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: Alternative Dispute Resolution & Mediators
SC05-998
HEAR YE HEAR YE, SUPREME
COURT OF FLORIDA, IS NOW IN
SESSION.
ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE BEFORE THIS
COURT, DRAW NOW AND GIVE
ATTENTION, YOU SHALL BE HEARD,
GOD SAVE THE UNITED STATES, THE
GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE
HONORABLE SUPREME COURT.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> GOOD MORNING.
>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,,
SUPREME COURT, PLEASE BE
SEATED.
>> GOOD MORNING, FRIENDS AND
WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME
COURT.
AND THE ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR
FOR MONDAY, MAY 7th.
THE FIRST MATTER ON THE
CALENDAR THIS MORNING IS THE
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
RULES, JUDGE, READY TO PROCEED.
>> I'M JUDGE SEAN BRIESE, THE
CHAIR THE ADR RULES AND POLICY
COMMITTEE AND GREG FIRESTONE,
IS NEXT TO MOW ME, AND BEHIND
US, CIRCUIT JUDGE TOM BATEMEN
FROM THE LOCAL CIRCUIT.
I AM HERE AT THE SECOND ORAL
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF YOUR
COMMITTEE, TO AGAIN URGE THE
COURT IN THE STRONGEST TERMS
POSSIBLE TO ELIMINATE THE
CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT A
CERTIFIED CIRCUIT COURT
MEDIATOR BE A MEMBER OF THE
FLORIDA BAR, WITH AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS OF FLORIDA PRACTICE, OR A
RETIRED JUDGE FROM ANY U.S.
JURISDICTION WITH AT LEAST FIVE
YEARS OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE,
IMMEDIATELY PRE-EIDING --
PRECEDING THE APPLICATION,
DOING AWAY WITH ALL BAR
REQUIREMENTS, MEMBERSHIP IN
FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED POINT
SYSTEM FOR CIRCUIT COURT
MEDIATOR QUALIFICATIONS.
--
>> YOU YOUR PETITION SAID WE
WERE IN THE MINORITY OF STATES
THAT REQUIRED BAR MEMBERSHIP.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> CAN YOU BREAK THAT DOWN?
>> THE CHART, I BELIEVE, IS IN
THE ORIGINAL PETITION.
DR. FIRESTONE, IF YOU WILL
BRING THAT OUT FOR ME AND WE'LL
SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THAT.
THE ORGAN --
>> [INAUDIBLE] FIRST, THE
COMMITTEE FOUND THE PETITION
INDEED ORGAN ARGUMENT, FEBRUARY
OF 2006, SUBSEQUENTLY FILED TWO
ADDITIONAL RESPONSES, SETTING
FORTH OUR POSITION, IT WILL
RESERVE THE MAJORITY OF IT 15
MINUTES FOR APPROPRIATE
REBUTTAL AND TO ADDRESS
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FROM THE
COURT.
BRIAN SCHREMPP WILL HAVE FIVE
MINUTES TO STATE HIS POSITION.
I NOTE THAT HE REQUEST AND WAS
AUTHORIZED TO PARTICIPATE IN
ORAL ARGUMENT WITHOUT THE
NECESSITY OF FILING A RESPONSE
AND THE BAR WILL PROCEED FOR 10
MINUTES, SETTING FORTH ITS
POSITION.
THE COMMITTEE RESPECTFULLY
SUGGESTION THE FOLLOWING
QUESTIONS WILL NEED ANSWERS.
ONE, WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC
REASONS AND RATIONALE FOR THE
BAR'S POSITION.
AND THAT'S BAR ADDRESSED ANY OF
THE COMMITTEE'S DETAILED
REASONS AND RATIONALE FOR ITS
POSITION.
IS THE BAR'S POSITION SIMPLY IF
IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT?
THE SECOND QUESTION IS, ARE THE
COMMITTEES' PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
STRONGLY URGE THE COURT TO
ELIMINATE FLORIDA BOARD
MEMBERSHIP AND THUS HAVING NO
SPECIFIC BAR MEMBERSHIP
REQUIREMENT FOR CIRCUIT COURT
MEDIATORS, SUPPORTED BY SOUND
REASON AND RATIONALE, AND NOT
BASED SIMPLY ON BELIEF,
SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS OR PURE
SPECULATION.
>> JUDGE BRIESE, COULD WE
APPROACH ONE ISSUE AND IT IS A
QUESTION THAT COMES TO MIND,
PARTICULARLY, WITH WHAT HAS
HAPPENED RECENTLY WITH THROWING
THESE REVIEW THINGS IN TO THE
CHIEF JUSTICE -- WHOEVER SITS
THERE, THAT OFFICE.
DOES THE REMOVAL OF BAR
MEMBERSHIP, DOES THAT IN SOME
WAY IMPACT OR DO WE NEED TO
DISCUSS WHETHER IT IMPACTS THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT TO
BEGIN -- START REGULATING
PEOPLE THAT ARE ENGAGED IN JUST
A DIFFERENT BUSINESS, SUCH AS
THE COURT REPORTERS, I'M NOT
SURE WE ACTUALLY REGULATE THEM
AND LIKE A CIVIL KIND OF
SITUATION, DO WE NEED THAT
CONVERSATION OR IS THAT NOT A
--
>> I DON'T THINK WE DO.
CURRENTLY COUNTY COURT
MEDIATORS DON'T HAVE BAR
MEMBERSHIP, FAMILY COURT
MEDIATORS, ALL OF THEM DON'T
NECESSARILY HAVE BAR MEM SHI
AND THE COURT HAS GONE DOWN THE
ROAD AND THINGS ARE WORKING
WELL.
>> YOU THINK IT IS WITHIN OUR
JURISDICTION.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> OKAY.
>> I WILL RESERVE THE REMAINDER
OF MY TIME.
THANK YOU.
>> MR. SCHREMPP, YOU MAY
PROCEED NEXT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
FIRST I'LL -- I'D LIKE TO THANK
THE COURT FOR ALLOWING ME TO
APPEAR HERE TODAY IN SPOOK IN
FAVOR OF THE RULE CHANGE.
