board. These appointments are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida based upon competence, specialized knowledge, experience in ADR processes, and a commitment to the time necessary to be an active contributor. If interested in serving on either committee, a letter of interest with current résumé should be submitted by April 15, 2021 to DRCmail@flcourts.org

 

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

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

ADR Rules & Policy Petition: Comments Due 7/31!

The ADR Rules & Policy Committee of The Supreme Court of Florida has petitioned the court for the passage of amendments that would require all mediators who mediate actions filed and pending in any Florida court be subject to Parts II, Standards of Professional Conduct (ethical standards), and III, Discipline (disciplinary process), of the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, regardless of whether or not a court order of referral has been issued. The Committee also recommends the addition of corresponding language to Rules 10.200 and 10.700, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. The amendments are designed to remedy two shortcomings in the existing rules. First, mediators who are not certified are currently not subject to the rules if they mediate a filed court action before an order of referral is issued. Second, although it is the Committee’s opinion that uncertified mediators selected by the parties, but not appointed by a specific court order after review by the presiding judge as required by the procedural rules, are subject to the ethical standards and disciplinary process, the Committee believes there is a dispute regarding whether a general order of referral suffices to constitute a court appointment. This petition is designed to remedy those issues. The amendments submitted in this petition originated in 2017 as a Committee proposal that would have required all mediators of state court trial and appellate cases be Florida Supreme Court certified, with appointment restricted to their subject matter areas of mediator certification (mandatory certification was also supported by a majority of the Executive Council of The Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of The Florida Bar). Comments must be filed by July 31, 2020, after an extension was granted. See more here-- https://bit.ly/36ZMzIz

ADR Rules & Policy Vacancies

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules and Policy needs members. This is a powerful committee that recommends changes to existing rules and implements new ones via proposals submitted for oral argument following public comment. The Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) is currently accepting applications for eight member appointments to the Committee on ADR Rules and Policy. Appointments are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida based upon competence, specialized knowledge, experience in ADR processes, and a commitment to the time necessary to be an active contributor to the committee’s work. The committee consists of 17 volunteer members and may include mediation trainers, Florida Supreme Court certified mediators, arbitrators, trial court administrators, parenting coordinators, attorneys, and judges. Generally, members are appointed for staggered three-year terms. However, these terms will begin July 1, 2020, and end November 30, 2023. No member shall serve more than nine years. According to the official announcement, the committee provides the Florida Supreme Court with recommendations relating to ADR legislation, and all aspects of ADR policy and rules including, but not limited to, model ADR practices, mediator certification and renewal requirements, continuing education requirements, and mediation training program requirements. Letters of interest and current résumés may be submitted on or before April 10, 2020, to: Florida Dispute Resolution Center, Supreme Court Building, 500 S. Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 or fax (850) 922-9290 or DRCmail@flcourts.org See link here-- https://www.flcourts.org/Resources-Services/Alternative-Dispute-Resolution

ADR Section Member Survey Due 1/23

The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section of The Florida Bar wants to maximize its services and resources for members. As such, I was tasked along with our Executive Council to create a survey in order to take the pulse of our almost one thousand member section a decade into its existence. For those who already belong to the section, you should have received an email from our chair containing the individualized invitation link to take the survey. Please complete this information by January 23, 2020. If you are not a member of the ADR Section, but belong to the Florida Bar, please consider joining now or upon your bar dues renewal this summer. The ADR Section provides a forum for lawyers interested in alternative dispute resolution and for discussion and exchange of ideas leading to an improvement of individual ADR skills and abilities. The ADR Section keeps its Florida Bar membership informed and updated regarding legislation, rules and policies in connection with mediation, arbitration and other ADR processes. We also provide quality continuing legal education programs (CLE/CME). The ADR Section also acts as an advocate for attorney mediators in dealing with the Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) and Florida Supreme Court rule changes proposed by the ADR Rules & Policy committee of the court. See more here-- https://bit.ly/36SNAkK and https://bit.ly/2tkQ1Ow

