The following is a real-time transcript taken as closed captioning during the oral argument proceedings, and as such, may contain errors. This service is provided solely for the purpose of assisting those with disabilities and should be used for no other purpose. These are not legal documents, and may not be used as legal authority. This transcript is not an official document of the Florida Supreme Court.

In re: Petition on Alternative Dispute Resolution Docket Number: SC05-998


N EXT CA SE ON THIS MOR NING'S DOCKET IS IN RE PE TITION OF THE ALTERNATIVE DIS PUTE RESOLUTION RULES AND POLICY COMMITTEE. NOW , I SEE TH REE PEOPLE HERE. I HAVE SEEN WE HAVE GOT JUDGE BR IESE AND ARE WE , HOW , ARE WE , 20 MINUTES TO TAL OR HOW ARE WE D OING THIS? I F YOU MAY APPROACH THE BENCH.

THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. I AM SHAWN BRIESE. I CHA IR THE COURT'S EDR R ULES AND POLICY COMMITTEE.I WILL BE SEE KING THE F UL L 40 MINUTES THIS MORNING. THE PETITION IS EXTENSIVE . WE ARE HE RE ON THE PETITION TO AM END THE FLORIDA RULES FOR CERTIFIED AND COURT APPOINTED MEDIATORS , FILED ON MAY 11 , 2005. TO MY LEF T, YOU ALL KNOW SHARON PRESS, THE DIRECTOR OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION CE NTER AND TO HER LEFT IS DR . GREG FIRESTONE , THE VICE-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. ASSUMING TIME AND Q UESTIONS PERMIT, ILL BREAK MY ARGUMENT DOWN INTO FOUR - - I WILL BREAK MY ARGUMENT DOWN INTO FOUR SECTIONS. THE F IRST SECTION TALKING A BOUT QUALIFICATIONS AND THE SECOND SECTION , THE STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY RULES AND THE THIRD SECTION , A PRO POSED ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE FOUR TH SECTION , THE DEPTH OF THE PETITION. I WILL S PEAK ON THE WEIGHT THAT THIS COURT CAN G IVE THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS. > > YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON THAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING ARGUME NT?

I AM.

THERE IS NO ONE IN OPPOSITION.

THAT'S CORR ECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: LE T'S , NOT THAT WE HAVE CERTAINLY HAVE 40 MINUTES, BUT WHY DON'T WE GET TO, I THI NK , ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAY CONC ERN THE COURT , IS THIS IS SUE O F CHANGING THE QUALIFICATIONS SO THAT A MED IATOR , INCLUDING A CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATOR, NO LONGER N E EDS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDABAR , AND , A GAIN , SO WE ALL UNDERSTAND , THIS IS TO BE ASUPREME COURT -APPROVED MEDIATOR AS O PPOSED TO A MED IATOR , B E CAUSE TWO PARTIES CAN AGREE THAT ANYBODY CAN MEDIATE A DISPUTE, CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES THAT MEDIATOR COMPETENCE CAN BEST BE AS SURED BY B ASING CERTIFICATION ON A NUMBER OF THINGS, ONE A GOOD MORAL CHARACTER REQUIREMENT. T WO, TRAINING . THREE, EDUC ATION. FOUR, EXPERIENCE , FIVE , MENTORSHIP AND S IX , THE STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT , SEVEN AN EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE AND , E IGHT, CONTIN UING MEDIATOR E DUCATION REQUIREMENTS. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE MANDAT ORY DEGREE-BASED REQUIREMENTS BE MODIFIED WITH MORE FLEXIBLE P OINT SYSTEM PROMULGATED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER OF THE CHIEF JUST ICE.

DID THE FLORIDA BAR, WERE THEY INVOLVED IN T HIS , THE FLORIDA BAR , SPECIFICALLY? DO YOU HAVE , BECAUSE I GUESSTHEY WOULD BE THE , IN TERMS OF ONE OF THE COMM ENTS IN OPPOSITION CAME FROM A LAWYER.

CORRECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: DID YOU HAVE CONVER SATIONS WITH THEFLORIDA BAR A BOUT THE ELIMINATING OF THIS REQUIREMENT?

WE DID NOT HAVE SPECIFIC CONVERSATIONS WITH THE FLORIDA BAR. IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THEFLORIDA BAR NEWS. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF THE QUAL IFICATIONS PROPOSAL IS THE REVISION OF THE MAND ATORY EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. THE BIGGEST CHANGE WOULD BE FOR CIR CUIT COURT MEDIATORS WHO ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO BE A MEMBER I N GOOD STANDING OF THE FLORIDA BAR, WITH FIVE YEARS OF FLORIDA PRACTICE AND AN ACTIVE ME FB THE BAR WI THIN THE YEAR THAT CERTIFICATION -- MEMBER OF THE BAR WITHIN THE YEAR THAT CERTIFICATION IS SOU GHT , OR --

HERE IS MY CONCERN ABOUTTHIS, JUDGE BRIE SE. THE DEFI NITION , AS I UNDERSTAND IT O F A CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATION , IS IT IS THE MEDIATION OF CI VIL CASESOTHER THAN FA MILY MA TTERS IN CIRCUIT COURT.IF A PA RTY IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL , COU NSEL OF RECORD MUST APPEAR , U N LESS STIPULATED TO BY THE PARTIES OR OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE COURT . NOW , THIS DEFINITION IS AS I UNDERSTAND IT , REMAINS THE S AME . BUT WHAT WE ARE , WHAT WE W OULD HAVE IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE COURT- ORDER ED MEDIATION BY A CERTAIN FED MEDIATOR -- CERTIFIED MEDIATOR. COUNSEL IS REQUIRED TO BETHERE , BUT THAT THE MEDIATOR WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE A LAWYER , AND I AM CONCERNEDABOUT THAT K IND OF SITUATIONTHAT WE ARE SETTING UP HERE BY THIS RULE AND WO NDER , IF WE DON'T, WOULDN'T BE BETTER SERVED IF WE DID HAVE IN PU T BY THE BO ARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FLORIDA BAR O N THIS . THIS MATTER.

THEY CER TAINLY HAD ALLOPPORTUNITY TO GI VE THIS COURT INPUT. THEY OBVIOU SLY CH OSE NOT T O DO SO. THE --

WOULD YOU GO FURTHER THAN THAT. YOU ARE SEEING THAT THEQUESTIONS YOU ARE GETTING ARE MOST CONCER NED WITH WHETHER OR NOT HAVING THE EDUCATION AND TRAINING AS A LAWYER IS AN ESSENTIAL PREREQUISITE T O SE RVING AS A MEDIATOR.

