In Re Amendments to Fla. Rules for Mediators

762 So. 2d 441, 2000 WL 124396
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedFebruary 3, 2000
DocketSC95491
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 762 So. 2d 441 (In Re Amendments to Fla. Rules for Mediators) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Amendments to Fla. Rules for Mediators, 762 So. 2d 441, 2000 WL 124396 (Fla. 2000).

Opinion

762 So.2d 441 (2000)

IN RE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES FOR CERTIFIED AND COURT-APPOINTED MEDIATORS.

No. SC95491.

Supreme Court of Florida.

February 3, 2000.

Lawrence M. Watson, Jr., Chairman, Mediation and Arbitration Rules Committee, Maitland, Florida, for Petitioner.

Gregory Firestone, Ph.D., Director, Mediation Institute, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, Responding.

PER CURIAM.

The Florida Supreme Court Standing Committee on Mediation and Arbitration Rules (the Committee) petitions this Court to adopt proposed amendments to the Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators (Mediation Rules). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. The proposed changes were published for comment and comments from Gregory Firestone, Ph. D., were received. The Committee was asked to address Dr. Firestone's comments and after the Committee filed its response, the Court considered the petition without oral argument.

The Committee, which was established in 1989, is charged with, among other things, submitting recommendations to this Court concerning procedural and ethical rules for court-ordered mediation and arbitration in Florida. In this petition, the Committee proposes changes to three areas of the Mediation Rules, specifically: (1) the Mediator Standards of Professional Conduct; (2) the "Good Moral Character" standard for mediators; and (3) the rules governing the Mediator Qualifications Advisory Panel. After considering the proposals and comments, we adopt the changes as proposed, with one exception which we explain below. The changes are summarized according to the general areas listed above and are discussed in more detail where necessary to address Dr. Firestone's comments. Rules that have been merely renumbered are not addressed.

MEDIATOR STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

The Committee's proposed amendments to the ethical rules are the result of a two-year program of public hearings, public drafting sessions, state-wide advance publication, and two separate mailings of initial drafts. Input was received from the Mediator Qualifications Board, the Supreme Court Committee on Mediation and Arbitration Training, the Mediator Qualifications Advisory Panel, the Committee from the Florida Association of Professional Family Mediators, the Florida Academy of Professional Mediators, the American College of Civil Trial Mediators, and the Trial Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar. The proposed changes to the ethical rules amount to a complete rewrite of the existing rules. In addition to revising the text of individual ethical rules, the Committee has reorganized the grouping and order of the rules, moved ethical concepts between rules, renumbered the rules, and created several new rules.

The ethical standards for mediators, which are grouped according to specific areas of a mediator's ethical responsibilities, are outlined below.

General Provisions, Rules 10.200-10.230

Rules 10.200-10.230 (General Provisions) enunciate the scope and purpose of the rules, describe the role of mediation and the mediator, and set forth underlying concepts of the process. They are taken, with only minor changes, from current rule 10.020 (Preamble). Rule 10.200 (Scope and Purpose) provides an introduction and overview to the amended standards of conduct. It replaces existing rule 10.020(a).

Proposed rule 10.210 (Mediation Defined) defines "Mediation" as *442 a process whereby an impartial third person acts to encourage and facilitate the resolution of a dispute without prescribing what it should be. It is an informal and non-adversarial process intended to help disputing parties reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

Gregory Firestone, Ph. D. takes issue with the Committee's use of the term "impartial third person," rather than the statutory term "neutral third person." See § 44.1011(2), Fla. Stat. (1999). He maintains that the Committee has substituted a requirement that mediators "only be impartial" for the statutory requirement that mediators be "neutral." Dr. Firestone asks that we adopt a definition of mediation that mirrors the statutory definition, thereby avoiding the confusion caused by what he believes are conflicting definitions.

The current definition of mediation which is found in rule 10.020(b) (Preamble),[1] basically tracks the statutory definition.[2] As pointed out by Dr. Firestone, the proposed rule varies from the statutory definition by replacing the word "neutral" with the word impartial. According to the Committee, it was not its intent to substitute its definition of mediation for that of the Legislature. The Committee points out that the concept of impartiality, which is used throughout the new rules, is defined by new rule 10.330(a) as "freedom from favoritism or bias in word, action, or appearance, and includes a commitment to assist all parties, as opposed to any one individual." By using the term "impartial" in the definition of mediation, the Committee sought to curtail a mediator's tendency to interject his or her beliefs about how the subject of the mediation should be resolved, thereby protecting the parties' right of self-determination-the guiding principle of mediation. In fact, according to the Committee, the rules were intended to promote exactly what Dr. Firestone urges they should—a "neutral role with regard to the outcome of a dispute."

We basically agree with the Committee that the term "impartial," as used in the rules, encompasses the concept of "neutrality" as used in the statute.[3] However, in order to avoid any confusion that might be caused by the use of the differing terminology, we modify the amendment to rule 10.210 to refer to a "neutral and impartial third person."

Rule 10.220 (Mediator's Role) generally describes the function of the mediator and emphasizes that all decision making authority rests with the parties. It is basically a restatement of current rule 10.020(c). Rule 10.230 (Mediation Concepts) lists the general characteristics of the mediation process. It is basically a restatement of current rule 10.020(d), except that it omits "privacy" from the list of concepts that are emphasized in the process.

*443 Responsibility to the Parties, Rules 10.300-10.380

Rules 10.300-10.380 include a collection of specific ethical concerns involving a mediator's responsibility to the parties. The concepts formerly found in rule 10.060 (Self-Determination), rule 10.070 (Impartiality/Conflict of Interest), rule 10.080 (Confidentiality), rule 10.090 (Professional Advice), and rule 10.100 (Fees and Expenses) are incorporated in this series of rules. Also included in these rules are ethical concerns dealing with the mediator's demeanor and courtesy, contractual relationships, and responsibility to nonparticipating persons.

Rule 10.300 (Mediator's Responsibility to the Parties) describes the mediator's responsibility to the parties. Rule 10.310 (Self-Determination) is taken from current rule 10.060 (Self-Determination) and rule 10.090(c) (When Party Absent) with only minor changes. Proposed subdivision (b) of rule 10.310 expands the existing prohibition against party coercion to include participation in the mediation process itself, and any decision made during the process. Subdivision (d) is a modification of existing rule 10.090(c). That rule required termination if one of the parties is unable to participate for psychological or physical reasons. The new provision requires a mediator to cancel or postpone a mediation if a party is unable to freely exercise self-determination, irrespective of reason.

Dr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vitakis-Valchine v. Valchine
793 So. 2d 1094 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
762 So. 2d 441, 2000 WL 124396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-fla-rules-for-mediators-fla-2000.