Are You Looking for Background and Ron's Writings Shaping the Uniform Mediation Act?

 


Please Note: This page provides a history of key issues in two years of nationwide lobbying and organizing to shape the Act. This effort was largely successful. Many of the problems identified in the requests below were fixed, and are not problems in the current UMA. Index below runs from most recent to earliest.

 


 

Summary of Recent Changes and Problems

[Superseded 2/9/01]

Hello Fellow UMA Followers,

LAST CHANCE for comments to UMA Drafting Committees before their final scheduled drafting meeting - February 9 in New Orleans. PLEASE review the latest draft carefully and submit your detailed comments. The Committees request comments by JANUARY 30.

Following is a summary of major changes (mostly positive) made at the Florida UMA drafting meeting December 1-3, 2000. Please feel free to forward this as you see fit.

Yours, Ron Kelly

At the December 2000 meeting the UMA drafters:

1. Agreed to expand the Act's coverage to include evidence of criminal felony in specific programs to be selected by each state (Sec. 5 b).

2. Promoted candor by all mediation participants (non-party, quasi-party, potential future party, etc.) by providing a limited privilege to block later admission of their own communications (Sec. 5 a 4).

3. Provided that to be admitted in evidence "records of agreement" must now be signed by the parties (not flip chart notes, mediator notes, etc.) (Sec. 8 a 1).

4. Expressly excluded the Act's application to "conferences conducted by a judge exercising judicial authority" (they intend to say that these are not mediations under the Act - this new wording is subject to gross misinterpretation, however, and should be changed to state clearly that these proceedings are not mediations under this act). (Sec. 4 b 3)

***5. Removed the in camera hearing/balancing test for claims of misconduct/malpractice against mediator, party or representatives - so these actions now have no protection. You must still, however, have an in camera hearing before compelling the mediator to testify against a party or representative in a misconduct/malpractice claim (Sec. 8, a 7 and b 1).

***6. Widened ability to challenge validity or enforceability of settlement to include all normal contract defenses, and now anyone may call the mediator to testify about the formation of the settlement (if judge orders it after balancing test) (Sec. 8 b 2)

7. Allowed a mediator to report child abuse to a public agency which protects against it without violating ban on mediator reporting to a court or other authority which makes rulings (Sec. 9 d 5 which is actually Sec. 9 d 3).

8. Provided that - if parties want to petition a court for expedited enforcement they must all jointly request it, that mediator's signature no longer required, that the section is optional for each state, and that the drafting committees will recommend the conference not adopt this expedited enforcement section at all (Sec. 11).

9. Removed former Section 12 covering which other sections the parties may and may not expand by agreement.

 This is your last opportunity to help mold the Uniform Mediation Act into the best shape it can be. Lots of good progress over the past year. UMA appears headed to becoming the law of the land in a lot of states. Several remaining problems, so please stay with it.

 Most prominent problem created by the recent Florida changes is that people must now treat their mediator as a potential witness against them. The previous draft provided that if parties reached a mediated settlement agreement, then challenged its validity in court, they could not subpoena the mediator to describe who said what to whom in the mediation. The point was to enable people to talk candidly with their mediator without worrying that the mediator would become a witness against them later.

 At the Florida meeting, drafters voted to remove a previous protection against mediators testifying when someone challenges a mediation settlement later. In the new Section 8 b 2, they also expanded the basis for admitting evidence to include any "claim or defense recognized by law as sufficient to set aside, rescind, or reform a contract". The previous draft permitted people to challenge the validity of a settlement with evidence other than the mediator's testimony or reports. Reinstating the clause "if offered through evidence provided by an individual other than a mediator" from the August draft would be a very significant improvement. If enough people agree and say so, this protection might be reinstated.

 Your comments on the latest draft due January 30. Send comments at least to

 Click here for latest UMA draft (December), email addresses for key drafters, your state's Uniform Law Commissioners, archives of the central issues from the past two years of lobbying and organizing work, and more.Thanks for helping to shape the future of the field. Your involvement has had, and will continue to have, a very large impact.