CORRECT.

YOU RECEIVED NO RESPONSE FROM THE FLORIDA BAR. IS THAT CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT.

EVEN TH OUGH NOT ICE OF THIS WAS PUBLIS HED I N THE JOURNAL , THE OR GAN OF THEFLORIDA BAR , THE FLORIDA BAR NEWS.

IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE FLORIDA BAR N E WS. I WILL COVER THAT.

WOULD YOU DESCRIBE TO THE BENCH , A LSO , THE MEMBERSHIP OF YOUR GROUP. TELL US , INSOFAR AS THEIR AFFILIATIONS ARE CONCERNED. JUDGES, LAWYERS? AND OTHERS. DESCRIBE THAT TO U S AND TELL US SOMETHING, THEN , ABOUT , IN OTHER WORDS DO THAT FIRST.

I WILL BE HA PPY T O . THE DE PTH OF THE PETITION IS THIS PETITI ON HAS BEEN VETTED FAR AND WI DE. THE ADR RULES AND POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE ON MEDIATOR QUALIFICATION S DEVELOPED THE NEW POINT SYSTEM. THAT WORK IN PRO GRESS WAS PUBLISHED IN THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION REPORT IN DECEMBER 2003.THAT HAS A CIRC ULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 7,000INDIVIDUALS.IT GOES TO ALL CHIEF JUDGES , ALL COURT TRIAL ADMINISTRATORS, ALL ADR COMMITTEE MEMBERS, ALL CERTIFIED MEDIATORS , AN YONE WHO TO OK TRA INING WITHIN THELAST TWO YEARS , EVEN IF THEY HAVE NOT BE COME CERT IFIED MEDIATORS, AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED PER SONS. COMMENTS WERE COLLECTED, REVIEWED, AND REVISIONS WERE M ADE. ADR WORLD.COM AND AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION SUBSIDIARY PUBLISHED THREE ARTICLES , FEBRUARY '04 , AUGUST '04 AND MAY '05 , INCLUDING THE FULL TE XT OF PROPOSALS. THE PROPOSED RULE REVISION , POINT SYSTEM AND DESCRIPTIONAND PROP OSED CHANGES TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER WERE PROPOSED TO APPROXIMATELY 1,000 PARTICIPANTS AT THE AUGUST 2004 ADRC CONFERENCE. THE PROPOSALS WERE AGAIN PUBLISHED IN THE REPO RT.

CHIEF JUSTIC E: THAT IS HELD EVERY YEAR , THAT CONFERENCE, ATTENDED B Y MEDIATORS AND MANY , MOST ARE ATTORNEYS AT THE PRESENTT IME.

CORRECT . THIS PETITION IS THE SPECIFIC WORK PRO DUCT OF 18 COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPRESENTING OVER 132 YEARS OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE , OVER 131 YEARS OF MEDIATION EXPERIENCE, OVER 1 12 YEARS OF CERTAIN FED MEDIATOR EXPERIENCE IN ALL AREAS OF MEDIATION.

HOW MANY MEMBERS SEVEN ON YOUR COMMITTEE ? THE OVERALL COMMIT TEE.

18.

AND HOW MANY JUDGES , HOW MANY LAWYERS, HOW MANY OTHER?

THERE ARE --

YOU CAN AND APPROXIMATE IT.

ABOU T 5 JUDGES , ONE TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR , THE REST ARE MEDIATORS IN ALLAREAS OF MEDIATION.

HOW MANY OF THEM ARE NONATTORNEY MEDIATORS?

HOW MANY? T WO.

WHA T IS THE NE ED HERE THAT YOU ARE TR YING TO ADDRESS , BY LOWERING THE THRESHOLD OR CHAN GING THE THRESHOLD?

THE THRESHOLD I S NOT BEING LOWE RED. THE THRESHOLD IS BE ING, WE ARE ASKI NG THAT IT BE REVISED TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE SKILLS THAT A MEDIATOR NEEDS.

COULD I ASK ONE QUESTION.

YES, SI R.

E ARLY ON AS MEDIATION BECAME MORE AND MORE POPULAR , IT WAS COM PARED AND DISCUSSED WITH ARBITRATIONS AND ARB ITRATION , CERTAINLY , IS A PROCESS WHERE YOU PRESENT WHATEVER IT IS YOU WANT TO PRESENT AND SOMEBODY MAKES A DECISION , BUT THE DISTINGUISHING FACT OR WAS THAT MEDIATORS WERE TO BE INDIVIDUALS IN THE POSTURE THAT COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES WERE , COULD ASS IST THE PARTIES IN UNDERSTANDING AND RECOGNIZING BOTH THEIRSTRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES AND THEN BRING THE PARTIESTOGETHER, SO THAT THEY COULD RESOLVE THEMSE LVES , WHATEVER THAT DISPUTE MAY BE. IS THAT A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION OR IS THAT AN OUTM ODED , OUTDATED LONG-SINCE-FORGOTTEN BASIS?

WELL , I THINK THAT IS F AIR. THE IS SU E --

IF THAT IS FAIR, THEN , COULD YOU HELP ME UNDE RSTAND WHY IT IS NOT BENEFICIAL THAT THOSE WH O ARE RECE IVING A STA TEMENT OF POSI TION, A STATEMENT OF WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE , ARE NOT ASSI STED BY, GREATLY BY HAVING SOME BACKGROUND IN LEGAL TRAINING OF SOME T YPE .

THE COMMITTEE'S POSITION IS THAT LEGAL TRAINING IS NOT ALW AYS NECESSARY FOR CIRCUIT MEDIATION . THE ISSUE HERE I S WHAT ARE THE SKIL LS THAT A NEED IATE OR NEEDS? ARE WE TRYING TO - - A MEDIATOR NEEDS? ARE WE TRY ING TO BU ILD SUBJECT EX PERTS , OR ARE WE TRYING TO HAVE THE REQUISITE S KILLS OF A MEDIATOR ? THE, AND LET ME --

CHIEF JUSTICE: LET ME ASKSORT OF A QUESTION ABOUT , AGAIN , PART Y'S CH OICE . IF , WHEN THE CIRCUIT, WHEN THE JUDGE RE FERS PARTIES TO MEDIATION , THEY, THEN , HAVE TO SE LECT A CIRCUIT MEDIATOR , I MEAN A SUPREME COURT -APPROVED MEDIATOR, IF IT IS COURT-REFERRED?