THE FLORIDA BAR'S ARGUMENT THAT
MEMBERSHIP -- BAR MEMBERSHIP
SETS A MINIMUM STANDARD OF
EDUCATION AND NEGOTIATION
SKILLS, ABOUT THE SAME AS
ARGUING THAT A PLUMBER MUST
FIRST HAVE A LICENSE TO FLY AN
AIRPLANE.
QUITE SIMPLY PUT THE SKILL AND
KNOWLEDGE SETS INVOLVED IN
CONDUCTING A COURT-ORDERED
MEDIATION HAVE LITTLE TO DO
WITH THE SKILL AND KNOWLEDGE
REQUIRED TO BE A LAWYER.
I HAVE HEARD THE FLORIDA BAR
ARGUE IN EFFECT THAT IF IT IS
NOT BROKEN, WHY FIX IT?
I ARGUE THAT IT IS IN FACT
BROKEN.
IT IS AS BROKEN AS SAYING A
PERSON OF COLOR IS 4/5 OF A
MAN.
OR A WOMAN --
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
>> YES.
>> MATHEMATICAL EQUATION AND
HELP ME WITH THIS.
IF C IS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF
GETTING THE BEST MEDIATION
POSSIBLE AND A IS BAR LICENSE
AND B, MEDIATION SKILLS, YOUR
POSITION IS B EQUALS C, THEN
LEGAL SKILLS AND UNDERSTANDING
OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES IS HOLY --
WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO SUCCESSFUL
MEDIATION, IS THAT CORRECT.
>> MY OPINION IS THAT THE
SKILLS ARE ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT
OF ONE ANOTHER.
ONE DOES NOT -- SKILLS AS AN
ATTORNEY DO NOT REFLECT --
>> IF YOU LISTEN, WHY NOT THE
POSITION THAT A PLUS B EQUALS C
AS OPPOSED TO SOLELY B EQUALS
C?
IT SEEMS YOUR POSITION, THE
COMMITTEE'S POSITION, IS THAT
AGAIN, A, THE LEGAL SKILLS AND
TRAINING ARE FULLY IRRELEVANT
TO SUCCESSFUL MEDIATION.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> AND IS THAT YOUR POSITION.
>> THAT IS MY POSITION.
>> OKAY.
>> IT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO
IT.
THE -- SO THE COVERINGS THAT
GOES ON IN MEDIATION NOT ONLY
WITH THE PARTIES BUT THE
ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE
PARTIES, THAT THE UNDERSTANDING
OF TERMINOLOGY, LEGAL POSITIONS
HAS NO BASIS IN THE
CONVERSATION THAT GOES ON IN A
NORMAL MEDIATION.
>> YES.
THE -- WELL, IF WE GO IN AND --
LET ME JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN
SOMETHING HERE.
AS MEDIATORS WE WANTED TO
ENSURE THE PARTIES COME TO
AGREEMENT BASED ON INFORMATION
AND UNDERSTANDING.
WE PREDOMINANTLY HOLD JOINT
SESSIONS WITH ALL PARTIES SO
THEY CAN HEAR EACH OTHER'S
POINTS OF VIEW.
THIS IS THE IDEA BEHIND, YOU
KNOW, THE MEDIATION.
WE WANT THE PARTIES, RATHER
THAN THE PARTIES' ATTORNEYS, TO
HAVE THE MAJOR INFLUENCE ON THE
DECISIONS MADE.
IT IS -- THE CURRENT FORM OF
MEDIATION THAT IS SUGGESTED
UNDER CURRENT FLORIDA RULES FOR
COURT ORDERED MEDIATION.
THE -- LET ME SEE HERE.
I HAVE BEEN A MEDIATOR FOR OVER
TEN YEARS AND I ALTOGETHER AM
ARBITRATION CHAIR FROM THE NASC
AND NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE.
I'VE MEDIATED AND I'M -- ON
OVER 1500 CASES FROM COMPLEX
MULTIMILLION-DOLLAR,
MULTI-PARTY DISPUTES, LAND USE
DISPUTES, TO WHO GETS THE DOG.
I MEAN, SIMPLY ALL KINDS OF
THINGS.
I'M AN IMPROVED COUNTY
MEDIATION TRAINER AND I'VE
TRAINED OR MENTORED OVER 100
ATTORNEY MEDIATORS, AND YET I'M
BARRED FROM CIRCUIT CIVIL
CERTIFICATION.
I'VE DONE CIRCUIT-LEVEL CASES
MANY TIMES, BUT FROM AZZ##$$
COURT-ORDERED STANDPOINT, I AM
NOT ALLOWED TO DO THEM.
>> COULD YOU GO BACK AND ANSWER,
JUSTICE BELL STILL HAS A
SPENDING QUESTION I DON'T THINK
YOU HAVE ANSWERED AND THAT IS
THE RELEVANCE OF A LEGAL
BACKGROUND TO DISCUSS COMPLEX
LEGAL ISSUES THAT CERTAINLY
IMPACT THE RIGHTS OF THE
PARTIES THAT HAVE TO BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT.
>> THAT IS OF --
>> RESOLUTION -- LET ME FINISH.
>> THAT -- I FEEL LESS UP TO LT
-- FEEL THAT IS UP TO THE
PARTIES' ATTORNEY TO EXPLAIN TO
THEM THE SITUATIONS AND THE
LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS AND
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES.
IT'S NOT UP TO THE MEDIATOR.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WITH THE
RULES OF -- LET'S SEE, RULE 103
-- 10.310.
IT REQUIRES A MEDIATOR PROTECT
THE PARTIES RIGHT TO
SELF-DETERMINATION AND ALSO,
RULE 10.370 BARS A MEDIATOR
FROM GIVING LEGAL ADVICE OR
SUGGESTING ANY PROJECTED
OUTCOME IN COURT.
POSSIBLE PROJECTED OUTCOME.