 Yours,
Ron Kelly

PS I'd appreciate a copy of your comments. Also, if clicking on the website address above doesn't work in your email program, try copying that line, going to "open location" or similar words in your browser's file menu, and pasting it in. RK

 


 

Letter to UMA Drafters Identifying Key Positive Aspects and Remaining Problems in Current Draft

October 10, 2000

Hon. Michael B. Getty, Chair, NCCUSL Drafting Committee

Ms. Roberta Cooper Ramo, Co-Chair, ABA Dispute Resolution Section Drafting Committee

Hon. Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Co-Chair, ABA Dispute Resolution Section Drafting Committee

Professors Nancy Rogers and Richard Reuben, Project Reporters, NCCUSL/ABA Uniform Mediation Act Project

c/o National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

211 E. Ontario St. Suite 1300

Chicago, IL 60611

 

Re: August 2000 Draft of the Uniform Mediation Act

SUPPORT and REQUESTED CHANGES

 

Dear Chairman Getty, Co-Chairs Ramo and Moyer, Members of the ABA/NCCUSL Uniform Mediation Act Drafting Committees, and Committee Reporters,

 

SUPPORT FOR ENACTMENT. I am deeply appreciative that the Drafting Committees have been so responsive to public input, especially from those who actually practice mediation, and that there are now so many positive aspects to the proposed Uniform Mediation Act. Among these are:

1) establishing both an evidenciary exclusion in Section 5 and privileges in Sections 6 and 7, enabling mediation participants to speak candidly without fear of their own words being used against them in later court or similar proceedings,

2) providing in Section 8 that a waiver of these protections must be express not implied,

3) providing in Section 7 that a mediator may refuse to become a later witness against any mediation participant,

4) extending these protections in Section 3 (4) to cover the initial intake and case development discussions which are an integral part of the mediation process,

5) the clear statement in Section 3 (3) that a mediator may be a person from any profession or background, and perhaps most importantly,

6) the clear statutory prohibition in Section 10, stating that a mediator may not misuse what has been disclosed to him or her in confidence to prejudice a party's later rights in court by reporting the mediator's own opinions to a judge or other adjudicator.

 

Given the enormous progress made, I now believe that enactment of the UMA would be an important step forward in the many states that do not already have even stronger statutory protections for the integrity of the mediation process.

 

THREE CURRENT DRAFTING PROBLEMS. Unfortunately, there are still three places where I must respectfully request that serious problems with the language in the current draft be corrected.

 

1) NEW LANGUAGE UNDERCUTS PURPOSE - Section 5 (b).

New language makes the current draft read "A mediation communication that is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected from discovery solely by reason of its use in a mediation."

This draft's sudden change to using the new phrase "A mediation communication" in this section throws the entire scope of the confidentiality protections into a state of confusion. This must be changed. The intent of this section is to make it clear that evidence created outside the mediation proceeding, such as a preexisting document, does not become inadmissible simply by putting it on the table or referring to it in a mediation. This intent is completely non-controversial. As currently phrased in this draft, however, this clause would contradict the agreed central purpose of the Act.

 

The model for this language is the provision in Federal Rule of Evidence 408 on compromise negotiations. A current draft of 408 uses the proper term which is "evidence" . It states "This rule does not require the exclusion of any evidence otherwise discoverable merely because it is presented in the course of compromise negotiations." The UMA should use the same term - "evidence".

 

REQUESTED CHANGE: Replace the phrase "A mediation communication that is otherwise admissible..." with "Evidence that is otherwise admissible..."

 

2) EXCEPTION TOO BROAD FOR "RECORD OF AGREEMENT" - Section 9 (a).

The current draft says "There is no privilege or prohibition against disclosure under Section 5, 6, or 7:

1) for a record of an agreement between two or more parties;..."

 

This proposed language is dangerously loose. This section's intent is to ensure that parties who intend to enter into binding settlement agreements, agreements to mediate, etc. may enforce these agreements if necessary. Section 3 (6) however, defines a "record" to include anything written or tape-recorded and could be interpreted to include almost any flip chart notes, mediator records, or other documents produced in the course of mediation.

 

Suppose the disputants don't reach a final settlement and they go to court. One makes a disputed claim that in the mediation they agreed on several facts, and on resolutions of some of their issues. 9(a)(1) could be interpreted to mean disputants can subpoena any alleged "record of agreement" including the mediator's notes or flip chart records of any facts, figures, partial terms or anything else alleged to have been agreed on in the mediation. They may even subpoena the mediator to testify about them, and claim this falls under an exception to privilege.

 

Trying to help parties agree on things is the essence of mediation. Do you really want mediation participants to think they are creating potential evidence any time anyone writes on the flip chart or makes notes of anything anyone supposedly agrees about? This would completely undercut candor and goes entirely contrary to the central purpose of the Act. 9 (a)(1) should be carefully narrowed to make records of agreements admissible only when disputants clearly intend to be agreeing to mediate or signing a settlement which they intend to be binding.