CORRECT .

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT IT IS THEIR CHOICE WHO THEY SELECT.

AS LO NG AS THEY ARE CERTIFIED.

SO IF IT IS A COMP LEX COMMERCIAL DISPUTE, IT IS CERTAINLY FOR THE PARTIES , AS FAR AS IF THEY WANT THIS MEDIATED, IF T HIS EVENING THE LEGAL ISSU ES ARE GOINGTO BE A KE Y THING , TO HAVE ATTORNEYS THAT ARE MEDIATORS . IN OTHER WORDS, I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION OF WHERE , BECAUSE I SEE DR . FIRESTONE WHO I K NOW MEDIATED A DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO JUDGES THAT, AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH , THAT ALTHOUGH OFTENTIMES WETHINK OF MEDIATION AS BEING A MINIARBITRATION, A S YOU RECOGNIZE OTHER SKILLS , BUT TO ALLEVIATE OTHER SKILLS - - OTHER CONCERNS, IS IT BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ENOUGH MEDIATORS OR BE CAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO BROA DEN THE TYPESOF INDIVIDU ALS THAT CAN B RING THEIR EXPERTISE TO BEAR ON THE RESOLVING OF DISPUTES?

IT HAS NOT HING DO WITH THE NUMBER O F MEDIATORS . DIVERSITY IN P R ACTICE AND BACKGROUND IS CERTAINLY ONE OF THE REASONS TO DO SO . WHO IS TO SAY THAT AN M.D . IN A MED MAL CASE WOULD NOT MAKE A GOOD MEDIATOR , PARTICULARLY WHER E THE PARTIES ARE REPRESENT PIED ATTORNEYS. A FAM ILIAR MEDIATION SINCE 1990 -- A FAMI LIAR MEDIATION S INCE 1 990 , THEY HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OF USINGATTORNEY OR NONATTORNEY MEDIATORS, IF THEY MEAD THE QUALIFICATIONS. COUNTY COURT, THEY CAN HAVE NONATTORNEY MEDIATORS. THAT JURISDICTION IS , OF COURSE , UP TO $15,000 .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WE WERE SORT OF THIN KING , I GUESS THE WA Y THE COURT IS LOOKINGAT THIS AND YOU CAN HEAR FROM THE QUESTIONS, NOTHING IS BROKEN ABOUT THE WAY CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATION IS GOING. IF ANYTHING, I THINK THERE IS SOME FE ELING THERE SHOULD BE MORE FREQUENT AND , A T THE BEGINNING RATHER THAN TOWARDS THE END , SO IF , AND THERE WASN'T , W E CERTAINLY , EVERY ATTORNEY IN THE WORLDTHAT WANT ED TO SEMIRETIRE , THINKS LET'S GO A HEAD AND IWILL BE A CIRCUIT MEDIATOR , AND JUDGES THINK THAT IS A G OOD THING TO DO , TOO , SO WHAT IS IT , IF IT IS NOTTHAT WE ARE , WE HAVE A LACK OF NEED , NOT THAT THE SYSTEM IS BROK EN, GIVE ME THE BEST EXAMPLE OF A PERSO N WHO NOW CANNOT MEDIATE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXCELLENT FOR DISPUTE IN CIRCUIT COURT , AND YOU ARE GOING WE ARE REALLY LOSING A WHOLE GROUP OF PE OPLE THAT, REA LLY , WOULD BE EXCELLENT TO HAVE IN THE SYSTEM, TO BETTER PROMOTE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION?

THREE PEOPLE ARE MENTIONED IN THE PETITION. ROBERT FI SHER AND WILLIAM E URI , NATIONALLY RENOWNED MEDIATORS , AUTHOR OF THE B OOK "GETTING TO YE S" WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO MEDIATE IN FLORIDA. FORMER PRES IDENT JIM CA RTER W OULD NOT BE ABLE TO HEAR CERT PETITION CASES.

CHIEF JUSTICE: IF HE WANTS TO COME TO FLORIDA , WE WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER --

THERE IS SOME LA UGHTER ON THAT, BUT WE ALLOW ATTORNEYSWHO ARE ATTORNEYS IN OTHER STATES BUT NOT MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA BAR. WHY WOULDN'T YOU ALLOW LIMITED APPEARANCE OR LIMITED MEDIATION FOR THOSE UNIQUE NEEDS ? IT SEEMS LIKE WHAT YOU ARE TRYING, WHAT THE ATTEMPTHERE IS TO GIVE THE CERTIFICATION OF THIS COURT TO BENEFIT MORE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE THE SERVICE, SO WHY NOT LI MITED APPEARANCE?

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS CAN MEDIATE FLORIDA , OUT-OF-STATE ATTORNEYS CAN MEDIATE FLORIDA CA SES. WHY , FOR EXAMPLE IN CIRCUITCIVIL, IS A FLORIDA BAR MEMBER FIVE YEARS WITH THE REQUISITE QUALIFICATIONS QUALIFIED AND SOMEBODY IN GEORGIA WHO DOES , QUOTE/UNQUOTE CIRCUIT CIVIL FOR 20 YEARS , NOT QUALIFIED? IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WHY IS A JUDGE FR OM ALASKA WHO IS JUST RE TIRED , HAVING SERVED FIVE YEARS ON THE BENCH , QU ALIFIED IN FLORIDA?

BUT AT LE AST THESE HAVE AS JUSTICE LE WIS SAID , A L EGAL BACK GROUND AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE BEING PRESENT ED FOR RESOLUTION BY THE COURT.

