Oral Argument Scheduled on Rule 1.700 Proposal

The Supreme Court of Florida has scheduled oral argument for September 10, 2026 in a pending civil rules case following submission and comment period on The Florida Bar Civil Procedure Rules Committee's proposed amendments. Regarding referral of cases under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700 (Rules Common to Mediation and Arbitration), a judge may enter an order referring all or any part of a case to mediation or arbitration, unless prohibited by law. The parties to any case may agree to mediate or arbitrate any issue at any time. Except as provided in this rule, mediation and arbitration must be conducted in person. This is the new default, even though well over 90% of cases are now resolved online since the pandemic. The judge may order, or the parties may stipulate, that the mediation or arbitration may be conducted through the use of communication technology. To be clear, communication technology must include both audio and video, unless all parties stipulate or the judge finds cause. This seems to be due to the increasing experience online that many parties of late claim they don't have functioning cameras and some insurance adjusters appear with black screens on Zoom. The proposed amendments would essentially require a mediation or arbitration via remote technology must include both audio and video-- i.e., fully appearing online at the proceeding. The ADR Section of The Florida Bar filed a comment to seek clarification that this also apply to nonbinding arbitration and suggesting as a practical matter, not permitting audio participation even when agreed to by the neutral conducting, takes away options and flexibility. See more here-- In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700, Case No. SC2025-2041 https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/search/case

Voluntary Trial Resolution Bill

Changes are afoot in Tallahassee with a proposal in the current legislative session to amend the way private judging is done. Chapter 44, Florida Statutes has an option that allows parties in civil disputes to sidestep the delays without relinquishing their right to a jury trial or appeal. Although voluntary trial resolution (VTR), commonly known as private judging, has been in place for more than 25 years, it is rarely invoked with anecdotal stats of around one per year. Incidentally, I did participate in one private civil jury trial in the late 1990s with success. The Florida Bar Business Law Section’s Business Litigation Committee created a task force to identify opportunities to clarify and modernize the process of private judging. After reviewing current Florida law, analyzing relevant case law from other jurisdictions and discussing best practices, the task force concluded clarifying this process might help its use. The current statute, Section 44.104, Florida Statutes, allows parties who agree to private judging choose their own judge, file pleadings with the clerk, and conduct a trial in court or another agreed-upon venue. Uncertainties make most attorneys reluctant to recommend private judging to their clients. The proposed bill aims to close some gaps, giving lawyers more confidence to pursue voluntary trial resolution and helping parties more efficiently resolve disputes. If enacted, the updated statute would give circuit courts the authority to issue orders enforcing the parties’ agreement to pursue voluntary trial resolution, including compelling payment of compensation to the private judge. Decisions made by private judges (whether final or non- final orders) could be reviewed or appealed, just like decisions from circuit judges. At the ADR Section Executive Winter Meeting today, there was a robust discussiom of the substantive changes, as well as things like the use of the courthouse and staff in conducting these trials. Much remains in flux this session and it appears the drafters might have to go back to the drawing board. At present, the bill is likely to die in committee (as it did last year) and so those that are interested in commenting should send your thoughts to the ADR Section care of its administrator: chopkins@floridabar.org See more here-- https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/965/BillText/Filed/PDF and https://flabaradr.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/ADR-Section-Common-Ground-FallWinter-2025.pdf and https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/965/

NBA in FLA

Some practitioners did not take note of the change last summer that rejecting a nonbinding arbitration award went from filing for trial de novo to requiring including notice requesting rejection. Effective July 1, 2024, amended rule 1.820(h) requires a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial. This was done to to clarify the process for rejecting an arbitrator’s decision and requesting a trial de novo. Under the amended rule, an arbitration decision is deemed rejected only if such request is filed with the court within 20 days of service of the arbitrator’s written decision. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Proc., 386 So. 3d 876, 878 (Fla. 2024). In a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal case, it was held that a request for trial de novo, which does not also include a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision, does not comply with amended rule 1.820(h). If a notice of rejection of the arbitration decision and request for trial is not timely made, the decision must be referred to the presiding judge, who must enter such orders and judgments as may be required to carry out the terms of the decision as provided by Section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes. See more here-- https://tinyurl.com/2rbdjdes

Florida Arbitrator Rule Changes

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

It's Mediation er, um rather ADR Week!

