Foreclosure mediation and mitigation programs began appearing in local, state, and national contexts in response to the foreclosure crisis. As the crisis persists, more states have adopted or are looking to adopt such programs as a way to ensure borrowers (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘Florida’
Articulated Purposes and Objectives for Foreclosure Mediation Programs
Just Court ADR, September 6th, 2011New RSI Report on Foreclosure Mediations Conducted Per Month
Just Court ADR, August 18th, 2011The Bread and Butter of Non-Judicial Foreclosure Mediation
Just Court ADR, June 22nd, 2011Here at the Just Court ADR blog, we focus on just that – court-connected alternative dispute resolution. But occasionally, a dispute resolution system becomes so popular that it grows beyond the walls of the courthouse and replicates itself, like good yeast, into new shapes.
The latest ADR bread to rise outside the judiciary (more…)
Court Mediation Prompts Pre-Filing Foreclosure Mediation Program
Just Court ADR, January 4th, 2011Three years after the first foreclosure mediation program launched in Ohio, more jurisdictions are reporting their program statistics. Resolution Systems Institute has long advocated that courts should monitor and evaluate their own programs. Monitoring and evaluations provide a tool for identifying how to improve programs for parties, lawyers, and courts.
Now, evaluation is helping improve mediation services outside the courts. (more…)
Florida Breaks New Ground in Mediator Standards
Jennifer Shack, April 6th, 2010Former judges in Florida no longer can promote their mediation practice by using the title “Judge” or appearing in judge’s robes in advertisements. In amendments to the marketing rule of the “Florida Rules for Certified and Court-Appointed Mediators,” the Florida Supreme Court seeks to make sure that the “integrity of the judicial system” is not impugned by judges using the prestige of their former office to serve their own commercial interests. The amendments go further in limiting what former judges (and arbitrators) may say by prohibiting any implication “that prior adjudicative experience makes one a better or more-qualified mediator.”
As this was the first time I’d heard of such a limitation, I searched the Research Library on CourtADR.org for other standards in place around the U.S. It appears that only Florida mentions anything in their mediator standards about how judges may advertise their services. Am I right? Does anyone have other examples of this type of rule?
