The Supreme Court Committee on Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules and Policy requests your input on a proposed revision to rule 10.610, Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators.  Please review the proposal and respond to the survey questions via the attached link by September 1, 2007.  Thank you in advance for your input.


Rule 10.610. Advertising Marketing Practices DRAFT FOR COMMENT – April 12, 2007

(a) False or Misleading Marketing Practices. A mediator shall not engage in any marketing practices, including advertising, which contains false or misleading information. A mediator shall ensure that any advertisements of marketing of the mediator’s qualifications, services to be rendered, or the mediation process are is accurate and honest.

(b) Supreme Court Certification. Any marketing practice in which a mediator indicates that such mediator is “ Florida Supreme Court certified” is misleading unless it also identifies at least one area in which the mediator is certified.

(c) Other Certifications. Marketing publications that generally refer to a mediator being “certified” are misleading unless the advertising mediator has successfully completed an established program for qualifying mediators that involves actual instruction rather than the mere payment of a fee. Use of the term “certified” in advertising is also misleading unless the mediator identifies the entity issuing the referenced certification and the area or field of certification earned, if applicable.

(d) Prior Adjudicative Experience. Any marketing practice is misleading if the mediator states or implies that prior adjudicative experience, including, but not limited to, service as a judge, magistrate, or administrative hearing officer, makes one a better mediator.

(e) Prohibited Claims or Promises. A mediator shall not make claims of achieving specific outcomes or promises implying favoritism for the purpose of obtaining business.

(f) Additional Prohibited Marketing Practices. A mediator shall not engage in any 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.

Committee Notes

200X Revision.
The roles of a mediator and an adjudicator are fundamentally distinct. The integrity of the judicial system may be impugned when the prestige of the judicial office is used for commercial purposes. When engaging in any mediation marketing practice, a former adjudicative officer should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance private interests in a manner inconsistent with this rule. For example, the Committee believes that the depiction of a mediator in judicial robes would be inappropriate. However, an accurate representation that the mediator has 25 years of judicial experience would not be inappropriate. This rule is not intended to prohibit appropriate reference to prior adjudicative service by use of such terms as “circuit judge retired,” “former judge of compensation claims,” and “former general magistrate.”

Survey