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

Did The Mouse Give Arb a Black Eye?

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

FL Case Management Comments due 8/6

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

FL Non-Binding Arb Rule Changes Effective 7/1

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

Florida Arbitrator Rule Comments Due 6/4!

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

Non-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

Valentine's date? Arb Forum 2/14

Join 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

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

A Decade of Orlando Mediator

Today marks 10 years since I began writing this blog to help keep the legal community abreast of the latest goings-on in mediation, arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution. In the interim, this blog has been recognized as an official ABA "Blawg" by the American Bar Association, voted as a finalist for The Expert Institute Best Legal Blog in the Legal News category and a current Top 10 Dispute Resolution Blog and Website to Follow on Feedspot.com. My first entry had to do with arbitration as a process being under attack and that remains true today. Some things that have changed are the remote nature of these processes, especially since the pandemic began. These changes have advanced the use of state of the art technology like Zoom, now comfortably utilized by professionals, parties and their counsel alike. My alternative dispute resolution practice has continually evolved since becoming certified in 2001 in Circuit-Civil mediation by the Florida Supreme Court and serving as a full-time neutral since 2010. In the last decade, I have handled resolutions of multi-party complex cases in state and federal trial courts. I also facilitated post-trial settlements with cases pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, where I was a member of the pilot program for appellate mediation that endured with the creation of an Appellate mediation certification, for which I was grandfathered. Since litigation costs have gone up, courts are extremely backlogged due to Covid and the economy remains tentative, early settlements continue to be favored in most matters. Pre-suit mediation is popular and can be effective if the parties have just enough information to evaluate their positions in the potential litigation. All in all mediation has never been more popular in Florida and other docket-culling measures like mandatory non-binding arbitration are on the rise. Thanks for your readership and paying attention to my musings about all things in modern-day peacemaking. Be well and stay healthy!

ADR Arbitration Advocacy Institute 11/13!

Please join me this month at the ADR Section of The Florida Bar's inaugural Arbitration Advocacy Institute. This innovative program is a one-day, online workshop for attorney-arbitrators that will provide coaching on mechanics, technology and professionalism to help Florida attorneys boost their arbitration advocacy skills. Attendees will increase their knowledge of the arbitration process from beginning to end-- distinct from mediation and litigation-- and participate in virtual clinics for diverse arbitration practice areas. A prestigious faculty of over 30 presenters will demonstrate effective and ethical techniques that will enable participants to reach the highest levels of advocacy in arbitration. Login on Friday, November 13, 2020 from 8:45 a.m. to 6 p.m. with an optional virtual networking hour on November 12 at 5:30 p.m. This course has been approved for 8.5 General CLE credits in Florida 1.0 of which may be applied toward Professionalism, and 1.0 Technology credit. Participants earn 1.5 additional General CLE credits for participation in a Virtual Clinic. Section members $185, non-section members $230 and law students just $60 (includes ADR Section membership). See more information and registration details here-- https://flabaradr.com/arbitration-advocacy-institute and https://bit.ly/3kRtgaz

Join me next month for Arbitration Backlash

The Cardozo Legal Society has invited me to speak next month at its breakfast meeting in downtown Orlando at the law firm of BakerHostetler. This one-hour general credit CLE will take place July 12th at 8:00 am in the SunTrust Center located at 200 South Orange Avenue. The U.S. Supreme Court just issued another decision upholding contracts to arbitrate rather than litigate disputes. Arbitration, however, continues to be attacked by media and elected officials despite being an effective ADR method to resolve disputes and control the rising cost of trying lawsuits. Federal law supports and governs the practice through the Federal Arbitration Act. To be enforceable, a clause must provide a meaningful opportunity for redress, and courts review contractual provisions for fundamental fairness. Because the litigation system has become so expensive, arbitration is often the preferred forum for disputes involving amounts in controversy for which litigation of claims is uneconomical. My talk explores the recent backlash against arbitration and reminds attendees of the origins and benefits of this dispute resolution process. The content is designed for lawyers who represent clients in arbitration and for attorneys who use arbitration clauses in contracts. I am a past chair of Cardozo Legal Society and former executive board member of our local non-profit federation, JFGO. Cardozo is a Business & Professional Society that offers attorneys, judges, law students and professors, and those in related roles in the legal profession an opportunity to get involved with the community while creating long lasting relationships with colleagues. See registration link here-- https://bit.ly/2KnWHlt

