DMINISTRATIVE DMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 11.106- 1/2023* IN RE: ALTERNATE ASSIGNMENTS:- 1/2023* IN RE: ALTERNATE ASSIGNMENTS
Please click here to view AO.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 11.101-1/2023* IN RE: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES
Please click here to view.
DEADLINE EXTENDED: 2023 JUDICIAL NOMINATING COMMISSION NOMINATIONS TO BE MADE
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 11.101-12/2022* IN RE: ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGES
Please click here to view the AO.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 11.104-12/2022* IN RE: SENIORITY LISTING OF JUDGES
Please click here to view the AO.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 11.106- 12/2022* IN RE: ALTERNATE ASSIGNMENTS
Please click here to view the AO.
Harnessing Settlement Momentum for a Successful Mediation
Published: January 2023
Written by: Alfred A. LaSorte, Jr.
Harnessing Settlement Momentum for a Successful Mediation
Have you experienced a mediation which starts out like this – negative body language from all parties during the initial joint conference, and your clients privately expressing negative thoughts about the other side – about how greedy, untrustworthy, or sneaky they (and their counsel) are? Then, after a few hours with little substantive progress, it seems like settlement has no chance.
Not an uncommon scenario. Yet, many mediations that start this way still end up settling. An interesting thing happens 3/4 of the way through. Momentum shifts in both rooms from active resistance to active cooperation. And after some more hard work on all sides, the case eventually settles.
An unpromising beginning morphs into a successful settlement. How, and why, does this happen? Several factors can contribute to this momentum shift:
- Time in the room. Mediation is foreign processes to most. Parties can be nervous coming in, not knowing what to expect, and mistakenly thinking it’s smart to act tough. Spending time with their counsel in a conference room (or a Zoom virtual breakout room) can settle clients down and they start to loosen up.
- The mediator as the voice of reason. Lawyers who like their cases, and their clients, can end up “preaching to the choir” about the strength of cases, causing unrealistic optimism, in turn limiting the clients’ willingness to compromise. An effective mediator can often defuse this through some frank discussions with the parties, with them gradually realizing there are two sides to the story and their cases aren’t slam dunks. This often takes multiple discussions throughout the day before it sinks in.
- Seeing movement from the opposing party. Nobody wants to bid against themselves. And posturing and tough talk in initial sessions serve only to widen the gap between the two sides. Minimal moves are usually met with equally minimal responsive moves, resulting in frustration on both sides. But when one side eventually sees real movement from the other, it can loosen them up, helping move them from “we’ll see them in court” to “let’s see how favorable a number we can get them to.”
- Humanizing the opposition. We often assume the worst motives in others, and the best in ourselves. In mediation, this can mean seeing the opposition as evil, or greedy, or _________ (fill in any unflattering adjective). Parties don’t see or hear what goes on in the other side’s room, or how their opponents act. But the mediator does. General reports from the mediator that the other side truly is making an effort can eventually help turn the tide.
How can you increase the chance of seeing this momentum shift at your next mediation?
1) Start with realistic demands. My biggest mediation pet peeve is plaintiffs whose opening demands are higher than their “best day in court” number. (I hate when I hear “But we need to start with a cushion so we’ve got some room to move!”) The near-universal response to such a demand is a minimal defense counter. After a couple of hours, even with “reductions,” the plaintiff is still near their actual “best day in court” number and the defense feels like it’s being played. The mediation goes south from there.
My strongest advice to both sides is this – start with a compromise number. Tell the other side it’s a compromise, and that you expect compromise from them as well. You will save hours of wasted time and will send the “I’m reasonable” message the other side needs to hear in order to get reasonable themselves.
2) Hang in there. Often it takes a while for the “spirit of compromise” to reveal itself. Rather than encouraging your client to leave at the first hint the other side is being unreasonable, suggest they stick around, for at least another couple of rounds. Mediation is not a one-hour process. Give it time to work.
3) Let the mediator help. It can be hard for lawyers to defend the opposing parties’ motivations. Clients want you to agree that the other side is just plain bad. Use the mediator to defuse animosity and distrust. When he or she does so, stay out of their way. It’s frustrating as a mediator when a lawyer fights too hard and fires up their client, increasing the gulf between the two sides. The mediator is there to facilitate settlement. Let them help you get there!
4) Once you sense the momentum is shifting, go with it. Talk to your client. Encourage them to go that extra step toward settlement. (Your counterpart in the other room is likely doing the same with his or her client at this point.)
And help them understand the true risks and costs of going forward with a trial – crucial info while weighing the relative benefits of a settlement proposal. Whether to settle is of course the client’s call, not yours. But make sure they have the tools necessary to make an informed decision.