 

REQUESTED CHANGE: Change Section 9 (a) (1) to read:

"There is no privilege or prohibition against disclosure under Section 5, 6, or 7:

1) for an agreement to mediate, or for a written settlement agreement between two or more parties which is signed by those parties and which clearly states their intent that the agreement be admissible, enforceable, or binding ;...".

 

3) EXPEDITED ENFORCEMENT SHOULD NOT DEPEND ON MEDIATOR SIGNING AGREEMENT - Section 12 (a)

The current draft says "Parties entering into a mediated settlement agreement evidenced by a record executed by the parties, their attorneys, and the mediator may petition the [É.] court to enter a judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement, provided that..."

 

Mediators should not be required to become signatories to settlement agreements which parties want to enforce under this section. This section establishes a process for expedited enforcement of a mediated settlement as if it were a court judgment, with appropriate safeguards (any party may object for any reason, they must have counsel to explain the legal implications, and their counsel must sign the settlement, etc.).

 

The mediator is definitely not a party to the dispute, nor to any settlement the parties reach. Requiring the legal representatives of the parties to sign is entirely different that requiring the neutral mediator to "execute" the settlement to obtain expedited enforcement. It is a very serious mistake to give mediators the power to either bless or withhold expedited enforcement of a settlement. Further, the Act should not create any additional basis for a court to insist that the mediator (as a signer) testify about how a settlement should be interpreted. The mediator's testimony will inevitably benefit one side or the other.

 

REQUESTED CHANGE: Eliminate the phrase "and the mediator"

 

 

TROUBLING HOLES IN PROTECTIONS. There remain overall aspects of the Uniform Mediation Act which are deeply troubling. They deserve a lot of thought and discussion by everyone who cares about shaping the way our society will voluntarily resolve disputes in the future. The first is that there are approximately twelve different areas where the UMA intentionally excludes protections for mediation, and apparently voids even express agreements by parties to extend inadmissibility to these areas. The second related issue is the insistence on making the mediator a witness against parties in later trials in these areas.

 

1) DENIAL OF PROTECTIONS - Sections 3, 4, 9, and 13. The current draft intentionally denies protection to many types of mediation, many specific mediation communications, and many potential mediation participants that would otherwise benefit greatly from candid discussions in mediation. Proponents of these dozen exceptions and exclusions view certain mediation communications as evidence. They believe this evidence must be preserved for use in trial. Many of the exceptions and exclusions seem appropriate if viewed from the standpoint of preserving potential evidence which already exists. For instance, surely everyone would want to preserve evidence of elder abuse. In the real world, however, this "evidence" will never be created in the first place if people know they are creating evidence which could be used later against themselves. The effect in many of these areas will simply be to eliminate the candor which makes voluntary resolution possible.

 

The newly proposed Section 13 even codifies this denial of protections stating "(a) The parties cannot by agreement expand the scope of the [Act]... (b) The parties and mediator cannot by agreement expand the protections of the privileges provided....(d) The parties cannot by agreement waive the exceptions..."

 

Think about just a couple of examples of situations where enactment of the current draft of the Uniform Mediation Act would reduce the candor and undercut the voluntary resolutions which confidential mediations now produce in many states.

 

Look at mediation of one of the most common commercial disputes - a construction lawsuit between an owner and a contractor. In some states the confidentiality protections apply to all mediation participants, not just parties to the dispute as the UMA proposes. In these states (like mine) you can get the candid participation of third parties not yet named as parties to the dispute. The architect, for instance, is often a key player in providing information about what happened, what would really fix the problem, etc. Sometimes you also get expert witnesses to work together. You want their candid off-the-record insights about specific facts or potential repairs different than their full-blown court expert reports might say are required.

 

The current UMA draft's choice to give a privilege only to a "party" seems logical at first. But many desirable participants in mediation, like the architect in this example, are not willing to voluntarily define themselves as parties to the dispute at this stage, if they are not already named. That means that if they come to the mediation, anything they say may be used against them in court later if the owner and contractor decide to cooperate in suing the architect (and/or any other third party). Since third parties may later be named in a lawsuit if the matter does not settle, they will be advised by counsel not to participate candidly and probably not to participate at all.

 

Compounding this problem, anyone who might later be accused of "professional misconduct" in the mediation, including the architect, any licensed expert witness, any mediator, and any attorney, must also assume they are always speaking on the record in mediation. If anyone wants to later make any claim of "professional misconduct" against any of them based on their statements in mediation, the current UMA draft makes these admissible under the nonwaiveable exception in 9 (b).

