15 Years of Orlando Mediator

This month marks fifteen years since I began writing this blog to help keep the legal community abreast of the latest goings-on in mediation, arbitration and other emerging forms of dispute resolution. 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, as top blawgs to follow by ADR Times and a current Top 5 Dispute Resolution Blog on Feedspot.com. My first entry had to do with arbitration as a process criticized by consumer advocates and that remains true today, though it is becoming utilized by more industries in contracts and is even being employed by courts under statutory processes, like nonbinding arbitration. Some things that have changed are the remote nature of these processes, especially since Covid. These changes advanced the use of then state of the art technology like Zoom, now comfortably utilized by professionals, parties and their counsel alike. We are getting past early days of the artificial intelligence boom and looking for ways to ethically use the power of AI as a settlement tool, while maintaining the human touch that has led to deals over the past 3,000 years of this profession. My alternative dispute resolution practice has continually evolved since first becoming certified in Circuit-Civil mediation in 2001 by the Florida Supreme Court and serving as a full-time neutral since 2010. Over that time, I have helped to bring about thousands of resolutions of multi-party complex cases in state and federal trial courts. I've also facilitated post-trial settlements with appellate cases pending in Florida's 5th and 6th District Courts of Appeal which are still the only DCAs to maintain formal civil mediation programs. Courts are extremely backlogged, so as litigation costs continue to rise, early settlements make sense in regular matters. Pre-suit mediation is trending beyond statutory requirements and can be quite effective if the parties have just enough information to evaluate their positions in the potential litigation. Mediation is essential to America's courts and remains the most popular of docket-culling measures. Thanks for your readership and attention to my musings and thought leadership about all things in modern-day peacemaking.

OneOrlando Fund Consults Neutral

Sadly, one of the roles of a modern full-time neutral in dispute resolution practice is administration of vicitm funds. While we are still reeling from recent events from the Pulse massacre here in Orlando, it is heartwarming to see the outpouring of support and generosity from around the globe. To ensure that funds are dispersed in a timely, accountable and transparent manner, the OneOrlando Fund is apparently consulting with victim fund expert Kenneth R. Feinberg. A professional neutral, he served as the Special Master for the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001, the Claims Administrator for the One Fund Boston, the Virginia Tech Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, the Aurora Victim Relief Fund and for the BP Oil Spill Claims Administration as the Compensation Fund Administrator. He opines that the immediate issue is whether multiple funds are competing which there seem to be, as well as individual GoFundMe campaigns. He thinks one fund is always the best way to go, allowing payment processing to be coordinated with a common criteria. He says a calculation of compensation cannot be determined until the aggregate amount is known. Interestingly, he most recently weighed in on Deflategate by filing an amicus brief in that appeal as both neutral and new to the dispute. He asserts in his amicus brief that the enforcement of Tom Brady’s suspension would trigger consequences well beyond sports. He contends it would destabilize the system of arbitration in the Unites States and that it would make it harder for himself and others like to him to carry out their duties. While it will be interesting to see how that appeal goes, for the moment, he is helping Orlando deal with the largest mass shooting in the country. See more here-- http://on.si.com/294OCid and interview http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/06/17/donations-orlando-distributed and One Orlando Fund (Strengthen Orlando, Inc.) information here-- https://www.oneorlando.org/aboutus.htm

Taking another look at ENE

Mediation and arbitration have been out-of-court dispute resolution options available to Florida litigants for a quarter century. Early Neutral Evaluation or ENE is relatively new and has perhaps not caught on because of lack of court rules and some misconceptions about the process. Early Neutral Evaluation was developed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to reduce the expense of litigation for civil litigants. ENE is a hybrid of mediation and arbitration with a goal of helping litigants gain a better understanding of their case. Simply put, a third-party neutral examines the positions of the parties and gives an evaluation of the case. ENE is designed to avoid unrealistic expectations about the probable outcome of a case. ENE ensures time and money are not wasted on litigation and provides a reality check for attorneys and clients. A court-appointed neutral with expertise in the subject matter typically hosts an informal meeting of clients and counsel once the parties request ENE. Sessions generally include and introduction and opening remarks by evaluator, followed by presentations of claims and defenses by counsel. The neutral evaluator then identifies common ground and probes possible stipulations. Upon clarifying key disputed issues, the evaluator can ask if the parties wish to explore settlement before the evaluation is presented and otherwise conduct settlement negotiations if the parties agree to do so. If not, the evaluator explains their assessment of the case, including what may be awarded at trial, what the settlement range of the case should be, and the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case. The neutral case evaluator has no power to impose settlement and may not force a party to accept any proposed terms. Formal discovery, disclosure and motion practice rights of the litigants are fully preserved. Skilled neutral evaluators can also assist with streamlining case management early, including E-discovery. The confidential evaluation is non-binding and is not shared with the trial court. If no settlement is reached, the case remains in litigation, but likely with the litigants better informed as to the risks, amount of work still necessary to conclude the case and a monetary estimate of the cost of continuing toward trial. I will be working with other full-time neutrals in Florida to explore establishment of a pilot program here. See California rules here-- cand.uscourts.gov/adrlocrules

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