SO I -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT
THE RATIONALE WOULD BE THAT THE
MEDIATOR SHOULD BE AN ATTORNEY
WHEN THEY ARE BARRED FROM
GIVING ANY FORM OF LEGAL
ADVICE.
>> OKAY.
MR. SCHREMPP, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
WITH OUR ASSISTANCE, YOU HAVE
UTILIZED YOUR TIME, MR. SASSER,
YOU ARE GOING NEXT.
OKAY.
>> GOOD MORNING.
[INAUDIBLE] I'M HERE TODAY --
[INAUDIBLE].
>> WHY DON'T WE START WHERE WE
LEFT OFF THEN AND THE
OPPOSITION SAYS THERE IS
ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE TO HAVING A
LEGAL BACKGROUND AND IT IS
IRRELEVANT AND MEANS NOTHING IN
MEDIATION.
THAT IS NOT WHAT A MEDIATOR IS
SUPPOSED TO DO.
>> THAT IS NOT THE CORRECT
CHARACTERIZATION -- [INAUDIBLE]
AND FLORIDA, SINCE ITS ADOPTION
APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS AGO AND
A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH
THE RULES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED
BY THE SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE,
AND THE BAR FEELS THE COMMITTEE
HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB.
>> SO FAR WE HAVE BEEN KIND OF
DISCUSSING -- OVER HERE.
>> SORRY.
>> IN KIND OF ALL-OR-NOTHING
TERMS.
IS IT REALLY -- WHAT WE WOULD
DO IS NOT REQUIRE THAT SOMEBODY
BE A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR
BUT, CERTAINLY, IF YOU ARE A
MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR YOU
CAN STILL PERFORM MEDIATION SO,
IT WOULD SEEM THAT THERE WOULD
BE A SUBSET OF MEADIATIONS, NOT
ALL OF THEM, WHERE THE MEDIATOR
WOULD NOT BE A MEMBER OF THE
FLORIDA BAR.
AND ISN'T IT THE CASE THAT IT
WILL BE THE CLIENTS AND THEIR
ATTORNEYS ADVISING THEM ABOUT
WHETHER, IN THIS PARTICULAR
CASE, THE MEDIATOR SHOULD BE A
MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR OR IS
BETTER TO GET SOMEBODY WHO IS
NOT A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR
IN THOSE PARTICULAR
CIRCUMSTANCES?
CERTAINLY THEY'LL BE VERY
COMPLICATED CASES AND
ANTI-TRUST CASES OR SOMETHING
WHERE THE CLIENTS AND THEIR
LAWYERS DECIDE, NO, WE NEED A
LAWYER IN FACT WE NEED A LAWYER
THAT SPECIALIZES IN ANTI-TRUST.
THERE WILL BE OTHER CASES WHERE
THEY SAY, THE LEGAL ISSUES IN
THIS CASE ARE VERY SIMPLE.
THIS IS A BOUNDARY DISPUTE AND
IS REALLY A PERSON NAL --
PERSONALITY CONFLICT AND WE AS
PSYCHOLOGISTS DON'T NEED A
LAWYER.
THAT IS ALL IT SEEMS THAT THE
RULE WOULD BE DESIGNED TO DO IS
GIVE THE PARTIES MORE
FLEXIBILITY, DEPENDING ON THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TO
DECIDE WHETHER THE MEDIATOR
SHOULD BE A LAWYER OR NOT.
>> I AGREE 100%.
I THINK -- I THINK WHEN WE ARE
FOCUSED ON HERE TODAY IS
WHETHER OR NOT A CIRCUIT COURT
CERTIFIED MEDIATOR SHOULD BE A
MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR WITH
SOME ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS, BUT
NOTHING PREVENTS THE PARTIES
FROM VOLUNTARILY DECIDING TO
PICK SOMEONE TO BE A MEDIATOR
WHO IS NOT AN ATTORNEY AND I
FIND THAT -- AND I THINK IT
HAPPENS THROUGHOUT THE STATE,
THAT THERE ARE MANY MEADIATIONS
CONDUCTED BY ATTORNEYS, WHO ARE
NOT CERTIFIED.
THEY ARE PICK BY THE PARTIES
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PARTICULAR
AREA OF EXPERTISE --
>> SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE
ADVANTAGE OF THE -- THE PEOPLE
-- IF THEY ARE SUPREME COURT
IDENTIFIED WE END UP REALLY --
THERE ARE REQUIREMENT AND TRAIN
AND THERE IS REVIEW AND SO THE
IDEA THAT WE MIGHT GET MORE
INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD WANT TO
BE CERTIFIED, DON'T WE, BY THAT,
GIVE THE PUBLIC SOME GRITTER
ASSURANCE OF QUALITY CONTROL?
AND AGAIN, WHAT WOULD THE BAR'S
RESPONSE BE TO THAT?
I KNOW THERE ARE AREAS WHERE
THE BAR SAYS WE HAVE TO
REGULATE LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
WELL,, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A COMING
UP WITH THE THINGS AND WE ARE
SAYING WE WANT TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC AND WHY ISN'T IT A
BETTER IDEA THAT DODDS RELY ON
THE EXPERTISE OF THOSE THAT DO
MEADIATIONS TO SAY, WE'RE NOT
GOING TO SAY JUST BECAUSE
SOMEONE IS NOT AN ATTORNEY,
THAT THEY GET IN.
THERE IS -- THERE IS A POINT
SYSTEM AND I'M -- SO I'M HAVING
THE SAME TROUBLE OF
UNDERSTANDING WHY ALL OF A
SUDDEN WE ARE SAYING IF WE
DON'T DO IT FOR CAN'T AND DON'T
DO IT FOR FAMILY CASES WHICH
CAN BE VERY COMPLEX, WHY WE'D
SAY THAT THERE IS THIS
PROHIBITION IN TERMS OF THE
COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION.
