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

Comments on Attorneys Signing Settlement Agreements Due 10/1

The Supreme Court of Florida has received a petition from The Florida Bar Civil Rules Committee stemming from a case reported a couple of years ago, Parkland Condominium Association, Inc. v. Henderson, 350 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) where the court did not enforce a deal when the attorneys signed a mediated settlement agreement, but the parties never did. The proposed rule change to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.730 will no longer require signature of counsel to the parties on mediation settlement agreements and will permit the signature of a party representative (e.g., insurer) if they have full authority to settle. Many cases we see referred to mediation have no Certificates of Authority despite the civil rules saying they must be timely filed before mediation. Mediators compromise their neutrality when they are asked by counsel and their clients to police such compliance. The Civil Rules Committee notes that in reviewing Rule 1.730, it requires, "erroneously," a lawyer's signature on a mediation agreement as Florida law does not otherwise require it. The applicable statute merely requires that a mediated settlement agreement be "signed by the parties and, if required by law, approved by the court." See § 44.404(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Attorneys signing at the end gives a certain gravity to the mediation process and evidences they have read over it and advised the parties signing. I never saw counsel complain in decades of doing this. Comments are due by October 1,2024. Find more on case number SC2024-0774 here--https://tinyurl.com/mrxuxcmj

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

Fla. S. Ct. Extends Previous Covid Mediator Measures

The Supreme Court of Florida issued an Administrative Order (AO) relating to several Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) items that continue addressing operational issues from the pandemic and allowing for things like mediation training by remote electronic means. The order extends a limited number of provisions that were first authorized in April 2020 and December 2020 due to the impact of COVID-19 on the judicial system. Highlights of the order include suspending the Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators by eliminating the required points for mentorship activities through June 30, 2022. According to the Dispute Resolution Center which just advised of this new order, there are few important items to note in the AO: mentoring activities may still be needed for applicants to reach the required points for mediator certification (except for county); extending the ability of parenting coordination training to be conducted online through December 31, 2022; and waiving certain disciplinary requirements for certified mediators and qualified parenting coordinators. See more in AOSC20-24 Amendment 2 here-- https://bit.ly/3qgLaar

Mediator Testimony?

A recent query to the Florida Mediator Ethics Advisory Council (MEAC) invovled a federal court outside the state contacting the mediator regarding a post mediation status conference. Apparently, the parties gave different accounts of what occurred and the mediator was called for an opinion of the veracity of such irreconcilable statements. The mediator informed the court it would concern knowledge learned through confidential and privileged mediation communications and refused to provide same (the mediation was conducted pursuant to Florida rules and statutes). Thereafter, the mediator was ordered to "answer the question of whether plaintiff made a demand and whether the defendants made any counteroffer during the mediation, but not disclose any specific statements of the parties or the substance of their positions." MEAC advised that a mediator should not voluntarily testify in court regarding information learned in court unless confidentiality is waived by the parties or such communications fall within the exceptions listed in Chapter 44, Florida Statutes. Because this was not truly a Florida case and outside its jurisdiction, MEAC merely reaffirmed previous positions that a mediator should not voluntarily testify in court regarding information learned in mediation unless the parties waive confidentiality, or the communications fall within the exceptions found in Section 44.405, Florida Statutes. If a court issues an order for the mediator to testify, the mediator should either file a protective order or notify the judge that the mediator is statutorily required to maintain confidentiality of mediation communications. Interestingly, a Florida court decision published this month by the Fifth District Court of Appeal opining a motion to reform a mediated settlement agreement adequately alleging a claim for relief based on mutual mistake must be resolved by evidentiary hearing mentions in a footnote that a mediator would be permitted to provide testimony for the limited purpose of establishing or refuting legally recognized grounds for reforming a settlement agreement reached during a mediation pursuant to Section 44.405(4)(a)5, Florida Statutes. See more in MEAC Opinion 2021-005 and 5th DCA Case No. 5D21-316 https://bit.ly/2ZX0IUk