Miami’s First Private Trial in a Public Courtroom Brought Certainty to a Delayed Estate Dispute

After years of litigation between a prominent South Florida business owner and the estate of a former chief financial officer, both sides were ready for trial. The problem was getting there.

As with many complex cases, this high-stakes contract dispute was subject to the realities of a crowded docket. Trial had been pushed and appeared destined to be pushed again, unless the parties were willing to proceed on fragmented days spread over several weeks.

For a dispute involving thousands of documents, disputed ownership interests and competing accounts of who, if anyone, was personally responsible for a $10 million payment, that was not a workable path.

“When there are multiple trial continuances or delays, it’s almost not fair. These delays were outside of the court’s control, but the situation felt unfair to the client,” said Miami-based attorney Sabrina Zarco of Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, who represented the defendant while at Berger Singerman. “When you’re preparing for these trials, there’s a lot of time that goes into it. And at any firm, time is money.”

Requiring the parties to repeatedly prepare for trial, only to pause and resume weeks later, would have meant duplicative work, increased costs and prolonged uncertainty for the client. It was also a burden on the court, which would have had to repeatedly shift its attention between this case and hundreds or thousands of others on its docket, rather than hear the matter straight through.

Rather than proceed under those constraints, the parties opted for a different approach: voluntary trial resolution before former Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Alan Fine.‍

Private judge, public courtroom

Voluntary trial resolution offered a way forward in Parello v. Soffer.  

Under Florida law, the voluntary trial resolution process allows parties to have their case tried by a person they select who is not a sitting circuit court judge.  The structure remains largely the same: witnesses testify, all filings are made through Florida’s e-filing system, and final judgments remain appealable.

The difference is that the parties select the judge and, critically, set a firm trial date.

For plaintiffs’ counsel Steven Katzman of Katzman Wasserman Bennardini & Rubinstein in Boca Raton, the decision was not about avoiding the court process.

“There was no desire to avoid the good judge that we already had,” Katzman said. “But this case had gone on for a few years now, and we kept getting kicked down the road on trial dates.”

Zarco said the predictability alone was a game-changer.

“Just to have the certainty of knowing when you’re going brings a lot of peace of mind, as well as being cost-effective,” Zarco said. “But ultimately, it was the client’s decision.”

The parties selected Judge Fine, who served in Miami-Dade Circuit Court from 2013 to 2023, including in the Complex Business Litigation Division. Unlike the public docket, where judges must manage hundreds or thousands of cases at once, Fine was able to devote focused time to a single matter.

Despite being privately selected, Fine oversaw the trial in a public courtroom — marking the first time a private judge had done so in Miami.

“We were so pleasantly surprised that Judge Fine was able to make the arrangements to try the case in an actual courtroom, with the necessary support resources,” Katzman said. “This is a real trial in front of a real judge in a black robe who is focusing on my case.”

‘Everybody was all in’

“Truly, even before the result, I was sharing with other people how efficient and great the process was overall,” Zarco said. “Everybody was all in. The clients got the full attention of the lawyers, of the court staff, of the judge as the fact finder, and it's hard to get that undivided attention.”

Katzman said he’s found that the voluntary trial resolution process is especially effective for complex matters involving significant amounts in controversy, including securities fraud, partnership disputes, contract disputes and multiparty cases with claims, counterclaims and crossclaims.

It is not appropriate for every case. Cost is a real consideration, particularly where the amount in controversy does not justify the expense. Appellate rights may also differ from a traditional public trial and should be evaluated carefully.

But for the right case, both sides saw clear advantages: certainty, efficiency, focused preparation and a true courtroom trial.

As Katzman put it, “When you have the right circumstance, although the outcome is not guaranteed, knowing that the quality of the process is guaranteed is a very compelling reason to use the private judge process and statute.”

Practical lessons from the case

This matter offers several takeaways for lawyers and clients considering voluntary trial resolution:

Voluntary trial resolution is best suited for cases where delay itself creates strategic or financial strain. The process may not make sense for every matter, particularly where the amount in controversy does not justify the added expense.
‍
‍Complex cases benefit from early issue-framing. When the key disputes are identified early in the proceedings, attorneys can refine their arguments around the questions most likely to drive the outcome.

‍Procedural efficiency can shape the trajectory of the case. By resolving logistical issues outside of trial time (including the review of certain deposition testimony), the parties were able to focus courtroom time on genuinely disputed issues.

‍Judge selection matters. In a voluntary trial resolution proceeding, the parties are selecting the person who will manage the pace of the litigation, interpret the evidence and ultimately decide the case. This makes subject-matter familiarity, case-management style and judicial temperament especially important considerations. Active judicial engagement can provide valuable insight into which arguments are resonating and which are not.