>> I THINK THE DISTINCTION
MIGHT BE EXPLAINED BY THE USING
THE EXAMPLE OF BOARD
CERTIFICATION.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT
REQUIREMENTS TO BE BOARD
CERTIFIED IN DIFFERENT AREAS.
AND I BELIEVE IT IS THIS
PHYSICIAN THE POSITION OF THE
BAR AND THE FEELING OF THE
BOARD OF GOVERNORS WITH CIRCUIT
COURT MEIATIONS THE MEDIATOR,
YOU KNOW, TO BE CERTIFIED, AS A
CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATOR THAT
THAT SHOULD HAVE A CERTAIN
AMOUNT OF WEIGHT AND STANDING
AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF
SUCCESS WITH MEDIATION, AND
THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN
EXPECTATION IF SOMEONE IS
CERTIFIED BY THE COURT AS A
CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATOR AT THE
LEAST THEY'D BE A MEMBER OF THE
FLORIDA BAR.
>> BUT, AGAIN, ISN'T THAT THE
MARKETPLACE?
I MEAN, IF I HAVE A SLIP AND
FALL CASE, AND I THINK THAT THE
BEST PERSON IS SO-AND-SO AND IT
IS A COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION,
AS AN ATTORNEY, WHY WOULDN'T I
WANT TO SAY THAT THAT IS FINE,
WHEREAS, AGAIN, I THINK IN THE
COMPLEX BUSINESS DISPUTE AREA,
MAYBE YOU WOULD WANT SOMEBODY
THAT IS AN ACCOUNTANT.
AND THAT, THROUGH THATZZ##$$
COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION, AND SO
WE'RE KIND OF LIMITING IT AND
SAYING, THERE IS -- THE ONLY
BACKGROUND THAT IS IMPORTANT
FOR CIRCUIT MEDIATION IS THE
LEGAL BACKGROUND.
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK WE ARE
SAYING THAT IS THE ONLY BUT I
THINK WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS
THAT TO BE -- IN COURT TO BE
CERTIFIED THAT THE MEDIATOR
SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF THE FRA
BAR.
-- FLORIDA BAR BECAUSE THERE
ARE SO MANY ISSUES AS BROUGHT
UP BY THE COURT EARLIER, TODAY,
SO MANY COMPLEXITIES AND TO
HAVE SOMEONE SERVING AS A
MEDIATOR, CERTIFIED CIRCUIT
COURT MEDIATOR THAT DOESN'T
HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE IN
PROCEDURES AN LAWS.
>> BUT I COULD HAVE BEEN AS AN
ATTORNEY, DONE ALL MY WORK IN
FAMILY, AND NOW I CAN --
BECAUSE I'M AN ATTORNEY I CAN
BECOME CIRCUIT COURT-QUALIFIED,
RIGHT?
MEDIATOR, YET AGAIN, DO YOU
THINK THE PARTIES ARE GOING TO
PICK THE HYPOTHETICAL ME FOR
THE COMPLEX BUSINESS DISPUTES?
PROBABLY NOT.
SO, AGAIN THAT IS WHAT -- IT
DOESN'T SEEM THAT IT IS -- IT
DEPENDS ON WHAT THE PERSON'S
OVERALL BACKGROUND IS AND, YOU
KNOW, IN TERMS OF DECIDING WHAT
IS THE -- YOU KNOW, BEST FOR
THAT CASE.
>> BUT I THINK WHAT WE ARE
FOCUSED ON TODAY IS A MINIMAL
REQUIREMENT WHICH IS FLORIDA
BAR MEM SHI.
TO BE CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATOR.
-- MEMBERSHIP TO BE CIRCUIT
COURT MEDIATOR AND I DON'T
THINK THERE IS ANYTHING THAT
WOULD PREVENT THE CIRCUIT COURT
FROM ORDERING A MEDIATION IN
FRONT OF SOMEONE WHO IS NOT
CERTIFIED IF THE PARTIES AGREE.
I THINK THAT HAPPENS QUITE
FREQUENTLY.
THAT THE PARTIES WILL ALL --
THE JUDGE WILL ASK, WHO WOULD
YOU LIKE TO BE THE MEDIATOR AND
THE PARTS WILL AGREE ON A
PARTICULAR MEDIATOR AND THAT
PERSON, MAY NOT BE CERTIFIED.
AND THE CLERK IS STILL ORDERED
TO MEDIATION.
>> ALSO THE COURT COULD I GUESS
DECIDE IN A PARTICULAR CASE I'M
GOING TO REFER THIS TO A
CIRCUIT COURT CERTIFIED
MEDIATOR, BUT I'M GOING TO
REQUIRE IT BE A LAWYER.
AND THE COURT CAN DO THAT, TOO.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> IS THE BAR ADVOCATING WE
ROLL BACK ANY OF THESE OTHER
AREAS, THAT IS, FAMILY LAW,
DOMESTIC RELATIONS, FOR
INSTANCE?
WHERE WE DON'T REQUIRE THE
MEDIATORS BE LAWYERS?
AND REIMPOSE THE LAWYER
REQUIREMENT IN AREAS LIKE THAT?
>> NO, YOUR HONOR.
>> WHY NOT.
>> I THINK AGAIN THE
DISTINCTION, BEST ANALOGY I CAN
DRAW IS BOARD CERTIFICATION AND
DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE LAW,
DIFFERENT QUALITY -- MINIMAL
QUALIFICATIONS, AND WITH
CIRCUIT COURT I THINK THE
FAMILY LAW AND DOMESTIC
RELATIONS OF COURSE ARE IN
CIRCUIT COURT.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THAT HAS BEEN CARVED OUT
BY THE RULES AND THE WAY IT HAS
BEEN FOR YEARS AND I THINK --
>> WHY ONE THE REASONING BE THE
SAME?
IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
LEGAL RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES,
YOU KNOW, THAT ARE -- AT THE
BASE OF THE DISPUTE, TO BE
MEDIATED, AND WOULDN'T THAT
RULE APPLY, REALLY, TO COUNTY
COURT, TOO?
