Emerging Litigation Podcast

Episode: Resolving Business Disputes Without Burning Bridges

Featuring: Judge Alan Fine

Host: Tom Hagy
Released: October 1, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode explores how businesses can resolve disputes while preserving valuable relationships. Host Tom Hagy chats with retired Florida Circuit Judge Alan Fine, who shares his perspective on steering companies away from "scorched earth" legal tactics and toward methods like mediation, arbitration, and private judging—options that aim to resolve conflicts efficiently and amicably. Drawing on decades in commercial litigation, Judge Fine provides practical advice for parties and attorneys alike, while also explaining the nuances and benefits of newer alternatives to traditional courtroom litigation, including the concept of private judging.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Preserving Business Relationships in Disputes

• Many business disputes occur between ongoing partners or parties that may want to work together in the future. Judge Fine emphasizes the importance of identifying whether the preservation of the relationship is a goal at the outset.

  • Quote:

    "What I try to figure out is whether or not there is a possibility of preserving future business and if so, guiding... the parties in their choice of a dispute resolution mechanism."
    — Judge Fine [03:29]

• Not all counsel start the process with preservation in mind. Fine tries to steer discussions early to clarify objectives.

  • Quote:

    "Sometimes...counsel are attuned to the goal of preserving a business relationship. But not always."
    — Judge Fine [03:29]

2. Choosing Between Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation

• Contracts often pre-determine the dispute channel, but parties can mutually agree to alternative approaches at any time.

  • Quote:

    "Whatever was agreed to before is always subject to a new agreement."
    — Judge Fine [05:15]

• Mediation is highlighted as a preferred starting point.

  • Quote:

    "I always encourage mediation right from the beginning of the dispute, because even if it doesn't resolve the dispute, it can serve as a basis to make whatever process you pick more efficient."
    — Judge Fine [15:01]

3. Dealing with Aggressive (Warrior-Style) Attorneys

• Judge Fine distinguishes between “litigators” and “trial lawyers,” noting that strategies often depend on whether attorneys are preparing for trial or primarily navigating pre-trial processes.

  • Quote:

    "Litigators...don't go to trial very often...Trial lawyers are always thinking about how is this case going to be tried?"
    — Judge Fine [05:57]

• Judges or neutrals can only suggest more conciliatory approaches; ultimate decisions rest with the parties.

4. Private Judging Explained

• Now available in 30+ states, private judging lets parties transfer their case to a privately selected judge (not necessarily a former judge), offering greater flexibility, speed, and, in some cases, subject matter expertise.

  • Quote:

    "It allows parties to agree...to transfer the case to a judge that they select, a person who they feel confident can act as their judge."
    — Judge Fine [07:26]

• The process keeps standard procedural rules but feels like "concierge justice."

  • Quote:

    "Think of it as concierge justice...Parties can get their motions heard very quickly, get rulings out quickly, and then the case is specially set for trial."
    — Judge Fine [08:30]

5. Confidentiality: Arbitration vs. Private Judging

• Arbitration proceedings and results are private, except if court enforcement is needed.

  • Quote:

    "Arbitrations are confidential, and the result is confidential, unless one side has to confirm the award in order to enforce it."
    — Judge Fine [10:00]

• Private judging proceedings are public, especially in states like California; planned revisions in Florida seek to clarify this. For confidentiality, parties should choose arbitration or mediation.

6. Efficiencies & Practicalities of Private Judging

• Quicker hearings and decisions, selection of subject matter experts as judges, faster trial scheduling, and avoidance of courtroom backlogs.

  • Quote:

    "Your judge doesn't have 1500 or 2000 other cases...You have your hearings more quickly...the case is specially set for trial."
    — Judge Fine [09:12], [13:45]

• Minimizes costs of repeated trial preparation caused by rescheduling.

  • Quote:

    "It's very expensive to gear up like that and then not go...You have to dust it off, get back into it..."
    — Judge Fine [13:28]

7. Appellate Rights in Private Judging

• In Florida, legal rulings are appealable, but currently factual findings are not (pending legislative revision).
  • Quote:

    "The findings of that judge are not appealable. And the only thing you can appeal are the legal rulings..."
    — Judge Fine [13:54]

8. Real-World Example: Preserving a $ Multimillion Business Partnership

• Judge Fine recounts a fast-track arbitration he conducted between long-time business partners who valued their ongoing relationship.
  • Both sides agreed on an expedited, discovery-free arbitration.
  • Matter was handled efficiently, with the dispute resolved quickly and amicably—preserving a “big business” relationship.
  • Quote:

    "They resisted the urge to go to war and blow up their business...They both felt it was a matter of principle, but they did understand the importance of preserving the relationship."
    — Judge Fine [20:03]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On “Concierge Justice”:
  • "Think of it as concierge justice, where parties can get their motions heard very quickly... You're never on a trial calendar with a lot of other cases." — Judge Fine [08:30]
• On the Importance of Negotiation:
  • "You always have the opportunity to negotiate if you have a willing partner on the other side." — Judge Fine [15:01]
• On Shocking Experiences as a Judge:
  • Judge Fine shares an unexpected and complex case of a criminal defendant returning from Cuba to stand trial, and a victim's atypical testimony, showing the human complexity in courts. [16:25–17:37]
• On the Unpredictability of Law:
  • "We think of these situations as the adult grooming the child. She got up and testified that's not the way this one was. I think that was the most shocking experience of my life." — Judge Fine [17:31]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:34] Guest introduction and origins of Judge Fine's judicial career
• [03:29] Preserving business relationships during disputes
• [05:08] Deciding among mediation, arbitration, litigation
• [05:57] Handling aggressive attorneys & the importance of objectives
• [07:26] What is private judging?
• [09:12] Advantages of private judging—"concierge justice"
• [10:00] Arbitration vs. private judging—confidentiality explained
• [13:28] Efficiencies and inefficiencies in trial scheduling
• [13:54] Appeals in private judging: current and proposed statutory standards
• [15:01] Mediation as a key process for efficiency and negotiation
• [16:25] Memorable courtroom experience (criminal case anecdote)
• [19:29] The unreliability of eyewitness testimony
• [20:03] Business partners avoid “war,” arbitrate quickly, preserve relationship

Tone & Style

The discussion is professional yet conversational, blending legal expertise with practical stories from the field. Judge Fine communicates with clarity and patience, balancing technical explanation and real-world anecdotes. Tom Hagy brings humor and an easy rapport, making the topic accessible without sacrificing depth.

Summary Takeaways

• Start every business dispute with the question: is the relationship worth preserving?
• Mediation is almost always worth trying, as it enhances process efficiency and understanding, even if it does not resolve every issue.
• Private judging offers fast, customizable, and often more efficient justice, but is public and has distinct appellate options.
• Arbitration is private and flexible, good for confidentiality, but rarely subject to appeal.
• Always keep negotiation on the table—resolution doesn’t mean burning bridges.
• The choice of dispute resolution needs to be tailored to both the facts of a dispute and the goals of the parties.