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

FL S. Ct. Improved Resolution Workgroup Rules OA

The Supreme Court of Florida heard oral argument today on a package of rules proposed by their appointed Workgroup on Improved Resolution of Civil Cases that might forever impact our state court system in a major way. These amendments are proposed as a paradigm shift to change the legal community and the perceived problems such as that current rules engender delay culture and firmer deadlines move cases. Firm trial dates, dates for discovery cutoffs and dispositive motions that are enforced by active case management can promote efficient resolution of cases according to the judges creating these proposed rules. Hearing time is a precious commodity that is often wasted with cancellation as are trial weeks according to Chief Judge Morris of the 2d DCA who reports that a mere 0.04% of cases end up in trial. Some judges appearing advocated the integration of county clerks' computer systems and the judicial case systems to alleviate duplication and promote standardization such as PACER in the federal system. The Civil Rules Committee chair said the adoption of the federal summary judgment rule brought the case law relied on in that system for clarity, but cautioned that the wide swath of changes to aggressive case management would shock the system and create growing pains with litigation on those changes. Justice Canady, who oversaw the Covid-19 crisis in the courts, said serving the litigants was the reason emergency procedures were ordered and now the court wants to see how to institutionalize those changes that proved successful in getting cases at issue during the pandemic. Justice Polston expressed concern with cases that are falling far behind or that just plain languish. He was also concerned parties should be exempt from the case management rubric in cases that are subject to Arbitration. Justice Labarga said when he was a trial judge, lawyers did not adhere to deadlines, especially with experts. Justice Muniz questioned why not implement proportionality in discovery like federal court and was told by a sophisticated commenter that our state system was just not ready to address that. The bar's Business Law Section is in favor of proportionality and also agreed with imposing track rules on cases except for presumptive streamlining of bench trials. The Appellate Rules Committee did not like substantive standards of review found in a few of these procedural rules. Probate practitioners were concerned about the disparity in dockets around the state and increased judicial decisionmaking versus routine uncontested proceedings. Critics of the sweeping package took issue with the lack of resources to implement these changes and technical irreconcilable differences between some of the rules. Others feared increased sanctions and less continuances. Judge Bailey responded on behalf of her workgroup arguing that because civil justice costs too much and takes too long, the public has lost faith and these case management changes are needed. While there were concerns over standardizing hearing procedures, everyone agreed an educational effort is needed in conjunction with the rollout of these rules. See more here-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq8gHr2FQP8 and Case No. SC22-122 https://bit.ly/3UGns4K

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