THE COLLECTION AND LANDLORD
TENANT AND, YOU KNOW, WE NOW
HAVE JURISDICTION, I'M NOT SURE
WHAT IT IS, BUT SOMETHING LIKE
$15,000, MOST PEOPLE WOULD --
I'M HAVING A LITTLE DIFFICULTY
HOW YOU WOULD DISTINGUISH OUT
OTHER YOU KNOW -- ONE GROUP OF
LEGAL DISPUTES AND SAY THEY
HAVE TO BE A LAWYER, BUT THERE
IS ANOTHER GROUP OF LEGAL
DISPUTES AND THE BAR'S POSITION,
NO, THAT'S ALL RIGHT, THEY
DON'T HAVE TO BE A LAWYER.
AS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
SO DON'T WE HAVE JUST, REALLY,
A HUGE AREA NOW OF SUBJECT
MATTERS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW,
ENGINEERING DISPUTES, COUNTY
DISPUTES, ALL OF THOSE, WHERE
TYPICALLY, BUSINESS DISPUTES,
WHERE PEOPLE DO CHOOSE SOMEONE
THAT MAY HAVE GREATER EXPERTISE
WITH REFERENCE TO THOSE REALLY
DISCIPLINES AS OPPOSED TO LEGAL
DISCIPLINES.
SO, BUT THE BAR BE -- WOULD THE
BAR BE CONTENT TO LEAVE THESE
OTHER AREAS WITHOUT THERE BEING
ANY LAW DEGREE REQUIREMENT.
>> YES.
THAT IS THE BAR'S POSITION AT
THIS POINT, AND THERE IS NO
REASON TO IMPOSE BAR MEMBERSHIP
ON THOSE OTHER THEE AREAS OF
CERTIFICATION.
>> WE HAVE A MOVEMENT, WITHIN
THE STATE NOW, TO SOME DEGREE,
TO -- WHERE SOME OF OUR
CIRCUITS HAVE CREATED BUSINESS
COURTS.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND WHAT IS THE BAR'S
POSITION IN THAT AREA?
SHOULD WE STILL REQUIRE A LAW
DEGREE WITH REFERENCE TO -- IN
THE BUSINESS DIVISION, IN
ORLANDO, OR TAMPA OR WHEREVER,
AS -- IF REFERRED TO A MEDIATOR
THEY HAVE TO BE LAWYERS?
>> WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THAT.
HOWEVER, I -- IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THOSE DIVISIONS
ARE PART OF THE CIRCUIT COURT,
SO, IF IT IS A -- LOOKING FOR A
CERTIFIED CIRCUIT COURT
MEDIATOR WE'D HAVE THE SAME
STANDARDS.
>> ASKING WITH OUR ASSISTANCE
YOU USED UP ALL YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> JUDGE BRIESE, WILL YOU DO
THE FOLLOW-UP.
>> YES, THANK YOU.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO CLEAR
UP, JUDGES CANNOT SEND PARTIES
TO NONCERTIFIED MEDIATORS AND
COURT-ORDERED MEDIATION.
IT IS PROHIBITED.
JUSTICE CANTERO TO ANSWER YOUR
QUESTION --
>> WITH AGREEMENT OF THE
PARTIES.
>> CERTAINLY, CERTAINLY,
CERTAINLY IF THE PARTIES AGREE
--
>> THAT IS WHAT THE RULES --
THE WAY THE RULE IS STRUCT
STEWARD.
>> IF A JUDGE IS SENDING A CASE
TO MEDIATION, COURT-ORDERED
MEDIATION HAS TO BE WITH A
CERTIFIED MEDIATOR.
>> RIGHT.
WITHOUT THERE BEING AN
AGREEMENT OF THE PARTY.
YOU KNOW, I THINK -- MY CONCERN
THE LAST TIME THAT THE RULE WAS
HERE, AND I STILL HAVE THIS
GNAWING FEELING THAT THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE
SITUATION WHERE PARTIES AGREE
AND THEY ARE NOT IN COURT IS
THAT THESE PARTIES HAVE AT
LEAST GOTTEN TO A POINT IN
THEIR DISPUTE IN WHICH ONE OF
THEM HAS PAID A FILING FEE AND
GOTTEN INTO A COURT OF LAW AND
SO THERE IS A LEGAL ISSUE
BETWEEN THESE PARTIES.
AND MAY REVOLVE AROUND DISPUTED
FACTS BUT THAT THEY HAVE SOUGHT
LEGAL HELP TO RESOLVE THEIR
SDPOOUTS DISPUTE AND I JUST
WONDER HOW MANY PARTIES IN THAT
SITUATION FEEL LIKE THAT, WHEN
THE JUDGE, THEN, MAKES THEM GO
TO A -- SOMEBODY THAT IS HELD
OUT TO BE A CERTIFIED MEDIATOR,
THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SOMEBODY
THAT IS NOT LEGALLY TRAINED TO
BE -- AND IS NOT A LAWYER.
THAT WAS MY CONCERN.
>> JUSTICE WELLS, MY RESPONSE
IS THAT MOST OFTEN THAN NOT, IN
CIRCUIT CIVIL CASES THE PARTIES
HAVE THEIR OWN ATTORNEYS, IT IS
THEIR ATTORNEYS WHO ARE THERE
TO PROTECT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS.
AND THAT IS NOT THE MEDIATOR'S
FUNCTION.
IT IS SIMPLY NOT.
AND THE SAME ARGUMENT WOULD
APPLY TO CANACCORD MEDIATORS OR
FAMILY MEDIATORS.
I WILL GET INTO THAT IN A
MOMENT, JUSTICE CANTERO I WANT
TO GET BACK BECAUSE I PROMISED
I WOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
THE UNITED STATES MEDIATOR'S
CERTIFICATION STANDARDS FROM
2003, PLACES FLORIDA IN THE
GROUP OF TEN STATES THAT
REQUIRE MEDIATORS TO BE LEGALLY
TRAINED.
