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

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

FL Mediator Rule Comments Due 3/4

The ADR Rules and Policy Committee of The Supreme Court of Florida has proposed revisions to the rules governing certified and court-appointed mediators. While the changes are outlined in the links below and mostly consist of revisions to form such as "shall" being replaced with "must," they do have some substantive changes as requirements in becoming a certified mediator and in the conflict rules, so please consider weighing in on these amendments by March 4th. You may comment by sending your correspondence to the ADR Committee Chair, Honorable Michael S. Orfinger, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Volusia County Courthouse, 101 N. Alabama Avenue, Ste. C-443, DeLand, FL 32724, morfinger@circuit7.org, and the OSCA Staff Liaison to the Committee, Thomas A. David, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927, davidt@flcourts.org, 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 ADR Committee then has until March 25th to respond to commments. It is always important to participate in rulemaking as a member of the bar and the ADR profession so that the Committee can get proper feedback for what is actutally going on in the trenches. See more here-- http://tinyurl.com/395rat8k and http://tinyurl.com/eedckhhj

Oral Argument On FL Remote Proceedings Rules

Today, the Supreme Court of Florida heard from various commenters, interest groups and bar sections on the changes proposed to multiple procedural rules to include attendance by remote technology, including mediation. The Workgroup on the Continuity of Court Operations and Proceedings During and After COVID-19 filed a comprehensive petition to amend the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the Florida Rules of General Practice and Judicial Administration, the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Florida Probate Rules, the Florida Rules of Traffic Court, the Florida Small Claims Rules, and the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The proposed amendments would provide permanent, broader authorization for the remote conduct of court proceedings. The justices seemed largely receptive to the package and had few questions for those appearing at oral argument, indicating the new rules package will most likely be accepted as proposed. See more in docket here-- https://bit.ly/3st7kYa and oral argument here-- https://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel/

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 Section Supports ODR

The Florida Supreme Court last month extended the public comment deadline on a rules petition designed to promote greater use of remote technology or online dispute resolution (ODR) in court proceedings, including mediation. Specifically, the COVID-19 Workgroup’s proposed rules changes begin with Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.530, Communications Technology. The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Section's Executive Council has now filed a comment on behalf of its members in support of the continued use of remote technology. This was done after surveying members about personal experiences with remote proceedings over the past eighteen months of the coronavirus pandemic and their opinions regarding the proposed rules changes. The Florida Bar ADR Section favors enhancing the dispute resolution process through modernization while also increasing efficiency and lowering costs for the participants. It appears the Proposed Rules will assist to meet that goal, and as such the ADR Section supports the Workgroup proposed changes to Rules 1.700, 1.720, 1.730, 1.750, 9.700, 9.720, and 9.740 with the changes suggested through an official comment filed. The use of communication technology and remote participation at mediation and arbitration provides ready access to these proceedings by adding an additional means to attend and often lowers barriers to participation. Scheduling is easier when travel time is eliminated. The cost of attending is less when there are no lodging and parking costs either. Any early concerns as to communication technology and security have been addressed to the satisfaction of most practitioners and participants. The ADR Section also anticipates that these systems will continue to evolve and improve over time. See more here-- https://bit.ly/2V1hGll

Fla. S. Ct. Declines to Adopt New Mediator Rules

Last month, the Supreme Court of Florida quietly rejected a multi-year rules proposal effort by its own ADR Rules & Policy Committee attempting to ensure that the mediation process operates in accordance with mediator rules and standards already adopted. The proposed revisions pertained to the practice and procedures of mediation in the court system and added requirements that those who mediate court connected cases as part of the machinery of the judicial process must observe the existing rules of mediators, regardless of certification. The committee found it inconsistent and illogical to have one group of professionals in the court process who are subject to no ethical standards involving the vitally important mediation service they provide the public. Florida certified court mediators are already obligated to follow rules related to mediation in the court system. However, the court chose to leave existing rules in place such that parties are still free to choose whomever they want (clergy, rabbi, spiritual advisor) to mediate their case without the beneficial boundaries of mediator ethics and a system of enforcement. While 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, the court left it alone with only a dissent from Justice Polston emphasizing the need for instilling public confidence through principled ethical protections in mediation of pending state court cases. See more in Case Number: SC20-565 here-- http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org

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

 

ADR Rules & Policy Petition: Comments Due 7/31!

The ADR Rules & Policy Committee of The Supreme Court of Florida has petitioned the court for the passage of amendments that would require all mediators who mediate actions filed and pending in any Florida court be subject to Parts II, Standards of Professional Conduct (ethical standards), and III, Discipline (disciplinary process), of the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators, regardless of whether or not a court order of referral has been issued. The Committee also recommends the addition of corresponding language to Rules 10.200 and 10.700, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators. The amendments are designed to remedy two shortcomings in the existing rules. First, mediators who are not certified are currently not subject to the rules if they mediate a filed court action before an order of referral is issued. Second, although it is the Committee’s opinion that uncertified mediators selected by the parties, but not appointed by a specific court order after review by the presiding judge as required by the procedural rules, are subject to the ethical standards and disciplinary process, the Committee believes there is a dispute regarding whether a general order of referral suffices to constitute a court appointment. This petition is designed to remedy those issues. The amendments submitted in this petition originated in 2017 as a Committee proposal that would have required all mediators of state court trial and appellate cases be Florida Supreme Court certified, with appointment restricted to their subject matter areas of mediator certification (mandatory certification was also supported by a majority of the Executive Council of The Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of The Florida Bar). Comments must be filed by July 31, 2020, after an extension was granted. See more here-- https://bit.ly/36ZMzIz

ADR Rules & Policy Proposal

The Supreme Court of Florida's Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy recently submitted to the Florida Supreme Court an amended petition proposing amendments of the Rules for Qualified and Court-Appointed Parenting Coordinators. The Committee proposes amending rule 15.210 and adding new rules 15.220 through 15.370 to codify in the rules new procedures for parenting coordinators. The Court invited all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments via the Committee Chair, former Upchurch Watson White & Max Mediation Group Mediator, Honorable Michael S. Orfinger, Volusia County Courthouse Annex in Daytona Beach or morfinger@circuit7.org, and on support staff to the Committee, Juan R. Collins, Dispute Resolution Center, Florida Supreme Court Building in Tallahassee or collinsj@flcourts.org, 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 has yet to file responses to any comments filed with the Court. The Supreme Court Committee on ADR Rules and Policy was created in 2003 as a successor joint committee of previously separate rules and policy committees. The committee provides the Supreme Court with recommendations relating to: all aspects of ADR policy and rules, legislation, model ADR practices, mediator certification and renewal requirements including continuing mediator education, and mediation training program standards and requirements. See more here-- https://bit.ly/2Ee9TWy and https://bit.ly/2Bf2jI2