THE ISSUE OF THE COMMITTEE IS HOW DO WE MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST LE VEL OF MEDIATOR COMPETENCE , ANDTHE ISSUE HERE IS A FO CUS ON THE NECESSARY SKILLS TO BE A GOOD MEDIATOR . IN CIRCUIT CIV IL CASES , THEPARTIES ARE GENERALLY REPRESENTED BY A ATTORNEY. THE ATTORN EYS CAN DETERMINE AND AD VISE THEIR CLIENTS IF THEY FEEL AN ATTORNEY IS APPROPRIATE TO MEDIATE THEIR CASE THAT THEY HAVE AN ATTORNEY MEDIATOR . IF THE ATTORNEYS ADVISE THAT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE --

THE HORRIBLE THAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF ROOFING CASES BE FOR CED TO MEDIATION AND GO TO MEDIATION , AND THAT THERE ARE ALL S O RTS OF CONSTRUCTION SIT UATIONS WHICH ARE INSURANCE CL AIMS , AND THAT I A M JUST CONCERNEDABOUT THERE BEING SET UP AN INDUSTRY, THAT IS NON BAR REGULATED , THAT THE COURT IS GOING TO SA NCTION BEING , THEPARTIES HAVING T O GO AND USE ONE MEDIATOR . I UNDERSTAND THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE BY AGREEMENT, BUT YOU CANNOT MEDIATE A CLAIM WITH THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE MONEY , IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO AG REE TO WHO THEIR MEDIATOR AS SOON AS, SO YOU U SUALLY GIVE INTO THE INSURANCE COMPANY'S PERSON THAT THEY WANT TO MEDIATE , AND THAT TYPE OF SITUATIONCONCERNS ME , BECAUSE SO M UCH OF CIVIL LITIGATION AND CIVIL MEDIATION , I S INSURANCE-RELATED .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT IS THE A B A'S POSITION ON THIS?

THE --

I HAVE SEEN THAT SOMEPLACE .

I CAN GI VE YOU THAT EXACTPOSITION. THE ABA'S , LET ME GET TO IT . GIVE ME J UST A SECOND AND I WILL QUOTE THEM. ,,

CHIEF JUSTICE: WERE THEY IN FAVOR OF IT OR JUST GENERALLY. YOU DON'T NEED TO QUOTE IT.

THE ABA'S POSITION , THE ABA'S PETITION , THEIRSECTION ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION IS THAT ALL INDIVIDUALS WITH APPROPRIATE TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO SERVE AS MEDIATORS AND ARBITRATORS , REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE ATTORNEYS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: AND THAT HAS BEEN A POSITION FOR SOME TIME?

IT HAS. FLORIDA IS CONSIDERED TO BE A LEADER IN MEDIATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE PROCESS, BUT IT I S CURRENTLY BEHIND THE CU RVE AS IT RE LATES TO B ASING CERTIFICATION ON PAPER CREDENTIALS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: WHAT ABOUT JUSTICE WELLS 'S CONCERNTHOUGH? I AM IN A POSITION AS THECHIEF JUSTICE , I END UP GETTING THE LETTERS FROM SHARON PRESS , WHEN SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DE NIED MEDIATION STATUS, AND THE N I LO OK AT IT AND A FTER THE COMMIT TEE REVIEWS IT, BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS ISSUE ABOUT I F THERE IS DISCIPLINARY PRO BLEMS, I MEAN IF IT IS THE FLORIDA BAR, THOSE PEOPLE JUST GO OVER TO THE FLORIDA BAR , BUT DO WE REALLY HAVE THE CAPACITY THAT, IF THERE IS DISCIPLINARY PROBLEMS WITH NONLAWYER MEDIATORS , TO HANDLE THAT? I GUESS MAYBE IN THE OTHERAREA, SI NCE AS YOU SAY WE HAVE HAD FAMILY MEDIATION , YOU CAN TELL US WHAT THE , H OW THAT HAS WORKED.

WE DO. THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE DOES NOT SHOW ONE G R OUP , ATTORNEYS VERSUS NONATTORNEYS, ANYMORE FAVORABLE THAN THE OTHER. PARAGRAPH 9 OF THE PETITION SHOWS GRIEVANCE STATISTICS FOR FAMILY MEDIATORS . THE OVERALL GRI EVANCE STATISTICS HAVE BEEN 85 GRIEVANCES FILED WITH THE M QB SINCE 1992. 57 OF THE GRIE VANCES WERE F ILED AG AINST ATTORNEY MEDIATORS , 67 PERCENT. AS 52 INDIVIDUALS, SOME OF THEM HAD MULTIPLE GRIEVANCES . S ANCTIONS WERE IM POSED IN 1 9 CASES. 16 WERE ATTORNEY MEDIATORS .

HOW MANY OF THE MEDIATION S AND THE OVERALL POOL WERE DONE BY ATTORNEYS ? WE SAY 67 PERCENT WERE ATTORNEYS , BUT THAT DOESN'TTAKE INTO AC COUNT HOW MANY MEDIATION S PERFORMED IN FAMILY COURT WERE BY FAMILY ATTORNEY MEDIATORS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN ANSWER THAT. I DON'T HAVE THAT STATISTIC. THE OVERALL STATISTICS T AKE INTO ACCOUNT MO STLY FAMILY AND CIRCUIT CASES , SO MOS T OF THE CASES WERE FILED AGAINST ATTORNEY MEDIATORS .

WHAT CAN YOU DO IN THAT CONTEXT , OTHER THAN DECERTIFY THE PERSON AND , ALSO , IN THIS NEW PROP OSAL , YOU HAVE AN IND ICATION ABOUT DECERTIFYING FOR TWO YEARS , AND I AM WONDERING WHAT IS THE START AND END ING OF THAT , IF SOME ONE COMMITS A FELONY , IF YOU DECERT IFY AND THEY , FOR TWO YEARS, IS THAT AT THE END OF THEIR SENTENCE,AT THE END OF THEIR PROBATION OR COMM UNITY CONTROL OR WHAT?

DECERTIFICATION IS THE EXTREME.IT CAN GO ANYWHERE FROM A WRITTEN REPRIMAND , IF YOU WILL, TO IMPOSING MORE COMMUNITY SERVICE, TO REQUIRING THE OFFENDERS TO OBTAIN MORE EDUCATION , TO REQUIRING MENTORSHIP , TO SUSPENSION, T O DECERTIFICATION.

AND THE DECE RTIFICATION , THIS NEW R ULE THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING ABOUT FEL ON Y CONVICTIONS .

CORRECT.

HOW WOUL D THAT WORK IN PRACTICALITY?