Florida Mediator Rule Changes Coming

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy (Rules and Policy Committee) today invited all interested persons to comment on proposed amendments to small claims, county, civil, family, juvenile, and appellate state court rules of procedure regarding mediation. According to the Rules and Policy Committee, the amendments are intended to protect the public by ensuring that any individual who mediates cases pending before any state court shall be subject to the ethical standards and discipline procedures in the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. The amendments originated as Rules and Policy Committee work product that was circulated to the ADR community in 2017. The Executive Council of the ADR Section of The Florida Bar deliberated on this matter then and voted in favor of a mandatory certification for court connected cases. However, after receiving feedback and engaging in its own careful deliberation, the Rules and Policy Committee revised its proposal to meet the interests of both the ADR and legal communities while continuing to meet the goals of the Long-Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch 2016-2021, to “maintain a professional, ethical and skilled judiciary and workforce.” The 2017 amendments proposed that all pending court cases be mediated by a Florida Supreme Court certified mediator. The 2019 amendments are now offered instead of those amendments. The amendment to each set of procedural rules will require that any mediator who mediates a state court action does so subject to the ethical standards the Supreme Court has imposed on all certified and court-appointed mediators irrespective of whether the mediator is certified, non-certified, or court-appointed. All individuals who mediate cases pending before any state court shall be subject to discipline and the existing procedures. Please send comments for the Committee to the Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) by July 8, 2019, to DRCmail@flcourts.org. You may comments send via mail to: Florida Dispute Resolution Center, Supreme Court Building, 500 S. Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399; or fax at (850) 922-9290

Important Posts Need Appointees

The Florida Dispute Resolution Center or DRC is currently accepting applications for new member appointments to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy Committee and the Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee, known as MEAC.

The ADR Rules and Policy committee provides the Supreme Court of Florida with recommendations relating to ADR legislation, and all aspects of ADR policy and rules including, but not limited to, model ADR practices, mediator certification and renewal requirements, continuing education requirements, and mediation training program requirements. MEAC is a nine member body that issues written advisory ethics opinions for mediators subject to the Florida Rules for Certified and CourtAppointed Mediators. The DRC is currently accepting applications for the appointment of three certified mediators who hold any type of certification. Please submit a letter of interest and current résumé to: Florida Dispute Resolution Center Supreme Court Building 500 S. Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Fax: (850) 922-9290 Email: DRCmail@flcourts.org Deadline: April 23, 2018. See more information at links here-- http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/549/urlt/ADRRPVacancyNotice.pdf and http://www.flcourts.org/core/fileparse.php/549/urlt/MEACVacancyNotice.pdf and see MEAC opinions link here-- http://fladr.org/cle-events/meac-opinions/

FL Bar ADR Section Supports Mandatory Certification

Yesterday, the Executive Council of the ADR Section of The Florida Bar convened in Orlando at its winter meeting. Among the topics for discussion were proposed rules that will ultimately be considered by the ADR Rules & Policy Committee of The Supreme Court of Florida which asked for the section's input on the matter of mandatory certification for mediators in court cases. Two recommendations were made to ADR Rules & Policy that is likely to have its own language changes and submit for public comment before the Florida Supreme Court passes them. This effort was brought about after a survey of the ADR Section's members indicated the majority preferred using certified mediators and felt all people in Florida mediating cases for the courts should be required to follow the ethical rules. The rules address things like conflicts of interest, confidentiality, coercion, self-determination and other traditional hallmarks of the mediation process. The first proposal requires that professional standards would apply to non-certified mediators voluntarily selected or retained by the parties in the absence of a court order and applies to circuit and family cases. A second motion passed for requiring mandatory certification of mediators in filed cases retained or appointed by the court in the same divisions, with the exception of dependency. While these proposals are perhaps controversial in some circles, it was thought the ADR Rules & Policy Committee would act on this with or without the ADR Section's input. Therefore, the preference for rulemaking reflected by the section survey was formally expressed through these resolutions. Stay tuned for next steps. See court committee link here-- http://bit.ly/2jmRTv0 and section link here-- http://bit.ly/2jmPlxa

Other ADR Rules Rejected by Fla. S. Ct.

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

ADR Rules & Policy Proposals Oral Argument Set June 3rd

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

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

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

ADR Section comments on ADR Rules & Policy Proposals

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

ADR Rules and Policy Proposes Amendments, New Rules

In a major development, The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy is proposing amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules, Family Law Rules, and brand-new Florida Rules for Court-Appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution Neutrals Regarding Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes for which No Other Supreme Court Rules or Standards for Professional Conduct Exist. According to The Florida Bar News, the Court is inviting all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, which appear online at-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml. All comments must be filed on or before December 15, 2014, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on Committee Chair, Hon. William D. Palmer, Fifth District Court of Appeal, 300 South Beach Street, Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 or palmerw@flcourts.org, and on staff to the Committee, Susan C. Marvin, Dispute Resolution Center, Florida Supreme Court Building, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399 or marvins@flcourts.org, as well as a separate request for oral argument if commenters wish to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled on this case. The Committee Chair has until January 5, 2015, to file a response to any comments filed with the Court. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed in accordance with In re Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-7 (Feb. 18, 2013). See more information here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml#altdispute