The Argument for Greater Use of Non-Binding Arbitration

Mon, Feb 16th, 2026 | by Miles Mediation and Arbitration | Article | Social Share

By Mike Peacock

Recent changes in Florida law and the guidelines for judges under the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration have resulted in a significantly increased number of pending civil cases. At the same time, judges are being monitored by the Supreme Court of Florida to reduce pending caseloads and expedite the time frames for case resolution. This combination of changes increases the need for alternative means of case resolution.

While mediation has been the most common form of alternative dispute resolution, under Florida law, a court ordered non-binding arbitration is another option. The requirements for non-binding arbitration varies in the administrative and case management orders of the various circuits and even within the various divisions within each circuit. Because of increased caseloads and new guidelines to reduce them, the potential of increased requirements for the use of court-ordered non-binding arbitration can reasonably be anticipated.

The advantages of using non-binding arbitration include:

• A neutral indication of the value of the case to the parties.
• An additional opportunity for resolution between mediation and trial.
• A lower cost than trial (and sometimes, the cost of preparing for trial).
• A third, hopefully neutral, balanced perspective of both the strength and the potential value of the case by the arbitrator.
• An opportunity to organize, evaluate, and catalogue the evidence and means of proof to better understand the strengths and weaknesses of one’s case.
• An opportunity to consider and evaluate the limitations on the admissibility of items of evidence.
• The opportunity to consider the likability, believability, and reasonableness of the parties, witnesses, and the claims of the lawsuit. This can promote a more realistic evaluation of a case and its potential before proceeding to trial.

Florida Law Standards

Under Florida law, an arbitrator receives information about the case and makes a final award which if filed under seal with the court. If a request for trial do novo is not made by a party within 20 days, the finding becomes the final award in the case and is enforceable by the contempt powers of the court. In a manner like the effect of proposals for settlement, the statute provides that “[u]pon motion made by either party within 30 days after entry of judgment, the court may assess costs against the party requesting a trial de novo” if the judgment is 25 percent more or less than the arbitration award. This is similar to the effect of a favorable verdict after the rejection of a proposal for settlement. This can often be a motivating factor for parties to accept the arbitrator’s decision and avoid any risk of fee and cost responsibility depending on the number awarded by a jury.

All these factors combine to support the argument for greater use of court ordered non-binding arbitration as a tool for resolution in lieu of the traditional path of preparing a case for trial. The use of non-binding arbitration can expedite the resolution of the case, reduce litigation costs, and provide a means of successful resolution without the risks of trial.

*Originally published in the HCBA Lawyer and reprinted with permission.

About Mike Peacock

Mike Peacock’s career as a litigator, which includes more than 40 years of law practice, prepared him to be an outstanding mediator and arbitrator. Mike’s training and education as a police officer, an ordained pastor, and years of experience in client counseling and pastoral counseling gives him deep insight into litigants, lawyers, and their positions and expectations in litigation.