NUMBER ONE , IF THERE IS A FELONY CON VICTION , IT WOULDGO TO THE COMPLAINT COMMITTEE.IF IT IS A FELONY , THE MEDIATOR WOULD BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THE COMPLAINTCOMMITTEE RE VIEWS THAT ISSUE . IT WOULD, THEN , GO THROUGH THE COMPLAINT COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE INVESTIGATIVE ARM OF THE DISCIPLINARY PRO CESS. IT WOULD EVENTUALLY GO TO A PANEL HEARING , AND THE PANEL WOULD DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE SA NCTIONS . ONCE THE PE NCIL DETERMINES THE APPROP RIATE SANCTIONS , IF IT IS APPEALED , IT WOULDCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, AND THAT IS AN OTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAVE.THAT IS MOVING THE REVIEW F ROM THE EN TIRE COURT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE , TO A VOID ANY JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES.

CAN YOU COMMENT WITH REFERENCE TO THE NONLAWYER MEDIATION PRES ENTLY BEING DONE IN COUNTY COURT AND OTHER AREAS THAT YOU HAVE TOUCHED ON , AND TELL US WHETHER OR NOT YOUR COMMITTEE IS AW ARE OF ANY SPIKES ON THE CURVE , SO TO SPEAK, THAT SHOW THAT THE NONLAWYER MEDIATORS AND SERVING SOMEHOW STAND OUT AS NOT DOING A S EFFECTIVE OF AJOB AS THE LA WYER MEDIATORS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

WE ARE AWARE OF NO MA JO R ISSUES. IT HAS BEEN OCCURRING IN FAMILY SINCE 19 90 , AND IT HAS WORKED BEAUTIFULLY, WITHOUT MAJOR ISSUES. IT I S WORK ING. THE PARTIES ARE ABLE TO CHOOSE THE MEDIATOR THAT THEY FEEL FIT THEIR CASE. PAR T OF IT IS PARTY CH OICE . GETTING BACK TO FLORIDA BEING BEHIND THE CURVE , THE GENERAL CONS ENSUS THAT ALL MEDIATORS DOING MEDIATION DON'T HAVE TO BE ATTORNEYS, BEGAN IN 19 88 WITH A SOCI ETY OF PROFESSIONALS IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION, SPIDER. THEY INDI CATED THAT THE POSSESSION OF PA EP CREDENTIALS , ACADEMIC DEGREES IN LICENSING , DOES NOT ACCURATELY PREDICT AN INDIVIDUAL'S AB ILITY TO BE A GOOD MEDIATOR .

HOW MANY STATES CURRENTLY USE NONL AWYER MEDIATORS?

THE U N ITED LA WYER CERTIFICATION STANDARDS, A STATE DI GEST FOR COURT MEDIATORS COMP ILED BY THE NORTHERN VIJ I KNOW YEAH MEDIATION -- VIRGINIA MEDIATION SERVICE IN 20 03 , COMPOSED OF 16 STATES INCLUDING THE DISTRICT O F COLUMBIA, 16 STATES HAD NO EDUCATIONAL OR EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS , ONLY MEDIATION TRAINING, TEN STATES REQUIRED MEDIATORS TO BE LEGALLY TRAINED. THAT IS WHERE FLORIDA CURRENTLY FALSE. ONE STATE ALLOWS ADVANCE DEG REE SUBTUGS FOR LEGAL TRAINING AND -- SUBSTITUTION FOR LEGAL TRA INING AND SIX HAVE THE SA ME AS FLORIDA REQUIREMENTS.

HOW MANY OF THAT LIST ARE MEETING THOSE? THE LIST IS THE MEANINGLESS, UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THE STATE .

AND ADD THE SUCCESS PERCENTAGE WEISS.

THOSE TWO QUESTIONS , I DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF ANSWERING.I DON'T KNOW.

YOU CAN'T RELATE IT TO HOW IT IS U S ED IN A STATE , WHETHER A COURT IS ORDERING IT. TO ME IT SEEMS TO BE NONSENSICAL NU MBERS. THEY SE EM TO BE DOING THIS AND THIS, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW FLORIDA OPERATES.

I CAN'T ANSWER THAT SIMPLY.

LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHERQUESTION. ASSUMING THAT WE AG REE WITH THE CONCEPT OF A NONLAWYER MEDIATOR, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS ONE THING TO SAYTHAT OTHER PEOPLE WITH POST GRADUATE DEGREES CAN BE JUST AS COMP ETENT IN MEDIATING AS LAWYERS , BUT IT IS QUITE ANOTHER TO ME, T O SAY EVEN IN COUNTY COURT , THAT ALL YOU NEED I S A HIGH S CHOOL DIPLOMA OR A GE D, IN ORDER TO CON DUCT MEDIATION , EVEN IN COUNTY COURT IT SEEMS TO ME, THERE ARE COMPLICATED CASES.THERE ARE PIP CASES, INSURANCE CASES , CONSTRUCTION CASES THAT END UP THERE AND REQU IRING ONLY A GED SEEMS TO ME , GO ING TO THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM.

THAT IS NOT THE TO TAL REQUIREMENT FOR COUNTY COURT MEDIATORS. COUNTY COURT MEDIATORS , ANDTHIS IS WHY THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WORK.

THAT MAY NOT BE THE TOTALREQUIREMENT BUT ISN'T THAT TOTAL FORMAL EDUCATION INDICATION REQUIREMENT?

THAT'S CORREC T.

THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

AND THAT IS A C H ANGE FROM CURRENT STANDARDS. CUR RENTLY YOU DO NOT NEED AHIGH SC HOOL DI PLOMA OR GEDTO DO.THAT THAT IS A CHANGE THAT IS NEW.

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU ARE SAYING THAT THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE .

THAT'S CORRECT.THAT'S CORRECT . IN AD DITION , AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS WORK. IT IS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS, NOT ONLY DOES THEREHAVE TO BE TRAI NING , EDUCATION ON COUNTY LE VEL , HIGH SCHOOL OR GED , BUT THERE HAS TO BE 60 HOURS OF MENTORSHIP. THE MENTORSHIP CAN BE GAINED IN A NUMBER OF WA YS , E ITHER OBSERVATION OR SUPERVISED COMEDIATION.YOU CAN GAIN FIVE POINTS FOR E ACH SE SSION OBSERVED , TEN POINTS FOR EACH MEDIATION , COMEDIATED OR SUPERVISED, AND THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL. IT IS A COMB INATION OF TRAINING, ED UCATION, EXPERIENCE AND MENTORSHIP ON THE FRONT END.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I AS SUME IF A MEDIATOR , A FTER THEY , I DON'T KNOW , COUNTY COURT -- GO AHEAD, JUSTICE QUINCE.I WAS JUST THIN KING HOW ATTHIS POINT , THE POINT IS GOING TO WOR K.

