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

Comments to Civil Rules Proposals on Mediation & Arbitration Due 5/1

The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee submitted a couple of proposals to the Florida Supreme Court including amendments likely to simplify important rules concerning mediation and arbitration. First, 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 resolved online since Covid. 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 fact 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. In addition, the Civil Rules Committee is proposing amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration). The new language would, among other things, require an arbitrator to file with a court a notice of service of the arbitration decision, but not the actual arbitration decision itself. This might eliminate filing under seal which can be difficult for neutrals, depending on the clerk procedures in each county. The party entitled to a judgment if no request for trial de novo is made, or after a trial de novo is conducted, would be required to file the arbitration decision with the court. The proposed amendments would also require that a party file only a written request for trial to reject an arbitrator’s decision, and that a timely request for trial “be construed so as to do substantial justice.” Members of the Committee now agree that it is duplicative and unnecessary for a party to say both that the arbitration award is being deemed 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. See more here-- In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820, Case No. SC2026-0040 and In Re: Amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.700, Case No. SC2025-2041 https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/search/case

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

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

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

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

Supreme Court of Florida Considers E-Discovery Rules

In a development that may lead to the use of more special magistrates and special masters deciding discovery disputes, this morning, the Supreme Court of Florida heard oral argument in case SC11-1542 on the amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure concerning E-Discovery. The proposed amendments add electronically stored information or ESI into existing rules and are mostly modeled on the federal rule changes implemented by Congress in 2006. Following a multi-year effort by the Civil Procedure Rules Subcommittee on E-Discovery that I formed in January 2006, these rules were presented to the Florida Bar Board of Governors and sent on to the court for comment and adoption. Justice Barbara Pariente, with her iPad prominently displayed on the bench, began to pepper Chair, Kevin Johnson (whom I tapped as my successor upon my terming off the Civil Rules standing committee) shortly after he began. She engaged in congratulating the seemingly unanimous approval by the members of the Bar in the run-up to making these rules official. Justice Pariente continued with questions regarding her experience as a litigator in producing documents in products cases. Mr. Johnson explained that the only difference from the federal rules is the lack of a mandatory meet and confer early in the case. However, there is an available category found in the state case management rules 1.200 and 1.201. Justice Quince was concerned over the format of production of the items requested by a litigant and that those decisions are left to the trial judge. Justice Perry was concerned about the party having the best expert to hide the ball with an inexperienced line judge. Doug Caldwell of the Rumberger firm appeared to applaud the effort, but on behalf of the Florida Defense Lawyers, did not feel the federal rules go far enough. He cited efforts in the federal rules advisory committee to remedy the inefficiencies experienced in that system. Mr. Caldwell echoed Henry Trawick’s comments filed about the burden on the producing party. His anecdote of a ‘mom and pop’ store with an iPhone was met with skepticism from Justice Pariente. Justice Polston pointed out the existing rules allow for trial judges to argue scope in 1.280. Retired Circuit Judge Ralph Artigliere, with whom I’ve taught at OSCA’s Florida Judicial College, commented on preservation and the existing case law for spoliation that developed out of products and malpractice cases. He added that Business Courts can make local rules more specific to manner of production. He also mentioned the change in culture reflecting a burden on lawyers to understand the evidence their clients may have and responsibility to the court, Education of the bench and bar was discussed and Justice Lewis went as far as talking about mandatory court education or bar CLE to be coordinated by the budget-less Civil Rules committee. Not a clue as to the timing of implementation of these rule amendments was given during the thirty-seven minute argument, though I liked Justice Pariente's emphasis on wide agreement of committee and bar to pass rules. Fingers crossed! See complete oral argument at: http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/archives/flash/viewcase.php?case=11-1542