THE OTHER STATES DO NOT, AND IF
YOU NEED A BREAK DOWN I CAN
GIVE IT TO YOU.
>> HOW MANY OTHER STATES?
NOT ALL STATES --
>> 16 STATES REPORT NO
STATEWIDE CERTIFICATION FOR
CIVIL CASES, 16 STATES HAVE NO
EDUCATIONAL OR EXPERIENCE
REQUIREMENTS, ONLY MEDIATION
TRAINING, AND TEN STATES
REQUIRE MEDIATORS TO BE LEAK
GALE TRAINED AND THAT IS WHERE
FLORIDA IS -- TWO STATES
REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF BACHELOR'S
DEGREE AND SIX STATES ALLOW FOR
FLEXIBILITY INSERT FICTION
REQUIREMENT AND THE ONLY
CAUTIONARY NOTE ON THAT IS THAT
YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED IF YOU
ARE MATCHING APPLES TO APPLES
AND ON, TO ORANGES BECAUSE
THERE ARE DIFFERENT
REQUIREMENTS IN ALL THE STATES.
>> THERE ARE NOT MORE THAN TEN
STATES WHO CERTIFY AND DO NOT
REQUIRE BAR MEMBERSHIP.
>> CORRECT.
>> WAS THERE A CONSIDERATION
GIVEN TO KIND OF A MIDDLE
POSITION OF WHAT IS -- ONCE THE
COURT STEPS INTO IT AND THE
PARTIES CANNOT AGREE ON A
MEDIATOR, AND THE COURT
APPOINTS A CERTIFIED MEADE --
MEADE YOU'RE, IF ONE OF THE
ATTORNEYS OBJECTS TO A MEDIATOR
IS THAT THE BASIS UPON WHICH
THE COURT WOULD THEN HAVE TO
APPOINT A LAWYER MEDIATOR.
>> I WOULD ASSUME IF THERE IS
AN OBJECTION THE COURT WOULD
HAVE SOME SORT OF A HEARING AND
HEAR THE ARGUE GROUP AND MAKE A
DECISION.
>> HOW DOES THAT WORK AS A
PRACTICAL MATTER?
IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE I'VE
BEEN IN THE TRIAL -- A TRIAL
LAWYER, BECAUSE MOST OF THE
TIME I'M THINKING, WELL, I WAS
IN THERE AT THE BEGINNING OF
MEDIATION BUT YOU WOULD AGREE
ON A MEDIATOR.
ALL RIGHT, THE PARTIES DON'T
AGREE.
DOES THE JUDGE APPOINT A
PARTICULAR MEDIATOR FROM A LIST
HOUR HOW DOES THAT WORK.
>> FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU ARE
TALKING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS,
GENERALLY, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.
PARTIES ALMOST ALWAYS AGREE.
I'VE BEEN DOING IT 21 YEARS AND
I DON'T THINK I EVER APPOINTED
A MEDIATOR WHERE THERE HAS BEEN
DISAGREEMENT.
ALWAYS AGREED.
>> ONE PARTY DOES NOT WANT AN
-- WANTS AN ATTORNEY
QUALIFICATION.
HOW DOES THAT WORK.
>> THE LIST OF ALL THE
CERTIFICATIONS WILL BE UP ON
THE DRC WEB SITE AND YOU WILL
BE ABLE TO LOOK ON THE DRC WEB
SITE AND SEE WHAT THE
QUALIFICATIONS ARE, TO SEE IF
THEY ARE AN ATTORNEY AND IF THE
JUDGE MAKES A DETERMINATION
THAT HE WISHES TO APPOINT AN
ATTORNEY, HE'LL BE ABLE TO
CLEARLY --
>> SO WHEN THEY DON'T AGREE,
YOU SAY THE VERY VERY, SMALL
PERCENTAGE OF THE TIME.
>> VERY.
>> THE JUDGE SENDS -- THE
SELECTING OF A PARTICULAR
PERSON?
>> I NEVER HAD IT HAPPEN.
WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE
PARTIES IS GIVE ME A LIST OF
THREE MEDIATOR, EACH SIDE, AND
EITHER PICK ONE OFF THE LIST, I
CAN PICK ONE OF THE SIX OR HAVE
A HEARING AND ARGUMENTS.
>> WHAT WOULD BE WRONG WITH
PUTTING IN A PROVISO LIKE
JUSTICE WELLS HAD SO IT IS
CLEAR THAT IF -- AGAIN, NO BAR
TO HAVING CIRCUIT COURT
MEDIATORS THAT ARE NOT LAW
TRAINED TO BE AMONG THE
CERTIFIED GROUP WHICH THEN TO
GIVE -- ME GIVES ME PROTECT TO
THE PUBLIC SO YOU KNOW THEY'VE
GONE THROUGH THE TRAIN, BUT IN
TERMS OF THE APPOINTMENT
PROCESS, IF EITHER SIDE OBJECTS,
THAT -- TO A NONATTORNEY
MEDIATOR, THAT THE JUDGE DOES
NOT HAVE THIS DISCRETION TO
APPOINT A NONATTORNEY MEDIATOR.
>> NUMBER ONE, WE DON'T THINK
THAT IS NECESSARY.
IT HAS NOT BEEN NECESSARY ON
THE FAMILY SIDE AND THE FAMILY
SIDE COULD BE AS COMPLICATED AS
THE CIVIL SIDE.
>> LET ME GET BACK ON THE
FAMILY SIDE, THOUGH YOU HAVE
BEEN DOING IT LONGER BECAUSE
MOST OF THE DISPUTES HOLDING
PEOPLE UP WERE NOT NECESSARILY
FINANCIAL OR ALIMONY AND MOST
WERE CHILD CUSTODY AND THOSE
CHILD RELATED ISSUES
PSYCHOLOGISTS AND OTHER PEOPLE
WHO NORMALLY ARE GIFTED AT THAT
CAN RESOLVE AND ONCE THEY ARE
RESOLVED FINANCIAL ISSUES ARE
MORE EASILY, OFTEN, RESOLVED.