THE POINT IS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT, WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT IS THIS WH OL E POINT SYSTEM. YOU HAVE GO T THIS POINT SYSTEM. YOU GET SO MANY POINTS FOR EDUCATION , SO MANY FOR TRAINING AND SO MANY FOR MENTORING AND THAT. IS THERE, LIKE , A MINIMUM THRESHOLD IN ORDER TO BE , YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE 100POINTS, YOU HAVE TO GET 70 IN ORDER TO BE A CERTIFIED MEDIATOR, 60? WHA T? I AM NOT REAL SURE SURE ABOUT WHY WE WANT TO GO TO A POINT SYSTEM LIKE THAT .

YOU HAVE TO HAVE 100 POINTS, AND IF YOU LIKE , THE CHART IS IN THE MATERIALS. IT WAS IN THE B A CK OF THEPETITION. I WI LL GO THROUGH THAT FOR CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATORS. CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATORS REQUIRE TRAINING THAT IS 30 POINTS. EDUCATION AND TRAINI NG IS ABACHELOR'S DEGREE FOR EDUCATION.YOU NEED 5 POINTS FOR EXPERIENCE OF THE MEDIATION EXPERIENCE. IF YOU ARE A FLORIDA CERTIFIED MEDIATOR , YOU GETONE POINT FOR EVE RY YEAR IN WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL HAS MEDIATED 15 MEDIATIONS OF ANY TYPE OR FLORIDA CERTIFIED OR NONCERTIFIED , F IVE POINTS FOR 100 MEDIATIONS OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. THAT GETS YOU THE EXTRA FIVE POINTS, TO COME UP WITH THE EDUCATIONAL MEDIATION EXPERIENCE REQUIR EMENTS .

SO EACH PARTICULAR AREA , YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF POINTS.

CORRECT.

IN THAT AREA.

CORRECT. THEN IT GOES TO MENT ORSHIP , AND THE EXAMPLE I A M G IVING , YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AT L EAST FIVE OBSERVATIONS FOR ANOTHER 45 POINTS , OR TEN SUPERVISED COM EDIATIONS , WHERE IT IS TEN POINTS APIECE FOR 50 POINTS BEFORE YOU HIT THE 100, AND THEN YOU HAVE GOT THE MISCELLANEOUS POINT SE CTION WHERE YOU GET FIVE POINTS TOTAL. YOU CAN'T COMBINE FOR FIVE POINTS TOTAL IF YOU HAVE A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW , ACCOUNTING, S O CIAL WORK , MENTAL HEALTH , HEALTH CARE EDUCATION O R MEDIATION . IN ANY JURISDICTION. AND FIVE POINTS IF YOU ARE A CERTIFIED MEDIATOR .

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO POINT SYSTEM.

THAT'S CORRECT.

AND MEDIATORS ARE CERTIFIED BASED ON WHETHEROR NOT THEY ARE AN ATTORNEY AND MEET THE QUAL IFICATIONS OF HAVING FIVE YEARS?

CORRECT.

AND I ASS UME NO DISCIPLINE IN THEIR PA ST AND THOSE K INDS OF THINGS?

GOOD MORAL CHARACTER , TRAINING. THE CURRENT QUALIFICATIONS , AND THE MENTORSHIP .

CHIEF JUSTICE: YOU SAID THAT THE COUNTY COURT ACTUALLY WILL B E , YOU WILL HAVE INCREASED QUALIFICATIONS. WHAT ABOUT FOR DEPENDENCY AND FAMILY? WHAT IS THE CHANGE FOR TH OSE CATEGORIES? BECAUSE AL THOUGH WE HAVE BEEN FOCU SING A LOT ON CIRCUIT COURT, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THERE CAN'T B E ANYTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN HAVING EXCELLENT MEDIATORS AVAILABLE FOR DEPENDENCY AND FAMILY MATTERS . SO COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THE CHANGES FOR THOSE CATEGORIES.

CURRENTLY IN FAMILIAR YOU HAVE TO HAVE 40 HOURS OF TRAIN -- IN FAMILI AR YOU HAVE TO HAVE 40 -- IN FAMILY,YOU HAVE TO HAVE WHO HOURS OF TRAINING , BE A DO CTOR LICENSED IN MENTAL HEALTH OR PHYSICIAN LI CENSED TO PRACTICE AD ULT PSYCHIATRY OR CBA -- CPA LIC ENSED TO PRACTICE IN ANY FIELD OF JURISDICTION P LUS ALLOWED TO PRACTICE IN THOSE AREAS PLUS CONDUCT TWO SUPERVISED MEDIATIONS. THAT IS THE CURRENTSTANDARDS. FAM ILY , YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE 30 CERTIFIED FAMILY MEDIATION TRAINING, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE 25 POINTS FOR MEDIATION EX PERIENCE. BACHELOR'S DEGREE IS A MINIMUM.IF YOU LOOK AT THE CHART A S A MASTER'S DEGREE IT I S 2 5 POINTS, A DOCTOR AT WHICH INCLUDES A JD , MD , Ph.D. OR ED , IT IS 30 POINTS. P h.D., THE POINTS ARE THERE. YOU ADD THEM UP AND SEE WHAT YOU HAVE. IF YOU HAVE , IF YOU ARE DEFICIENT , FOR EXA MPLE ON EDUCATIONAL POINTS, THEN YOU MAKE UP THE POINTS WITH EXPERIENCE. THEN YOU GO TO THE MEDIATION , THE MENTOR SHIP SECTION. IN FAMILY , THERE IS 30 POINTS IN MENTORSHIP .

CHIEF JUSTICE: IS THAT , ARE WE GETTING , IS THAT AN INCREASE IN QUALIFICATIONS OR I S A DECREASE IN QUALIFICATIONS?

IT IS NOT A DECREASE IN QUALIFICATIONS. I T IS A REVISION TO REFLECT THE NECESSARY MEDIATION SKILLS IN EACH AREA. IT IS A DIFFERENT SET UP TO DO A NUMBER OF THINGS, ENSURE MEDIATOR CONFIDENCE TO EXPAND DIVERSITY , ETHNIC R ACIAL BACKGROUND , PRACTICE. IT IS IN TENDED TO DO ALL OF THOSE THINGS. IT IS NOT DECR EASING THE STANDARDS BY ANY MEANS.

