ADR Rules & Policy Approves Language

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

Comments Sought for Non-Binding Arb Changes

The 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

Mediator Rules Comments Due 1/1

The Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy has undertaken the revision of Part I, Mediator Qualifications, and Part II, Standards of Professional Conduct, of the Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. Committee members are seeking feedback on the revisions at the link below on Amendments to Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. Most involve the certification criteria, but other proposed changes include enhancements to impartiality, conflicts and social networking. Confidentiality of the caucus is also addressed in that with the express consent of the parties and counsel, a mediator may establish as a ground rule for the mediation that information disclosed during caucus may be disclosed to the other mediation participants unless a party expressly tells the mediator to keep the information confidential. Additionally, regarding reporting mediation outcomes to courts, mediators must not include comments reflecting a mediator's opinions regarding whether a party or counsel mediated in "good faith" as sometimes seen in referral orders. Send any comments to the Dispute Resolution Center by email to DRCmail@flcourts.org, on or before January 1, 2022. See more here-- https://bit.ly/3EPGfD5

ADR Rules & Policy Urges Uncertified Mediators Be Bound

Last month, the ADR Rules & Policy Committee of the Florida Supreme Court filed a response to comments on its own proposed rule revisions, stating that the court has the inherent authority and obligation to ensure that the mediation process parties use operates in accordance with mediator rules and standards already adopted. The proposed revisions pertain to the practice and procedures of mediation in the court system and therefore fall under the Court’s authority under Article V, Section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution. The proposed rules require those who mediate court connected cases as part of the machinery of the judicial process to observe the existing rules of mediators, regardless of certification. Mediation has been an integral part of the Florida court process for over thirty years. The committee found it inconsistent and illogical to have one group of professionals in the court process who are subject to no ethical standards and disciplinary process involving the vitally important mediation service they provide to the parties and the court system. Florida court mediators are not only required to be familiar with the statutes and rules governing mediation, but are also obligated to follow court rules of procedure, administrative orders, local rules, and any other rules related to mediation in the court system. ADR Rules & Policy did not yield to criticism found in the comments filed and urged the court to proceed by adopting proposed amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.710 and 1.750; Florida Small Claims Rule 7.090; Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.290; Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.700; Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.741; and Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators 10.200 and 10.700. The committee stated parties and their attorneys are still free to choose whomever they want to mediate their case without the beneficial boundaries of mediator ethics and a disciplinary system to enforce them, provided that they mediate prior to filing a court case. They may also choose to use any type of ADR process prior to filing a lawsuit. However, 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. See more in Case Number: SC20-565 here-- http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org

 

Comments Invited Following MEAC Rule Change

The Supreme Court of Florida recently adopted its Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy Committee's proposed amendments to Rule 10.910 of the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators regarding composition of the Mediator Ethics Advisory Committee (MEAC). The Committee’s petition follows another recent opinion adopting changes, In re: amendments to the Florida Rules for Certified & Court-Appointed Mediators, 202 So. 3d 795 (Fla. 2016). New Rule 10.910(b) (Appointment) provides membership of MEAC shall be composed of nine members, two from each of the four divisions of the Mediator Qualifications and Discipline Review Board (MQDRB), and one member from any of the four divisions. Additionally, Rule 10.910(c) (Membership and Terms) now requires that the membership of MEAC shall include one county mediator, one family mediator, one circuit mediator, one dependency mediator, one appellate mediator, and four additional mediators who hold any type of Florida Supreme Court mediator certification. Finally, Rule 10.910(e) (Opinions) is amended to allow the Dispute Resolution Center greater latitude in publishing advisory opinions of MEAC. Because the amendments to Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators are effective immediately and were not published for comment prior to their adoption by the court, interested persons must now file any comments with the court on or before August 21, 2017, 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 Committee Chair then has until September 11, 2017, to file a response to any comments filed with the court. See full opinion here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2017/sc17-935.pdf

Did Mediation Disrupt Law?

Mediation was once viewed with the same suspicion found in the present disruption of industries and professions. After all, it was boldly called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Over the past couple of decades in Florida, we have vastly reduced the number of disputes going to trial, such that less than two percent of cases actually go that way. Because of skilled mediators and the embrace of the process by the bench and counsel, parties are participating in less formal court proceedings, having been encouraged to engage in early resolution of disputes in a cost effective manner. Trial courts remain available for the minority of legal matters unable to be resolved through facilitated negotiation. ADR processes offer litigants court-connected opportunities to resolve their disputes without judicial intervention. In Florida, this has resulted in one of the most comprehensive court-connected mediation programs in the country. The Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) was created during the mid-'80s to provide assistance to the courts in developing ADR programs and to conduct education and research on ADR in general. Legislation some thirty years ago resulted in Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, Mediation Alternatives to Judicial Action. This law granted civil trial judges the statutory authority to refer cases to mediation or arbitration, subject to rules and procedures established by the Supreme Court of Florida. The Supreme Court duly established minimum standards and procedures for qualifications, certification, professional conduct and training for mediators and arbitrators who are appointed pursuant to this chapter. Since then, the statute has been revised several times and procedural rules, certification qualifications, ethical standards and continuing education requirements for mediators have been implemented. Currently, rules requiring mediators of filed cases in circuit and family court to be certified are being debated and were recommended by the ADR Section of The Florida Bar as outlined in a recent post on this blog. The ADR Rules & Policy Committee of the Supreme Court of Florida will next consider and likely recommend such changes. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2lTmIN0 and http://bit.ly/2lTiCEj and http://bit.ly/2mrhTbA and http://bit.ly/2mrxyr9