You can help make this momentum shift happen for your client. Some cases do just need to be tried, and some mediations must fail. But in the mediation room, when you sense momentum starting to build toward settlement, lean in and make it happen!
For additional ADR tips and resources, go to https://www.palmbeachbar.org/alternative-dispute-resolution-committee/
After a long career at Shutts & Bowen LLP as a commercial litigator specializing in real estate and general business cases, Mr. LaSorte now acts exclusively as mediator and expert witness through his own firm, Alfred A. LaSorte, Jr., P.A. d/b/a LaSorte Mediation. (www.LaSorteMediation.com). Mr. LaSorte can be reached at (561) 286-7994 and [email protected].
The Business Case for Diversity – What Does the Evidence Show?
Published: January 2023
Written by: Bryan Anderson
Does diversity benefit law offices in quantifiable ways? Law offices — including private firms, corporate, government and not-for-profit law offices — are service businesses. More profitability is better for firm owners. Better results serve clients and the firms. Firms want to meet clients’ preferences to win business. What evidence is there whether law firm diversity supports these interests?
Diverse law firms make higher profits
Statistical analysis of law firm data shows that more diverse firms earn more money.
Dr. Evan Parker specializes in statistical analyses for the legal market. His work has been cited in the American Lawyer, the ABA Journal and the Canadian Lawyer. In a 2018 study controlling for a variety of factors, Dr. Parker concluded with a high degree of statistical confidence that diverse law firms make higher profits. Missing in Action: Data-Driven Approaches to Improve Diversity, Evan Parker (2018).
Dr. Parker’s analysis shows that having diverse legal teams was a significant characteristic factor for law firm profitability, ranked after law firm prestige, attorney leverage, geographic concentration and whether a firm performs hedge fund/private equity work. Having diverse legal teams ranked ahead of practice area concentration, or having corporate, energy and environment, or merger and acquisition practices.
Dr. Parker concluded that partners take home significantly more money at American Lawyer 200 firms with high diversity. The median diversity “dividend” reflected in the difference between firms’ partner distributions showed that the gap between low and high diversity firms approaches $180,000 per year per partner.
Diversity improves litigation settlement and trial results
Statistical analysis of real-world data shows that diverse female-male civil trial teams are more successful than male-male civil trial teams. Lack of diversity was associated with lower likelihood of success and worse trial outcomes.
Attorney, professor and researcher Randall Kiser of the consulting firm DecisionSet conducted a study of 40-plus years of data comparing final settlement offers versus trial verdict and damage awards in both New York and California. Professor Kiser assessed whether trial team gender composition could predict win rates, decision error rates, and settlement positions.
Professor Kiser’s approach to assessing trial team successes and errors focuses on demands, offers and awards in cases that did not settle. Cases that do not settle and are tried resulting in an award have three possible outcomes in his method of assessing results:
- Plaintiff error. The award is lower than the defendant’s offer.
- Defendant error. The award is higher than the plaintiff’s demand.
- No error. The award is somewhere between the final offer and the final demand.
Professor Kiser’s statistical analysis showed that female-male defense trial teams won 7% more of their cases than all-male teams, had error rates that were 9% lower, and underpriced their settlement offers far less frequently, amounting to an average savings of $2.6 million in defendant liability. His analysis showed similar benefits of mixed female-male trial teams for plaintiffs.
Professor Bill Henderson at Indiana University Maurer School of Law commented on Professor Kiser’s findings as showing that “[s]tated another away, lack of diversity is really expensive.”
Client demands for diversity
Diversity is a competitive advantage over other firms in obtaining significant business clients and matters.
Many companies set diversity requirements for outside counsel. For example, Facebook’s legal department requires that women and ethnic minorities account for at least 33% of outside counsel. During 2021 the Coca-Cola Company increased its target for minority and women-owned law firm legal spending from 1% to 10% of its outside counsel spending.
Beginning in 2019 more than 200 company chief legal officers signed on to an open letter prioritizing spending on firms with strong diversity and inclusion programs, partnering with law firms to promote diverse talent at every stage of the pipeline, and hiring women and minority-owned firms.
Conclusion
Data shows that more diverse firms are more profitable and that diverse teams get better results. More diverse firms have a competitive advantage in obtaining work from clients who value and increasingly demand diverse teams.
Diversity in law offices is also considered desirable for qualitative reasons. These include accessing a wider and deeper attorney talent pool, growing a larger network of firm connections useful to clients and for firm business development, language capabilities, and the firm and its attorneys being more relatable to more diverse clients.
Perhaps these qualitative factors help account for the financial benefits of diversity discussed in this article. Research would be useful in assessing the quantitative dollars and cents effects of these benefits.