 

Look at a second example of denied protections in a very common family situation. Picture a limited-means woman trying her best to care for her aged mother in her own home rather than sending her to the county nursing home. She is attempting a mediation with her mother and a concerned sibling who believes mother might do better in the nursing home. Under the current UMA draft, the woman cannot talk candidly with her mother or concerned sibling or even the mediator about any time she got overstressed and told her mother to feed herself, or may have roughly pushed her mother into her room. Any statement the woman makes, or her mother makes, in these areas might be used later against her in court to assert elder neglect. 9(a)(5) says there is no protection for "a mediation communication offered to prove...neglect [of an]... elderly adult protected by law."

 

Even if all participants want to agree in writing to fully confidential mediation of their problems in caring for an elderly parent, the proposed Section 13 would apparently void their agreement to inadmissibility. The proposed task force's additions (6, 3, c) might allow limited confidentiality. But this would only apply after the sibling actually brought an official complaint of elder abuse, or in a government program specifically set up to mediate these cases (if such a thing is actually established nearby) .

 

REQUESTED ACTION:

Carefully review the chilling effect on candor in the dozen areas where protection is deliberately denied.Carefully review the proposed Section 13 voiding parties' agreements to extend the Act's inadmissibility protections in these areas.

 

2) MEDIATOR SHOULD NOT BE A WITNESS AGAINST PARTIES LATER. The full NCCUSL Conference has just adopted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. This provides that arbitrators shall not become witnesses against anyone in later proceedings, or be required to provide their records. Section 14(d) states "In any judicial, administrative, or similar proceeding, an arbitrator or representative of an arbitration organization is not competent to testify or required to produce records as to any statement, conduct, decision, or ruling occurring during the arbitration proceeding to the same extent as a judge of a court of this State acting in a judicial capacity." Only two exceptions apply.

 

The UMA should contain the same language.There are compelling reasons why mediators, along with judges and arbitrators, should not become later witnesses. All states should adopt a statute providing that the mediator is incompetent to testify against any party later in court or in any other adjudicative proceedings (with appropriate exceptions). Once a mediator has received confidential communications from either side, once a mediator has been influenced by these communications which the other side has not heard, that mediator should not be able to go into court and testify against either party. As the Federal Ninth Circuit Court found in the Macaluso case (please see below), mediator testimony will inevitably tend to benefit one side over the other. Most importantly, a mediator should not be permitted to hint in confidential caucus that the mediator will make a really good witness for the other side if a certain proposed resolution is not accepted.

 

The mediator will always be an attractive potential witness where disputes do not settle. Both sides often develop a good relationship with the mediator. Each side naturally tends to believe the mediator's testimony will support its position. Judges find the neutral mediator the most credible witness. Unfortunately, the Drafting Committees have so far consistently refused widespread requests to add UMA language similar to the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act.

 

The current UMA draft appears to provide protection against a mediator receiving confidential information in caucus and then using this to testify against a party. Section 6 provides that either party may exercise their privilege to prevent "mediation communications" from coming in. Section 7 provides the mediator with an independent privilege to refuse to repeat statements made in mediation. But the UMA protection only uses the word "statements", whereas the Arbitration Act protections apply to "statements, "conduct" and "records". And none of the UMA protections would apply at all in the numerous situations deliberately excluded from coverage by the dozen exceptions and scope exclusions. Further, in the UMA hearings we heard the representative of the US Justice Department state that federal attorneys were being ordered by judges to waive their privileges, and that even the federal government attorneys felt they could not refuse.

 

From the beginnings of these hearings, the Drafting Committees have been urged by the mediation community to adopt language providing testimonial incompetency like that provided to arbitrators under the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act. Many people still believe that this is a crucial protection for the integrity of both the mediation process and due process in a later trial. The California Legislature unanimously adopted this protection in 1992. The following statement regarding our code is from my March 16, 1999 letter to the Drafting Committees, citing the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Ninth Circuit Court decisions on this issue. It still applies.