>> THAT IS PROBABLY A FAIR
STATEMENT, I KNOW THE BAR
OPPOSED NONATTORNEY MEDIATORS
FOR FAMILY CASES IN THE
BEGINNING.
THERE ARE CERTAINLY FAMILY LAW
CASES THAT ARE AS COMPLICATED
OR MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE
CIVIL CASES IF YOU ARE DEALING
WITH TAX ISSUES OR EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESSES, CAN
BE VERY COMPLICATED.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WHAT YOU
HAVE HEARD TODAY FROM THE BAR
IS THAT IF IT AIN'T BROCK,
DON'T FIX IT AND I WOULD
SUGGEST TO YOU, IF RANSOM OLDS
LIVED BY THE DRIVER WE'D STILL
BE DRIVING THE FIRST MASS
PRODUCED AUTOMOBILE, THE
OLDSMOBILE FROM 1904, IF
ORVILLE AND WILBUR WRIGHT LIVED
BY THE MOTTO WE'D STILL BE
DRIVING A BIPLANE AND 12 MEN
WOULD NOT HAVE WALKED ON THE
MOON.
>> LET ME ASK YOU, IN THOSE
STATES THAT DO IN FACT DEAL
WITH CERTIFIED MEDIATORS, ARE
THERE ANY WHO HAVE PARSED THIS
OUT, SO THAT THERE ARE AREAS
WHERE ATTORNEYS ARE THE
CERTIFIED MEDIATORS AND OTHERS
WHO ARE NOT ATTORNEYS IN OTHER
AREAS.
>> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT
QUESTION BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN
BROKEN OUT.
>> I DON'T KNOW.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE MOD
TOW, IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T
FIX IT, BREEDS MEDIOCRITY.
>> THE -- IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE
IN THE -- I SEE FLORIDA'S
MEDIATION SYSTEM AS SUCCESSFUL
AND PROMOTED AS THAT AND WHAT
IS BROKEN ABOUT IT AND WHAT
NEEDS FIXING OR IMPROVING?
>> WE HAVE 25 YEARS OF --
[INAUDIBLE] HISTORY AND 19
YEARS OF RULE HISTORY AND HAVE
A SUFFICIENT HISTORY TO KNOW
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT
ABLE TO BE -- [INAUDIBLE] WE
ARE KEEPING QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUALS OUT OF THE MIX.
>> HOLD ON.
HELP ME WITH THE NUMBERS, YOU
ADMITTED YOURSELF YOU NEVER HAD
TO ORDER A MEDIATOR.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND THE -- WHAT PERCENTAGES
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, WHEN I
WAS A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR
12 YEARS I DID IT ONCE.
>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND
THE QUESTION.
PERCENTAGES OF WHAT.
>> THE ONLY LIMITATION FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT CERTIFIED AT
THIS POINT FROM SERVING AS
MEDIATORS, IS IN THOSE CASES
WHERE THE CIRCUIT COURT
APPOINTS THE MEDIATOR.
>> CORRECT.
>> AND YOU HAVE SAID YOU HAVE
NEVER DONE THAT AS A JUDGE, I
DID IT ONCE IN 12 YEARS AND --
30-SOME THOUSAND CASES AS A
JUDGE.
SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK IS,
HOW MANY CASES ARE WE TALKING
ABOUT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN
ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS PARTY
CHOICE.
PARTIES HAVE A CHOICE TO HAVE A
CERTIFIED, COMPETENT MEDIATOR.
>> LET ME CLARIFY WHEN A COURT
ORDERS MEDIATION THERE IS A
MEDIATION ORDER, DOES THE ORDER
REQUIRE THAT THE PARTIES SELECT
A COURT CERTIFIED MEDIATOR.
>> YES.
>> OKAY.
SO IT IS ALL CASES WHERE THE
COURT SENDS OUT A MEDIATION --
>> EXACTLY.
EXACTLY.
>> NOT JUST CASE WHERE'S THE
PARTIES DON'T AGREE.
>> EXACTLY.
THE -- ONE AREA IN WHICH IT IS
BROKEN IS DIVERSITY.
WE HAVE 2,318 CIRCUIT COURT
MEDIATORS.
1.6% OF THOSE MEDIATORS ARE
AFRICAN AMERICAN.
AND THE POPULATION OF
AFRICAN-AMERICANS IN FLORIDA
STANDS AT 14.6%.
>> LET ME GO BACK TO -- TO
JUSTICE CANTERO'S QUESTION.
I'M LOOKING AT THE RULE, AND IT
-- WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE ORDER
OF REFERRAL.
THE PARTIES MAY AGREE --
>> RIGHT.
>> AGREE UPON A STIPULATION
WITH THE COURT DESIGNATING A
MEDIATOR OTHER THAN THE SENIOR
JUDGE WHO IS NOT CERTIFIED AS A
MEDIATOR BUT WHO, IN THE
OPINION OF THE PARTIES, AND
PONNURU BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE,
IS QUALIFIED TO BE A MEDIATOR
ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, SO IT
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A CERTIFIED
MEDIATOR.
>> ALL THOSE POINTS AGREED.
>> I UNDERSTAND IN ALMOST 99.9%
--
>> I THINK THAT IS FAIR.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU --
>> AND JUST ONE MORE THING THAT
WOULD CONCERN ME, THE RULE AS
IT IS PRESENTLY SET FORTH SAYS
THE COURT SHALL THEN, T IF THEY
CAN'T AGREE, AN APPOINTED
CERTIFIED MEDIATOR SELECTED BY
ROTATION OR OTHER PROCEDURES AS
MAY BE ADOPTED BY
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND IS NOT
EVEN CLEAR THAT THE -- I GUESS
PROBABLY TO PREVENT FAVORITISM
THE JUDGE COULD JUST APPOINT
SOMEBODY THAT THEY THOUGHT WAS
MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT
LITIGATION.
>> I'M NOT SURE OF THE
QUESTION.