The bottom line is that law offices seeking improved financial performance and results should foster diversity in their offices because doing so is a good business decision as well as the right thing to do.
Bryan Anderson is a volunteer hearing officer for the School District of Palm Beach County and assists the Legal Aid Society on fair housing civil rights matters.
Diversity Includes Disabilities
Published: December 2022
Written by: Nalani Gordon
Conversations surrounding diversity and inclusion have become trending topics in recent years. Race, gender, and sexual orientation are usually at the forefront of these conversations. However, physical and mental disabilities are not generally included in the diversity conversation. The reality is that, at every level, the legal profession has significant work to do as it relates to creating an inclusive environment for people with different abilities.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 61 million adults in the United States live with a disability. This means that 26% of the population, or 1 in 4 adults, has a disability. Despite such high numbers, the National Association for Law Placement’s 2021 Report on Diversity in U.S. Law Firms indicates that only 1.22% of the lawyers surveyed self-identified as having a disability. The Report notes the scarce numbers of attorneys reporting disabilities but offers no theory or possible explanation for the statistic. One might wonder whether the Report’s numbers are a result of the fact that lawyers are uncomfortable with disclosing their disability or are living with an undiagnosed disability. The more pressing question is: What can we do to eliminate the barriers and social stigmatization for individuals with disabilities who want to practice law?
At the law firm level, employers can intentionally promote programs that benefit attorneys with disabilities which will also, in many instances, benefit all attorneys by creating a more accessible work environment. The American Bar Association (ABA) has implemented a pledge which calls on legal employers to affirm their commitment to diversity, specifically including people with disabilities. The ABA’s guidance offers practical steps that employers can take to foster a welcoming environment, such as starting an affinity group, conducting disability awareness and bias elimination training, and offering scholarships and fellowships for law students with disabilities. By taking practical steps toward embracing individuals with disabilities, legal employers can make a tangible impact on workplaces by bringing disability inclusion to the forefront of their diversity efforts.
Recently, the Florida Bar’s Legal Fuel Podcast featured neurodiversity expert, Haley Moss for a conversation on “Understanding Neurodiversity in the Practice of Law.” Haley (who happens to be one of my favorite law school classmates) is recognized as Florida’s first openly autistic attorney. She offered profound insight regarding neurodiversity and disability inclusion in the legal profession. One of the most insightful tidbits from Haley’s interview is Haley’s comments regarding the idea that we generally think about disabilities from the perspective of offering accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. But legal employers can do more to support diverse attorneys. Most importantly, law firm and law department leaders can work to create a culture of acceptance and openness so that people with disabilities can feel comfortable with sharing their unique contributions and disclosing their individual needs.
As a profession, the legal community is making positive strides toward inclusion. In September 2020, the Florida Supreme Court amended the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar to remove the rule that treated members of the Bar who had a history of “drug, alcohol, or psychological issues” as conditionally admitted members of the Florida Bar. The rule now broadly allows the Bar to admit members under consent agreements without any reference to psychological issues. However, this rule change is recent. The vast majority of attorneys currently admitted to the Florida Bar were admitted at a time when disclosing a mental or psychological disability could have negatively impacted their admission to the Bar. As Haley Moss notes in her interview, legal professionals, including members of the judiciary, would benefit from additional education regarding working with diverse clients, witnesses, and co-workers.
At the individual level, each of us can educate ourselves on disabilities and biases. We can also do our best to listen and treat all of our colleagues with dignity and respect. Haley’s interview is an excellent resource on the appropriate language and approach for conversations with colleagues who have disabilities (Hint: listen without judgment and ask how you can support the individual). Our clients and businesses benefit from working with attorneys with disabilities because each person brings a talent and perspective that advances our clients’ interests and our profession as a whole. Inclusion for all attorneys, including attorneys who have disabilities, is the key to ensuring that the Bar is reflective of the communities that we serve.
Nalani Gordon is an associate at Gunster. Her main areas of practice are employment law, Title IX, and business litigation.
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 6.106-12/22* IN RE: ESTABLISHMENT OF MAIN COURTHOUSE PROBATE/GUARDIANSHIP DIVISIONS “IC” AND “ID” AND ASSOCIATING DOMESTIC RELATIONS DIVISIONS
Administrative Order 6.106 (as amended) is obsolete due to the entry of Administrative Order No. 6.101 (as amended).
NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Administrative Order 6.106 (as amended) is vacated and set aside.
DONE and SIGNED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 12th day of December 2022.
________________________
Glenn D. Kelley, Chief Judge
* Supersedes Administrative Order 6.106- 10/17