 

Cal Ev. Code Sec. 703.5 additionally guarantees that no mediator can testify for or against any party later in a civil proceeding if the matter does not settle. This is considered a critical protection guaranteeing the neutrality of the mediator and the process. As argued by counsel for California's State Mediation and Conciliation Service, the National Labor Relations Board and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that "the complete exclusion of mediator testimony is necessary" for effective mediation. (NLRB v. Macaluso, 618 F.Ed 51 (9th Cur. 1980), cited in the Draft"s Reporter"s Notes page 8, line 8) Sec. 703.5 states in relevant part that "...no mediator shall be competent to testify, in any subsequent civil proceeding, as to any statement, conduct, decision or ruling, occurring at or in conjunction with the prior proceeding, except as to [one]...that could...constitute a crime...or give rise to disqualification..."

 

REQUESTED ACTION:

Add a section with language similar to the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act Section 14(d)., Guarantee that a mediator will not later become a witness against any party in mediation (with appropriate safeguards) and will not be forced to produce mediator records.

 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and for the continuing work of the Drafting Committees.

 

Yours sincerely,

 Ron Kelly

2731 Webster St.

Berkeley, CA 94705

510-843-6074

 

Last Chance on UMA Problems?

 

Do you know what it would do to your mediations if the current Uniform Mediation Act became law tomorrow in your state? The UMA aims to change the way your state defines mediation, what the confidentiality protections are, how mediations are conducted, and how settlements may be enforced.

 

Do you know that the last scheduled meeting of the UMA drafting committees is taking place March 31- April 2? Final adoption is scheduled for later this year. Please read and analyze the latest draft carefully (March 2000). No one else may catch the implications of what you spot. Please immediately point out problems to the drafting committee members and to your organizations. This may be your last chance. Full text, contact information for key drafters and your state's Uniform Law Commissioners, background information and more at

 

Here are just three examples of apparently serious problems with the language of the current draft:

 

1) Section 8(a)(1) says confidentiality protections won't exist for "a record of agreement between two or more disputants". Section 3 (g) says a record includes anything written or tape-recorded. Suppose the disputants don't reach a final settlement and they go to court. 8(a)(1) could be interpreted to mean disputants can subpoena everyone's notes or flip chart records of the facts or figures they supposedly agreed on. Do you really want mediation participants to think they are creating evidence any time anyone makes notes of anything said? Shouldn't the proposed statutory language be carefully narrowed to clearly admit only those agreements the disputants make when they clearly intend to be speaking on the record or signing an admissible settlement?

 

2) Section 4(b)(1) currently says the Act "shall not apply to the mediation of disputes arising under, out of, or relating to a collective bargaining relationship..." This could be interpreted to mean a workplace mediation isn't confidential under the act if the dispute involves a union member. Suppose you are a meditator in a university or agency or corporate mediation program. You are mediating an alleged harassment dispute involving both unionized and nonunion employees. Do different laws apply depending on who is in the room at any given time? Is everything said on the record? Doesn't this need to be clear?

 

3) Section 8(a)(6) currently says there is no confidentiality protection "for mediation communications in a pretrial conference conducted by a judge or other judicial officer who may make or inform rulings on the subject matter of the mediation". Won't some judges interpret this to mean they can order you to repeat everything said in mediation? How will it affect mediation if everyone thinks the mediator will be providing an evaluation of whose case has merit or which discovery motions should be approved? Some courts did set up mediation programs which required mediators to submit secret reports to the judge on exactly these issues. Section 7(b) tries to guarantee that the mediator remains neutral and does not report to the judge the mediators opinion of who should win or lose or who admitted what in the mediation. The enormous exception in the current 8(a)(6) could be interpreted to seriously undercut this important protection. Your mediator will be a very credible source of information against you. Shouldn't 8(a)(6) be eliminated or rewritten?

 

Please believe that you need to make time to read this draft very carefully yourself, very soon. Don't think someone else will catch everything and fix it. Again, this could be your last chance.


 

Ron's Comments on 1/20/00 UMA Draft

January 20, 2000

Chairman Michael Getty

NCCUSL and ABA Drafting Committees on the Uniform Mediation Act

211 East Ontario St. Ste. 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60611

 

Re: Requested Revisions to January 2000 UMA Draft

Dear Chairman Getty,

This latest January draft is a vast improvement over previous drafts. I am genuinely impressed with the willingness of the Drafting Committees to make major changes to the December Draft at our last meeting in Monterey. I hope that a similar openness prevails at the January meeting.

I must however, also express my deep disappointment that you would bar public distribution of this January Draft until only five working days remain before the Drafting Committee meeting January 28. Five days is clearly insufficient time for the public to find out about this draft, distribute it to affected mediators and users, obtain comments, draft responses and transmit them to the Committees for consideration. If the NCCUSL Executive Director's statement at the December meeting is accurate, this is the last drafting committee meeting at which substantive changes will be seriously considered. The final meeting in March, he said, is for the purpose of polishing and finalizing the draft before it goes to the full national conference for final reading.