>> THE QUESTION, YOU KNOW, IS
THAT THERE IS -- IF YOU PUT
NONLAWYER MEDIATORS IN THE MIX
AND THERE IS A ROTATION PROCESS,
IT COULD JUST AS EASILY RIGHT
NOW THE WAY THE RULES WOULD BE
IF THEY DON'T AGREE BE A
NONLAWYER.
>> IF THE PARTIES AGREE.
THE ISSUE IS, WHY SHOULDN'T THE
PARTIES, IF THEY AGREE, BE ABLE
TO GO TO A NONATTORNEY MEDIATOR
IF THEY THINK IT IS
APPROPRIATE.
>> BECAUSE THEY ARE -- THAT IS
UNDER THE RULES THAT JUSTICE
WELLS READ, THEY CAN
SPECIFICALLY UNDER SUBPART B.
>> I UNDERSTAND BUT WHY
SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE ALL THE
PROTECTIONS OUR SYSTEM ALREADY
HAS FROM TRAINING TO MEDIATION
EXPERIENCE TO A DISCIPLINARY
ASSISTANCE TO A CODE OF
PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO
CONTINUING MEDIATOR EDUCATION.
WHAT I WANTED TO SAY IS, YOU
ALREADY KNOW, IT WILL WORK,
BECAUSE IT HAS WORKED IN THE
COUNTY SYSTEM.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IMPLEMENTED, THE
-- [INAUDIBLE] 5,000 TO 15,000,
SO IF YOU SET THAT ARGUMENT WE
DON'T NEED TO SEND LAWYERS TO
ANY MEDIATION BECAUSE COUNTY
COURT MEDIATION MOST CASES
DON'T HAVE ATTORNEYS INVOLVED.
>> THAT IS CORRECT --
>> SO TO ACCEPT YOUR POSITION,
SEND THE PARTIES TO THE
MEDIATORS AND DOESN'T MATTER
WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY LEGAL
SKILLS OR TRAINING.
>> IT DOES MATTER.
WHAT MATTERS IS PARTY CHOICE,
THE PARTIES SHOULD BE ABLE TO
SAY THIS IS THE KIND OF CASE,
WE WANT AN ATTORNEY MEDIATOR
HERE AND THE KIND OF CASE WE
WANT AN M.D. HERE.
>> WE DO THAT NOW.
>> ONLY WHERE THEY AGREE.
IT IS NOT CERTIFIED AND THEY
DON'T HAVE THE PROTECTIONS OF
THE SYSTEM.
I WOULD SUGGEST COUNTY COURT,
YOU SHOULD HAVE ATTORNEY
MEDIATORS IF THE LOGIC FOLLOWS
AND I DON'T THINK IT DOES
FOLLOW.
IF NONATTORNEY MADE YAERTS ARE
MEETING A CASE WORTH $14,999,
AND IS WORKING IT WILL WORK ON
THE CIRCUIT LEVEL AND THE
FAMILY HAS BEEN DOING SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF FAMILY MEDIATION,
NONATTORNEY MEDIATORS HAVE BEEN
MEDIATING AND IT IS WORKING AND
WE KNOW IT WILL WORK AND HAVE
BEEN -- THE COMMITTEE HASED
THAT THIS FOR FOUR YEARS AND --
HAS HAD THIS FOR FOUR YEARS AND
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED IT
IS THE ROOT THING TO DO AND
WILL WORK.
>> JUDGE BRIESE WITH OUR HELP
YOU EXHAUSTED OUR TIME AND I
KNOW YOU ARE TRYING TO GET OUT
WHAT YOU SAY, I GIVE YOU A
MINUTE UNINTERRUPTED TO SAY
WHAT YOU FEEL YOU NEED SAY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU, LOOK TO THE
COMMITTEE, WE HAVE PROVIDED THE
RULES COMMITTEE, THE POLICY,
THE TRAINING COMMITTEE HAS
GIVEN THIS COURT FOR 20 YEARS,
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT RESULTED
IN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, AND
RULES, YOU CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE
IN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
SECONDLY, WHAT -- LOOK AT THE
REASONS WHY FAMILY COURT
MEDIATION IS WORKING.
JURISDICTIONAL NUMBER DOESN'T
MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, THAT IS
NOT THE ISSUE.
ONE HAS, RIGHT NOW, ATTORNEYS
AND THE OTHER DOESN'T.
IT WILL WORK.
GIVE THE PARTS A CHOICE OF
HAVING THE KIND OF MEDIATOR
THEY'D LIKE AND ITS WORK ON THE
FAMILY LEVEL.
I KNOW WHAT MY LIMITATIONS ARE.
I KNOW WHAT I AM BETTER AT.
ORGAN ARGUMENT IS DIFFICULT.
PLEASE LOOK AT THE TWO LAST
RESPONSES THAT THE COMMITTEE
HAS FILED.
RIDE THEM.
LOOK AT NANCY IAN'S RESPONSE,
READ IT.
IT IS ALL INTEREST.
-- THERE, ALL BASED UPON SOUND
REASON AND RATIONALE AND NOT
BASED UPON PURE SPECULATION,
[INAUDIBLE] POINT SYSTEM AS
RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFIED
CIRCUIT COURT MEDIATORS, THANK
YOU.
>> JUDGE BRIESE YOU DO A FINE
JOB IN ORAL ARGUMENT, DON'T
SHORT CHANGE YOURSELF, LET ME
THANK YOU AND PARTICULARLY
JUDGE BRIESE AND JUDGE BATEMEN
AND MR. FIRESTONE AND SCHREMPP
AND SASS SON AND THANKS FOR
TIME YOU PUT INTO THIS AND
EVERY TIME WE LOOK UP, THE SAME
ARE CARRYING THE HEAVY LOADS
FOR THE COURT SYSTEM AND WE
THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT,
WHATEVER THE OUTCOME YOU HAVE
DONE US PROUD BY PRESENTING
WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT, THANK
YOU ALL VERY MUCH,