“Dilip in cooperation with Alexia Georgakopoulos, Ph.D….written for the ICRC Blog”
What does the Amended Florida Rule for Certified and Court Appointed Mediators Mean to Mediators?
As, mediators, we must recognize and adhere to the essential requirement of mediation as the need of the parties to trust the mediator based on his/her honesty and trustworthiness. Therefore, mediators would agree that that marketing of mediation services must be based on honest and accurate representation of qualifications of mediators and the services offered. This amendment, by establishing the judicially required standards for marketing of mediation services in the State of Florida, has put forth requirements that would enable mediators to market their services in a manner that is conducive to the development of trust of the parties in a mediator that is based on honest and accurate representation of their qualifications and service. The requirements established under this amendment may serve as principles for mediators under other jurisdictions. It would be beneficial for all mediators to review and if necessary revise their marketing practice and information for complying with prohibitory judicial requirements of the following of three main topics of the amendment that are applicable to their practice: 1) representation and marketing of prior adjudicatory experience, 2) marketing based on certifications , and 3) marketing based on claims and promises of achieving specific outcomes or that diminish the important aspects of mediation in terms of party’s right to self-determination, the mediator’s impartiality or the dignity of the mediation process or the judicial system.
What is Scope of the Amended Florida Rule for Certified and Court Appointed Mediators?
Based on the proposed amendments submitted by the Florida ADR Rules and Policy Committee[1], on April 1, 2010, the Court amended Florida Rule for Certified and Court Appointed Mediators 10.610. By amending the Rule 10.610 from “Advertising to Marketing Practices” the Court expanded the rule’s judicial requirements for advertising and marketing of mediation practices as highlighted below:
- False or Misleading Marketing Practices. Prohibits marketing based on false or misleading information and requires an accurate and honest marketing of a mediator’s qualifications, services or the mediation process.
- Supreme Court Certification. Any marketing indicating that a mediator is “Florida Supreme Court certified” must include at least one area in which the mediator is certified.
- Other Certifications. Any Marketing information referring to a mediator being certified must be founded in the mediator’s successful completion of the established process for certifying mediators involving actual instruction. The mediator must also identify the area or field of certification as well as the entity issuing the certification.
- Prior Adjudicative Experience. Any marketing information that either states or implies that prior adjudicative experience in a capacity such as a judge, magistrate, or administrative hearing officer, makes the mediator better or more qualified is considered misleading marketing.
- Prohibited Claims or Promises. Prohibits mediators from making claims of achieving specific outcomes or promises that imply favoritism for the purpose of obtaining business.
- Additional Prohibited Marketing Practices. Prohibits mediators from engaging in marketing practice that diminishes the importance of a party’s right to self-determination or the impartiality of the mediator, or that demeans the dignity of the mediation process or the judicial system.
The Court’s commentary, while considering an accurate representation of the mediator’s judicial experience to be appropriate, states that when engaging in mediation, a former adjudicative officer should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance private interest in a manner inconsistent with this rule and prohibits the word “judge” with or without modifiers to the mediator’s name or depiction of a mediator in judicial robes.
[1] Established in 2003, the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) provides the Supreme Court (Court) with recommendations relating to all legislation, policies and practices related to standards and requirements for the model of ADR and mediation practices.