I respectfully request the following revisions (shown in capital letters) to three key portions of the January Draft, for reasons expressed many times in prior letters and at hearings. The general point is that to be effective, mediation confidentiality must be certain, predictable, and apply to the widest range of mediation communications.

I further respectfully request that you consider amending the Uniform Mediation Act to include sections tracking those in California law cited below. These would include a clear ban on mediators testifying against any party later in court, defining clearly when the evidentiary exclusion for mediation ends, ensuring that all present in a mediation could speak candidly (not just those defined as disputants) and other key aspects deemed necessary for the comprehensive mediation act already adopted in our state.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Kelly, Mediator

2731 Webster St.

Berkeley, CA 94705

510-843-6074

ronkelly@ronkelly.com

***********************************************************

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act:]

(3) "Mediation communication" means ANY statement OR OTHER COMMUNICATION made as part of a mediation. The term SHALL also encompass a communication for purposes of considering, initiating, continuing, or reconvening a mediation or retaining a mediator.

SECTION 2. CONFIDENTIALITY: PRIVILEGE; WAIVER; EVIDENTIARY AND DISCOVERY EXCLUSION; NONDISCLOSURE; EXCEPTIONS.

(b) A mediator has a privilege to (REMOVE CURRENT FOLLOWING BRACKETS TO REINCLUDE MEDIATOR'S CONTROL OF MEDIATOR'S OWN CANDID VOICE MESSAGES, EMAILS, LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC.) refuse to disclose, and to prevent any other person from disclosing, the mediator's mediation communications and may refuse to provide evidence of mediation communications in a civil judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding....

A mediator may not disclose mediation communications unless all PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEDIATION EXPRESSLY agree, IN WRITING. A mediator also may not make ANY report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, or finding OF ANY KIND regarding a mediation, to ANY COURT OR OTHER ADJUDICATIVE BODY, OR TO a judge, agency, or authority that refers the matter to mediation or employs that mediator and that may make rulings on or investigations into the dispute that is the subject of the mediation. NO COURT, ADJUDICATIVE BODY, OR INVESTIGATING AUTHORITY MAY CONSIDER ANY SUCH REPORT BY THE MEDIATOR. THIS PROHIBITION SHALL NOT APPLY TO A REPORT THAT STATES ONLY WHETHER A PARTICIPANT APPEARED AT A MEDIATION AND WHETHER AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED.

(c) Mediation communications are not subject to discovery or admissible in evidence in a civil, arbitration, or administrative tribunal if they are privileged UNDER THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE PROTECTIONS ARE EXPRESSLY waived IN WRITING BY ALL PARTICIPANTS.

*****************************************************************

Significant Points Not Yet Covered by the UMA

Following are relevant excerpts from the California Evidence Code provisions defining and governing mediation. If you are interested in adoptability in California, I urge you to consider why we enacted the following sections, many of which are not yet reflected in the UMA, and to further consider some of our legislative intent language for inclusion in the Reporter's Notes.

§ 703.5 "...no mediator shall be competent to testify, in any subsequent civil proceeding, as to any statement, conduct, decision or ruling, occurring at or in conjunction with the prior proceeding, except as to [one]...that could...constitute a crime...or give rise to disqualification under... § 170.1 [(a) (1) or (6)] of the C.C.P."

§ 1115 Definitions ...(b) "Mediator" means a neutral person who conducts a mediation...[and] includes any person designated by a mediator...to assist...

CLRC Comment ... the definition is broad...it would include a mediation conducted as a number of sessions, only some of which involve the mediator...[it] focuses on the nature of a proceeding, not its label...An attorney or other representative of a party is not neutral and so does not qualify as a "mediator"...A person may be a "mediator" under this chapter even though the person has a different title, such as "ombudsperson." Any person who meets the definition of "mediator" must comply with Sec. 1121...which...prohibits a mediator from reporting to a court or other tribunal...

RK Note: We have seen mediators' case administrators and secretaries subpoenaed to depositions, so we included assistants in the definition of mediator. Is there any protection against this under the current UMA draft? Our legislative intent language is also important here regarding a person's attorney or other representative claiming to "mediate", and regarding the prohibition on mediator reporting (California Law Revision Comments may be considered evidence of legislative intent.)