SCOTUS Denies Cert on 5th DCA Ruling Against Arb

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to review an appellate ruling by Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal (5th DCA) that found a patient arbitration agreement unenforceable because it ran afoul of state law, despite the health care provider’s warnings that the ruling could render other health care arbitration agreements here unenforceable. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant Kindred Hospital East LLC's certiorari petition, just the latest in a series of long-running battles over the enforceability of health care arbitration agreements. Kindred asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the state appeals court’s refusal to force the arbitration of medical malpractice claims, saying the decision violates the Federal Arbitration Act. The fundamental dispute lies between state courts and the high court over the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, as both sides in the dispute argue in their briefs. Kindred asserted if the ruling below was permitted to stand, every contractual agreement to arbitrate healthcare disputes in Florida would be unenforceable. The underlying Plaintiff had sued Kindred and several doctors for medical malpractice in state court after she suffered unspecified injuries during a 2012 stay at an Ocala hospital, a move Kindred argued was prohibited by an arbitration agreement signed by both parties. Florida's 5th DCA sided with the Plaintiff in the summer of 2016 and overturned a trial court’s ruling that compelled the parties to go to arbitration, per the terms of the contract. The appeals court found that the arbitration agreement was invalid because it selectively incorporated provisions from Florida’s own Medical Malpractice Act (MMA) that were favorable to Kindred and left out provisions favorable to patients. Specifically, public policy prohibits the enforcement of an arbitration provision that incorporates some, but not all, of the MMA's arbitration provisions. See more here-- http://bit.ly/2mw6Nmf and http://bit.ly/2EG8ipq and http://bit.ly/2FDvSoj

Seeking to Compel or Stay Arbitration?

I'm often asked about requesting courts to compel arbitration when the opposing party commences a lawsuit or otherwise expresses the intention to avoid arbitration of a dispute even though the dispute is subject to a valid arbitration agreement. If there is no lawsuit pending, a party may ask a court to compel the other party to arbitrate the dispute under the consented terms of a contract or arbitration clause in an agreement. If a lawsuit has been filed, the party seeking to compel arbitration may make the request by motion in the pending litigation. In that case, the practitioner should consider applying to stay the litigation pending arbitration, compel arbitration, or both. When a party objects, citing arbitration language in a written agreement, the Revised Florida Arbitration Code, F.S. §682.01 et seq., provides that any party may apply by motion for an order directing the parties to a lawsuit to comply with a governing arbitration clause. A party seeking to compel arbitration has the burden of establishing an agreement to arbitrate exists. The statutory process is as follows: F.S. § 682.015 Petition for judicial relief.— (1) Except as otherwise provided in s. 682.20, a petition for judicial relief under this chapter must be made to the court and heard in the manner provided by law or rule of court for making and hearing motions. (2) Unless a civil action involving the agreement to arbitrate is pending, notice of an initial petition to the court under this chapter must be served in the manner provided by law for the service of a summons in a civil action. Otherwise, notice of the motion must be given in the manner provided by law or rule of court for serving motions in pending cases. See http://bit.ly/2wxydLH

Meet the Mediator

Our mediation and arbitration firm, Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation group, based in Central Florida with offices throughout the state, has been profiling our neutral panel members and this month is my turn: "Lawrence has a distinguished career in Alternative Dispute Resolution. He has been a professional neutral for sixteen years. In that capacity he has served as an arbitrator, mediator, and as a general magistrate. Through his bar association work he chaired the effort to modernize Florida Civil Procedure Rules to include E-Discovery. He has also been a member of the faculty at the Advanced Judicial College, Bench Bar conference, and The Masters Conference for Legal Professionals. You may have seen his articles in the Orange County Bar Association Briefs. He is also the author of the officially listed ABA Journal "Blawg" Orlando Mediator (www.abajournal.com/blawg/Orlando_Mediator). Lawrence is AV® rated and has been recognized as a Florida Trend Legal Elite in Arbitration & Mediation, selected as Mediator of the Month™ in Attorney at Law magazine, and identified as a SuperLawyer™. He serves on the Executive Council of The Florida Bar ADR Section (www.fladr.org). He was even named a Litigation Trailblazer and Pioneer™ by the National Law Journal for his innovative work in alternative dispute resolution practice. Needless to say, he has been a very welcome addition to UWWM’s panel of professional neutrals. He brings a scholarly and informed perspective to the firm and to his clients. Given his impressive resume, I thought it might be interesting to discover something about Lawrence that we didn’t know." Aw-shucks! Read my colleague's interview of me here-- http://www.uww-adr.com/Meet-Our-Mediators--Lawrence-Kolin-1-817.html