WELL , IT IS , I A GREE THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A C ERTAIN SKILL SET AND JUST SI MPLY BEING A LAWYER DOES NOT MAKE ONE A QUALIFIED MEDIATOR , B UT ON THE OTHER HAND , I STILL HAVE THE TROUBLE THAT JUSTICE LE WIS REFERRED TO , IN A CIRC UIT CASE WHERE PART OF THE SKILL SET, I THINK , YOU WOULD AD MIT REQUIRES SOME UNDERSTANDING OF LE GAL PRINCIPLE S , U N LESS YOU ACCEPT THE PROPOSITION THEY HAVE TO HAVE ATTORNEYS ANDWE WILL LE AVE IT UP TO THEIRATTORNEYS TO UNDERSTAND THELAW , BUT THAT IS BAS ICALLY WHAT I AM HEARING FROM YOUR COMMENT, THAT IF , AS LONG ASTHEY HAVE ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS TRBS DOES N'T MATTER WHETHER THEY UNDERSTAND LEGAL -- THINGS, IT DOESN'T M ATTER WHETHER THEY U NDERSTAND LEGAL PRINCIPLES OR NOT.

THE ISSUE HERE IS WHAT IS THE SKILL SET AND WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE MEDIATOR . THIS COURT HAS IND ICATED THEROLE OF THE MEDIATOR IS INDICATED IN TWO STATUTES,BUT ALSO THE R ULES 10.20 RULE 4 SAYS ASS IST IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES AND EXPLAIN ALTERNATIVES AND OTHERWISE FACILITATE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS RESOLVING THE DISPUTE. FROM A THEORETICAL STANDPOINT , THE MEDIATOR IS NOT THERE TO ASSESS THECASE. THAT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF THE MEDIATOR. THE MEDIATOR IS THERE TO ATTEMPT TO BRIN G THE PARTIES TOGETHER AT A MUTUALLY -AGREED POINT , HOPEFULLY CALLED AN A GREEMENT. AND DO SOME CIRCUIT MEDIATORS NEED LEGAL SKIS? YOU BET YOU . -- LEGAL SKIL LS? YOU BET YOU. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT. BUT ALL CIRCUIT MEDIATORS DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THAT. FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU HAVE AMED MAL CASE , WHY IS N'T AN M .D. COMPETENT TO BE A ME AD Y IT OR , IF HE OR -- A MEDIATOR, IF H E OR SHE ME ETS QUALIFICATIONS? THEY WOULD HAVE MORE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE MEDICAL ISSUES IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE THA N AN ATTORNEY WOULD, OR WHY FOR EXAMPLE , A CERT IFIED FINANCIAL PLANNE R, CPA THAT MEETS QUALIFICATIONS, DEALING WITH A COMPLICATED FINANCIAL ISSUE IN A CIRCUITCIVIL CASE, THEY DO SO NOW , C PA'S CAN MEDIATE FAMILY CASES RIGHT NOW IF THEY MEET THE QUALIFIC ATIONS. WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE SH IFT IS TO NONATTORNEYS. WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT A SHIFT BE TO GIVE THE PART IES THE CHOICE. GIVE THE ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE PARTIES THE C HOICE OF THE MEDIATOR THEY THINK FITS THEIR CASE.

AND THEY HAVE THE CH OICE NOW, EX CEPT IF IT IS COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION IS WHERE YOUR CONCERN IS.

THEY HAVE THE CHOICE NOW. IF IT I S NOT COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION, THEY CAN CHOOSE ANYONE INCLUDING A NONATTORNEY , BUT THEY HAVEGOT NO PROTECTIONS. THEY HAVE N O CERTIFICATIONS. THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESTANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT. THEY ARE NOT SUBJ ECT TO THE DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM. WHY NOT GIVE THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA A CERTIFIED MEDIATOR WHO IS COMPETENT BASED UPON THE POINT SYST EM, WHO IS SUBJECTTO THE STAN DARDS , SUBJECT TO THE DISCIPLI NARY RU LES.

LET ME ASK YOU THE OTHER WAY. YOU ARE SAYING WHY NOT GIVE THEM MORE CHOICES. WHERE IS THE SHOWING THAT THERE IS A DEFICIENCY IN CURRENT CHOICES?

-- CHOICES? IN OTHER WORDS I SEE 80 , 70-SOME PERCENT BEING SETTLED O UT. JURY TRIALS IS PRECIPITOUSLY DECLINING. I DON'T SEE WHERE THE PROBLEM S.

THE ISSUE GETS BACK TO WHAT IS THE, WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT A SKILLED MEDIATOR NEEDS ALMOST IN ANY CAS E, TO MEDIATE A CASE. THE ABIL ITY TO G ATHER INFORMATION , THE ABI LITY T O COMMUNICATES IN FORMATION TO OTHERS , ANALYZE INFORMATION , FACILITATE AN AGRE EMENT AND CODIFY THE AGREEMENT FOR THE PARTIES. THAT IS THE SKILL SET THAT A MEDIATOR NEEDS. WE ARE NOT TR YING TO HAVE S UBJECT MATTER EXPECTS PERTS -- EXPE RTS .

CHIEF JUSTICE: LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED RULE FOR EXAMPLE FOR CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATORS , I S THE POINT S YSTEM GO ING TO BE CODIFIED IN THE RULE OR IS THAT BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER? ANOTHER COMMIT TEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE QUALIFICATIONS BE MOVED FROM 10.100 TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER, AND THAT FOR TWO PURPOSES. N UMBER ONE , DETAILED PROCEDURES HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN CODIFIED, IF YOU WILL, BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. NUMBER TW O, IF THERE IS A NEED IN THE FUTURE FORAMENDMENTS, IT IS M UCH EASIER TO M O DIFY AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER THAN TO INVOKE THE COURT'S RULE-MAKING PROCESS.

CHIEF JUSTICE: SO IF THE COURT IS CONC ERNED A T THE CIRCUIT COURT LE VEL THAT THERE NEEDS TO AT LE AST BE MAYBE AN ADVA NCED DEGREE , JUST THAT , THIS RULE ONLY SAYS IT IS THE REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.

CORRECT.