§ 1117 Scope of Chapter ...(b) This chapter does not apply to...(2) A settlement conference pursuant to Rule 222 of the California Rules of Court.

CLRC Comment ...(b)(2) establishes that a court settlement conference is not a mediation within the scope of this chapter.

§ 1118 Recorded Oral Agreement An oral agreement [must satisfy]...all of the following conditions: (a) The oral agreement is recorded by a...reliable means...(b) The terms...are recited...in the presence of the parties and the mediator, and the parties [agree] on the record...(c) [They] expressly state...that the agreement is enforceable or binding or words to that effect. (d) The recording is reduced to writing and...signed by the parties within 72 hours...

§ 1120 Types of Evidence Not Covered ...(b) This chapter does not limit...(1) The admissibility of an agreement to mediate...[or] (2)...an agreement not to take a default or...to extend the time within which to act...in a pending civil action [or] (3) Disclosure of the mere fact that a mediator has served, is serving, will serve, or was contacted about serving as a mediator in a dispute. CLRC Comment...(b)(3) makes clear that § 1119 does not preclude a disputant from obtaining basic information...which may be significant in selecting an impartial mediator.

§ 1121 Mediator Reports and Communications Neither a mediator nor anyone else may submit to a court or other adjudicative body, and a court or other adjudicative body may not consider, any report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, or finding of any kind by the mediator concerning a mediation conducted by the mediator, other than a report that is mandated by court rule or other law and that states only whether an agreement was reached, unless all parties to the mediation expressly agree otherwise in writing...

CLRC Comment...applies to all types of adjudications, including arbitrations and administrative adjudications,...the focus is on preventing coercion...a mediator should not be able to influence the result of a mediation or adjudication by reporting or threatening to report to the decisionmaker on the merits of the dispute or reasons why mediation failed to resolve it...[A] mediator should not have authority to resolve or decide the mediated dispute, and should not have any function for the adjudicating tribunal with regard to the dispute, except as a non-decisionmaking neutral...A mediator's report...may disclose mediation communications only if...all persons who participate...agree to the disclosure...

§ 1122 Disclosure by Agreement (a) A [mediation] communication...is not made inadmissible...by...this chapter if either...:(1) All persons who conduct or otherwise participate in the mediation expressly agree...[or] (2) The communication...was prepared by or [for]...fewer than all the mediation participants, those participants expressly agree...and the communication...does not disclose anything said or done...in the...mediation. [For expert reports, photos, etc.] (b)...if the neutral person who conducts a mediation...agrees...that agreement also binds any other person [assisting]...

CLRC Comment... mediation...communications may be admitted or disclosed only upon agreement of all participants, including not only parties but also the mediator and other nonparties attending the mediation...Agreement must be express, not implied...[Para.] (a)(2)...only applies [if] those materials [reveal] nothing about the mediation discussion.

RK Note: 1122 (b) was added at the insistence of our State Bar Committee on the Administration of Justice. They argued that expensive expert reports prepared for the mediation should be under the control of the persons paying for them and able to be used in court later - especially if they document conditions since changed.

§ 1123 Written Settlement Agreements Reached Through Mediation A written settlement agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation, is not made inadmissible...if...signed by the settling parties and...[it states that] (a)...it is admissible or subject to disclosure, or...(b)...enforceable or binding or words to that effect. [or] (c) [they]...expressly agree...to its disclosure.[or] (d) [It] is used to show fraud, duress, or illegality...

CLRC Comment For guidance on binding a disputant to a written settlement agreement, see Williams v. Saunders, 55 Cal. App. 4th 1158, 64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 571 (1997) ("The litigants' direct participation tends to ensure that the settlement is the result of their mature reflection and deliberate assent."). See also Ryan v. Garcia, 27 Cal. App. 4th 1006, 1012, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 158, 162 (1994) (Section 1152.5 "provides a simple means by which settlement agreements executed during mediation can be made admissible in later proceedings," i.e., the "parties may consent, as part of a writing...").

§ 1124 Oral Agreements Reached Through Mediation

CLRC Comment... Except in [the above] circumstances, Sections 1119 (mediation confidentiality) and 1124 codify the rule of Ryan v. Garcia...(mediation confidentiality applies to oral statement of settlement terms), and reject the contrary approach of Regents of University of California v. Sumner, 42 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 200 (1996)...

RK Note: Our legislative intent language makes clear that the reasoning used in the Regents of University of California v. Sumner case cited in the UMA Reporter's Notes has been rejected by our legislature.