Long-term Care Arbitration Attacked

This month, a decision by the Supreme Court of Florida and a rule by the federal agency that controls Medicaid and Medicare funding have dealt serious blows to the use of arbitration by long-term care facilities. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency under Health and Human Services (HHS), essentially bars any nursing home or assisted living facility that receives federal funding from requiring that its residents resolve any disputes in arbitration, instead of in court. It is the most significant overhaul of the agency’s rules governing federal funding of long-term care facilities in more than two decades. The nursing home industry has said that arbitration offers a less costly alternative to court. Allowing more lawsuits, the industry has said, could drive up costs and force some homes to close. This was the case over a decade ago, when many excess verdicts were recorded in Florida, forcing players out of the state or out of business altogether. Lawyers who work with the elderly say that people are being admitted to nursing homes at one of the most stressful moments of their lives. Distraught and often desperate for a room, prospective residents do not fully grasp what they are signing. Many times, family members are involved in the admission process. The the Supreme Court of Florida said in a Miami case that a father who was a resident in a nursing home could not be bound by an arbitration requirement that his son had signed without the father’s agreement. However, reportedly, one appeals court refused to throw out an arbitration clause signed by a man who could not read or sign his name, reasoning that “illiteracy alone is not a sufficient basis for the invalidation of an arbitration agreement.” See FL decision in Mendez v. Hampton Court Nursing Center, LLC here-- http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2016/sc14-1349.pdf Read more here: http://hrld.us/2dCnHLo and http://nyti.ms/2dCmeVh

Next Month Rev. Arb. Code Applies Across the Board in FL

Commencing on July 1, 2016, all arbitration agreements, regardless of their date, will be governed by Chapter 682, Fla. Stat. (2013), The Revised Florida Arbitration Code. At present, the statute does not apply to any arbitration that commenced, or any right that accrued, before July 1, 2013. Pursuant to the revised code which is based on the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act (RUAA), it automatically applies to all non-FAA arbitration agreements entered into after July 1, 2013. For now, it can still apply to arbitration agreements made before its effective date of July 1, 2013, if all the parties agree. Otherwise, the law existing at the time of the arbitration agreement applies through June 30, 2016. Revision applicability should be of interest to legal professionals enforcing arbitration provisions common to industries throughout Florida, including: construction, consumer, insurance, employment, securities, and commercial contracts. It is also important to note that Florida’s statutes of limitation (SOL) apply to arbitrations. Florida’s SOL time frames are contained in Chapter 95, Fla. Stat. and apply to any “civil action or proceeding.” Fla. Stat. § 95.011 does not expressly define “action” or “proceeding.” The use of this undefined phrase was the subject of significant debate in securities arbitrations a few years ago. Without reference to Florida’s SOL, securities firms, as well as foreign and domestic companies conducting business in this state, were faced with rewriting their arbitration agreements to provide an express limitations period. Because of the uncertainty associated with the enforceability of such provisions, some may have avoided doing business in this state altogether. The Supreme Court of Florida recently rejected arguments that the legislature did not intend to incorporate arbitrations within its reference to proceedings such that an arbitration proceeding is an “action” broadly defined to encompass any “civil action or proceeding." Arbitration proceedings are utilized in a wide array of contexts and not applying statutes of limitation would permit parties to wait to bring a claim until documents or witnesses are difficult to locate-- a situation that would significantly increase the time, effort, and expense to resolve a dispute. See more in the revised statute here-- bit.ly/1SZFP1g and Fla. S. Ct. decision on SOL in arbitration here-- http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1631334.html