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 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

Comments Sought for Non-Binding Arb Changes

The Supreme Court of Florida governed Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC) Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Rules and Policy has put forth proposals in Case No. SC2023-0810. The court is now considering amendments to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820 (Hearing Procedures for Non-Binding Arbitration) that would provide a non-exclusive list of factors for a judge to consider when deciding whether to refer a contested civil action to non-binding arbitration. The amendments would also provide minimum hearing procedures that must be included in an order of referral to non-binding arbitration, absent agreement of the parties, among other things. The court has placed the proposals online and any comments should be filed with the Florida Supreme Court on or before July 31, 2023. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal. If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the Portal. Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927 See more here-- https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/Case-Information/Rules-Cases-Proposed-Amendments and https://acis.flcourts.gov/portal/search/case

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

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

Mandatory Non-Binding Arbitration Now Available

A new Administrative Order in Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida now permits a presiding circuit or county court judge to refer civil cases to non-binding arbitration without the consent of the parties, much like cases are referred to mediation. This is the first time in our local courts that such a dispute resolution mechanism, other than mediation, is available for the judicial officer to resolve backlogged cases due to Covid-19 court closures. The development is expected, as other jurisdictions have demonstrated success in culling dockets with this technique. Though some counsel and their clients have expressed disdain for the process, which can be more like a mini-trial, others have found it useful in getting to the heart of the dispute. Per the order, the non-binding arbitration hearing shall be conducted informally with a decision within ten days of the final adjournment. Presentation of testimony shall be kept to a minimum and other matters shall be presented primarily through the statements and arguments of counsel. Arbitration fees shall be equally divided between the parties, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court. The arbitrator or chief arbitrator shall determine the hearing procedures in advance of the hearing, including what live testimony, if any, will be permitted and the nature, scope, and duration which will be set forth in the Notice of Non-binding Arbitration Hearing. When a case is referred to non-binding arbitration the parties shall have fifteen days within which to agree on the number and selection of their own arbitrator(s); otherwise, the presiding judge shall determine the number of arbitrators and select them. See more here-- https://bit.ly/3oD0QlS