By Ali S.Iftikhar, Barakat + Bossa, PLLC
In December 2024, the Florida Supreme Court adopted Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202 (“Rule 1.202”), which requires parties to confer in good faith before filing non-dispositive motions.[1] The rule’s stated purpose is to improve case management, promote judicial efficiency, reduce unnecessary litigation costs, and ease the burden on already overtaxed courts.[2] Rule 1.202 makes clear that parties should attempt to resolve, or at least narrow, issues before reserving valuable hearing time.[3] By mandating meaningful dialogue before motions are filed, Rule 1.202 seeks to reduce judicial intervention and move cases more efficiently toward resolution. The inclusion of potential penalties further signals the Court’s intent to shift litigation culture toward cooperation and efficiency.[4] Despite these laudable goals, questions remain about Rule 1.202’s effectiveness in practice; questions that may depend less on the language of the Rule itself and more on attorney conduct and judicial enforcement.
Rule 1.202 requires a “good-faith effort to resolve the issues raised in the motion,” yet it provides little guidance on what constitutes a sufficient good-faith effort.[5] As a relatively new rule, it has produced uncertainty regarding enforcement and inconsistent interpretations across courts and judicial circuits. At present, practitioners must rely primarily on the Rule’s text and applicable local practices. Although Rule 1.202 is intended to encourage productive outcomes, the lack of uniformity in application across judicial circuits makes compliance more difficult. Attorneys are required to adhere to Rule 1.202 to avoid sanctions, but the precise contours of acceptable compliance remain unsettled.
The text of Rule 1.202 suggests that acceptable methods of communication are broad. The required certificate of conferral asks parties to disclose the “method of communication” used, without specifying which are permissible or preferred.[6] This breadth combined with Rule 1.202’s novelty, complicated efforts to determine what it means to properly “confer.” While statewide guidelines have not been provided, some courts provide useful examples for practitioners. The Eleventh Judicial Circuit’s Complex Business Litigation Section, for instance, has long required conferral before setting hearing and mandates “an actual discussion between attorneys, not between staff members” which must be conducted “in person or on the telephone.”[7] This requirement promotes real-time dialogue and substantive engagements. Unfortunately, not all courts have adopted similarly clear standards.
Federal practice offers a longer and more developed framework. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) (“Rule 26(f)”) requires parties to meet “as soon as practicable” to discuss claims and defenses, settlement potential, preservation of electronically stored information, privilege issues, and discovery limits.[8] Rule 26(f) is designed to expedite discovery and reduce the need for judicial intervention.[9] Relatedly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) (“Rule 37(a)(1)”) requires “a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action,” reinforcing the federal courts’ preference for resolving disputes outside of formal motion practice. If an attorney fails to comply and adequately participate in conferral conferences there can be consequences including dismissal, fee shifting, or other sanctions.[10] These provisions underscore the federal judiciary’s commitment to efficiency and meaningful conferral.
Although Rule 1.202 appears intended to mirror the federal rules, the federal rules go further by providing clearer procedures and there is a longer history of judicial interpretation for practitioners to rely upon. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(2), for example, authorizes a court to order parties to confer in person, underscoring judicial flexibility in enforcing meaningful dialogue. District courts across the country have also clarified what constitutes an adequate conferral. Many require more than written communication, and some even require more than a phone call.[11]
Illustrative decisions include Greenwood v. Point Meadows Place Condominium Ass’n, Inc., where the Middle District of Florida held that a single letter “detailing the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses” insufficient to satisfy the meet and confer requirement, and denied the motion to compel on that basis alone.[12] In Racine v. PHW Las Vegas, LLC, the court found that one letter followed by emails did not constitute “meaningful” discussion.[13] Similarly, in Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp., two telephone calls of unspecified duration were insufficient to satisfy conference requirements.[14] These cases illustrate that federal courts generally expect substantive, real-time engagement rather than perfunctory or symbolic efforts.
While federal courts themselves are not all uniform in their interpretations,[15], their interpretations provide useful guidance for Florida attorneys adapting to the new Rule 1.202 and its conferral requirements.
Rule 1.202’s newness, breadth, and novelty also raise concerns about whether it will achieve its efficiency goals. Courts have had little time to interpret the Rule or develop consistent enforcement standards. In the absence of specific guidance—such as that provided by the Eleventh Judicial Circuit’s Complex Business Litigation Section—some attorneys may exploit ambiguity to delay proceedings rather than streamline them. Common tactics include scheduling gamesmanship, such as claiming perpetual unavailability or pushing conferences far into the future, as well as relying on superficial communications, like last-minute emails or form letters, and characterizing them as “conferral” despite the absence of substantive discussion. These practices undermine the rule’s purpose of conserving judicial resources and resolving disputes efficiently.
The consequences for such conduct vary widely in state court, as judges may differ in their interpretations of Rule 1.202 and their tolerance for noncompliance. This lack of uniformity may embolden some attorneys to disregard the rule’s spirit, particularly where penalties are inconsistently imposed.
Ultimately, while Rule 1.202’s meet and confer requirement is intended to streamline litigation and reduce court involvement, its effectiveness is constrained by inconsistent enforcement and the absence of uniform standards. Adoption of clearer expectations from the courts and consistent enforcement of penalties would better ensure that attorneys engage in good-faith conferral. Federal rules and case law provide limited guidance, but Florida-specific procedures are necessary. Clear directives from the Supreme Court outlining acceptable conferral practices and corresponding penalties would better equip trial courts to hold parties and counsel accountable and would further the rule’s underlying goals.
Ali S. Iftikhar is a Senior Attorney at, Barakat + Bossa, PLLC in Coral Gables, whose work primarily focuses on matters involving complex commercial and business litigation, construction and aviation. As a seasoned litigator, he has assisted clients in a wide variety of cases in both State and Federal court throughout Florida and in other states. Mr. Iftikhar can be contacted at aiftikhar@b2b.legal or (305) 444-3114.
[1] In Re Amendments to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.510 and New Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.202, No. SC2024-0662, at 2 (Fla. Dec. 5, 2024) (effective Jan. 1, 2025).
[2] citation
[3] Id.
[4] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 (d).
[5] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 (a).
[6] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.202 (b).
[7] Complex Business Litigation Section Procedures, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, Fla., § 4.3 (rev. Jan. 2017). https://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/cblrulesrevised1219pm.pdf.
[8] Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3).
[9] Bloomberg Law, Litigation, Overview– Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer: Discovery, Bloomberg Law, Sep. 9, 2025, https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X5H5DM4O000000/litigation-overview-rule-26-f-meet-and-confer-discovery.
[10] Id.
[11] Nicholas Gaglio & Aaron Feigenbaum, Satisfying the “Meet and Confer” Requirement in Federal Court, ABA J., Jan. 28, 2013, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/litigation/resources/newsletters/pretrial-practice-discovery/satisfying-meet-confer-requirement-federal-court/.
[12] Greenwood v. Point Meadows Place Condominium Ass’n, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-1183-J-34TEM, 2011 WL 5358682, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2011).
[13] Racine v. PHW Las Vegas, LLC, No. 2:10-CV-01651-LDG -V, 2012 WL 6089182, at *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2012)
[14] Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp., No. 09-cv-2381-JWL, 2011 WL 3880830, at **1–2 (D. Kan. Aug. 31, 2011).
[15] Gaglio & Feigenbaum, supra note 10.