FLABAR ADR Section Meeting 1/17/18 in Orlando!

Happy New Year from Orlando Mediator! Please join us as our Executive Council of The Florida Bar Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section convenes in Orlando during the bar's mid-year winter meeting. Founded some eight years ago, around the time I started this blog, the ADR Section was designed to provide a forum for lawyers and attorney-mediators interested in alternative dispute resolution and a place to share common interests, ideas and concepts. It is not for non-lawyer mediators. The ADR Section regularly puts on continuing legal education (CLE) programs, as well as provides advocacy in rule changes, legislation and commentary to the Supreme Court of Florida when dealing with proposed amendments in all forms of alternative dispute resolution. Any member in good standing of The Florida Bar interested in the purpose of our section is eligible for membership upon application and payment of the ADR Section’s annual dues (which are just $35) and can be added to your regular bar dues at the time of renewal. Any member who ceases to be a member of The Florida Bar in good standing shall no longer be a member of the ADR Section under its by-laws. Hope to see you at the Hilton Double Tree Orlando this month as we debate our position regarding important legislation that has been introduced for the next session which I discussed on this blog last month! More information on our meeting and the section can be found here-- http://fladr.org/events/the-florida-bar-winter-meeting-and-adr-executive-council-meeting/

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

Knocking the "A" off ADR

I was recently elected to the Executive Council of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of The Florida Bar. At our meeting during the annual convention in Orlando, we discussed the well-known rate of settlements and the fact that less than 2% of cases actually result in trials. Mediation is an established part of the legal system in most populous states and in reality, it is the norm rather than an alternative in resolving disputes. Court-ordered in many instances, but always voluntary as to the self-determined outcome, mediation is simply dispute resolution. I am now involved in producing an ADR Section website and our committee is thinking about shaking up the branding and nomenclature to reflect the maturity of mediation and arbitration. Perhaps ADR in the 21st century is a misnomer? Maybe the "A" in ADR should morph from "alternative" into "accessible" dispute resolution or be dropped entirely? These are some of the issues our profession is grappling with as our bar approaches 100,000 lawyers in Florida. Stay tuned for more on this topic and give your input by joining the ADR Section through the application here: http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/3FA42C39F1E41CC38525777400465729/$FILE/ADR%20Application.pdf?OpenElement