CHIEF JUSTICE: BUT RE ALLY THE ADMINIST RATIVE ORDER IS THEN SOMETHING FOR CHIEF JUSTICE , OBVIOUSLY ON THE CONSULTATION, IT TO DO, SO IT IS EIT HER A QUESTION OF WHETHER TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHO IT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE A P PLY ING UNDER , T O BE A CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATOR , REALLY UNDER STAND. I GU ESS WE STILL DON'T HAVE EXAMPLES. YOU MENT IONED DOCTORS. I D I DN'T REALLY HEAR THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF DOCT ORS THAT ARE SCRAMBLING TO W A NTTO BE CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATORS.I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUTTHE DEPENDENCY AREA , WHERE THEY, THERE IS A DE RTH OF PEOPLE THAT ARE WILLING TO DO THIS MEDIATIO N, BECAUSEIT IS NOT HIGH , YOU ARE NOT G ETTING MUCH M ONEY FROM IT. THERE YOU HAVE SOMETHINGLIKE RETI RED TE ACHERS THAT MAY END U P BEING VERY GO OD MEDIATORS IN THE DEPENDENCY A REA BUT THEY ARE NOTTRAINED , AND I GUESS WE STILL GO BACK TO THE CIRCUITCOURT ISSUE, WHETHER THAT ISSOMETHING THAT THE COURT CAN TAKE FURTHER INTO CONSIDERATION AND DECIDE THAT MAYB E FOR THE T IME BEING , WE SHOUL D KEEP THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE AN ADVANCED AGREE TO BE A CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATOR.

THE COMMITTEE FEELS THAT THE MINI MUM SHOULD BE ABACHELOR'S DEGREE MINIMUM. CERTAINLY CAN HAVE HIGHER DEGREES, BUT IF IT IS ABACHELOR'S DEGREE , THEN THEYHAVE GOT TO HAVE MEDIATION EXPERIENCE TO GO WITH IT. IT HAS GO T TO B E A COMBINATION HERE. WHAT , INITIALLY I WILL TELL YOU , INI TIALLY I WAS SKEPTICAL ABOUT THIS E ARLY ON, BUT WHEN YOU SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT IT AND AP PLY IT AND THINK ABOUT IT , IT WORKS AND IT WORKS WE LL. I WAS INIT IALLY SKEPTICAL AS SOME OF YOU MAY BE. BUT IT WORKS AND WORKS WELL . TWO EXAMPLES GIVEN IN THE PETITION IS A COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATOR WITH 30 Y EARS OF EXPERIENCE WAS DE NIED CIRCUIT MEDIATOR CERTIFICATION BECA USE THE INDIVIDUAL WASN'T ANATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN FLORID A. THE SECOND EXAMPLE A CERTIFIED COUN TY MEDIATOR , CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER ENROLLED AGENT BEFORE THE I.R.S. WAS DENIED FAMILY MEDIATION CERTIFICATIONBECAUSE HE WAS NOT A C PA AND DOES NOT HAVE A MA STERS OR DOCTORS DEGREE IN A SPECIFIED FIEL D.

AS FAR AS THIS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER IS CONCERNED , I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ANTICIPATE IT BEING DISSEMINATED ON THE INTERNET , BECAUSE WHO ARE THEY NORMALLY DISSEMINATED TO IN HARD COPY FORM? JUST THEY ARE NOT? JUST ON THE INTERNET?

THE , I WOULD ASSUME THAT, IF THIS IS ADOPTED BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER , THATIT WILL BE ON THE COURT'S WEB SITE AND CERT AINLY ON DRC'S WEB SI TE. THE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER I W OULD ASSUME , WOULD B E DISSEMINATED A S FAR AND WIDE AS THIS PETI TION HAS BE EN.

HOW COM E WE HAVE A COURT O RDER WHEN I T IS S PECIFIED THAT I T B E CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROC EDURE ADOPTED BY THE SUPREMECOURT?

ALL I CAN TELL YOU I S HISTORICALLY , DET AILED PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN DONE B Y ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.

IT WAS PRESTATUTE THAT THAT STARTED , RIGHT?

I WOULD BE HARD PRE SSED , AND I THIN K THE COMMITTEEWOULD BE HARD PRES SED, TO SIT DOWN AND T R Y TO W RITE THIS CONFIGURATION IN ARULE. IT IS MUCH BE TTER DONE BY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER .

CHIEF JUSTICE: I THINKTHAT, ALTHOUGH I ASSUMED THAT YOU WOULD BE NOT U SINGMOST OF YOUR TIME , WITH OUR HELP YOU HAVE USED UP THE 40 MINUTES , AND 4100 0.

THE -- AND 41 000.

THE OTHER -- AND 41 , NOW.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY VERY BRIEFLY BEFORE I SIT DOWN IS THERE WERE EIGHT THINGS FILED WITH THE CO URT. FIVE OF THE E IGHT WERE POSITIVE. FOUR OF THE EIGHT RECOMMENDS THIS COURT TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SUBMITTED.NO ONE HAS APP EARED IN ORAL ARGUMENT TODAY IN OPPOSITION OF THIS. THE COMMITTEE STRONGLY AND RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THIS COU RT TO AC CEPT THE RECOMMENDATION INS THIS PETITION IN TOTO . OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES , AMERICAN MAN OF LETTERS AND FATHER OF THE JURORS , S AID IT IS THE PROVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE TO SP EAK AND THE PRIVILEGE OF WISDOM TO LISTEN. THE ADR COMMITTEE HAS GIVEN YOU ITS COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGEIN THE PETITION AND WE EAGERLY A WAIT YOUR WEISS DECISION. THA NK YOU

CHIEF JUSTICE: THANK YOU AND JUDGE BRIESE , THANK YOUAGAIN FOR THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE EXPE NDED AS CHAIR OF THIS COMMITTEE. I KNOW THIS IS AT LE AST THETHIRD TIME YOU HAVE BEEN BEFORE US , BEEN BATTERED BY US WITH QUESTIONS , AND YOUR SERVICE AND DEDI CATION IS JUST VE RY , VERY MUCH APPRECIATED BY THE COURT , AND WE, AL SO , ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXCELLENT ASS ISTANCE OF SHARON PRESS AND DR . FIRESTONE, WHO ARE LEADERSNOT ON LY IN THIS STATE BUT IN THE COUNTRY IN THE AREA OF ALTERNATIVE DIS PUTE RESOLUTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. I AM UP HERE BECA USE OF A WONDERFUL COMMITTEE AND THEIR WORK, AND , ALSO AS I HAVE SA ID TO THIS COURT , M ANY TIMES BEFORE , WE HAVE THE BEST STA FF IN THE