§ 1125 When Mediation Ends (a) For purposes of confidentiality under this chapter, a mediation ends when...(1) The parties execute a written settlement agreement that fully resolves the dispute [or (b)(1) partially resolves it]. [or] (2) An oral agreement that fully resolves the dispute [or (b)(2) partially resolves it] is reached in accordance with Section 1118. [or] (3) The mediator provides the mediation participants with a writing signed by the mediator that states that the mediation is terminated, or words to that effect, which shall be consistent with Section 1121.[or](4) A party provides the mediator and the other mediation participants with a [similar] writing...In a mediation involving more than two parties, the mediation may continue...[or] (5) For 10 calendar days, there is no communication between the mediator and any of the parties...relating to the dispute. The mediator and the parties may [modify this]...by agreement.

RK Note: Defining when the evidentiary exclusion ended was considered crucial by our Law Revision Commission and by the Consumer Attorneys of California.

§ 1127 Attorney's Fees If a person subpoenas or otherwise seeks to compel a mediator to testify or produce a writing, as defined in Section 250, and the court or other adjudicative body determines that [this]...is inadmissible under this chapter...the court or adjudicative body...shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the mediator...

§ 1128 Irregularity in Proceedings Any reference to a mediation during any subsequent trial is an irregularity in the proceedings [under]...Sec. 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any reference to a mediation during any other subsequent noncriminal proceeding is grounds for vacating or modifying the decision in that proceeding...and granting a new or further hearing...if the reference materially affected [a party's] substantial rights...


 


UMA Drafters Move a Lot in DC

  

Detailed Report of Major Changes Made at the January 28-29 Uniform Mediation Act Drafting Committees Meeting

 

The Drafting Committees moved a great deal toward a Uniform Mediation Act which they hoped could be supported by the mediation community, and enacted in the majority of states. The drafters tried to make a clear choice that mediation would not be a place where disputants went to create more evidence to use against each other.

Mediators and mediation users, many of whom have previously strongly opposed adoption of the UMA, will want to carefully consider whether these revisions satisfy most of their previous concerns. They will also want to focus immediately on what other major changes, if any, they need. One last drafting committee meeting is scheduled before the Act is to go to final reading at the full national Uniform Law Conference. This last meeting is scheduled for March 31 through April 2 in Ft. Lauderdale.

Mounting opposition to key sections of previous drafts came from national ADR organizations, state organizations, large provider organizations like AAA and JAMS, and bar association ADR committees. Much of it focused on the need for predictability of the confidentiality protections. Politically-organized mediators in many states were already gearing up to try to defeat the UMA, based on their readings of earlier drafts. For example, the California Dispute Resolution Council recently told its members that the UMA "threatens to dismember mediation confidentiality as we know it in California". Many of the drafters apparently felt that very significant changes had to be made if they wanted the act to be enactable in the majority of states.

For more than a year, the drafters have repeatedly revised the act, trying to satisfy divergent voices opposing the act from opposite directions on the key issue of confidentiality. Many mediators and experienced users, including at least one past president of the Uniform Law Conference, saw the act as too weak and too full of exceptions. They focused on the act's effect on the mediation process, and the harm that will result if confidentiality is uncertain. Other voices, often represented at the drafting committee meetings by another past president of the Uniform Law Conference, Phil Carroll, and by ABA Litigation section representative, Steve Hochman, viewed the act from the perspective of the courtroom. They saw it as "excluding evidence from the truth-seeking process". They opposed mediation confidentiality for joint sessions which are conducted "in the presence of the enemy".

At their Washington DC meeting, the UMA drafters apparently made a clear choice. A central purpose of the act was to encourage greater use of early mediation, and nearly all cases are settled before trial. They appeared to conclude that wider use of early mediation would serve the overall public good, even though most statements by disputants in mediation would be excluded from evidence in the few cases that do go on to trial.

Highlights of some of the major changes adopted by the Drafting Committees include:

1. "Manifest Injustice". At the request of Jose Feliciano, past chair of the ABA ADR Section, the drafters removed the hotly disputed section allowing a judge to toss out confidentiality protections for undefined "extraordinary circumstances". This section was a rewrite of the "manifest injustice" provision removed at the previous meeting and attracting some of the strongest opposition by mediation organizations. (Old January Draft section 2 f 6)

2. Immunity. At the request of the Academy of Family Mediators and many other ADR organizations, the drafters removed the section which would have invalidated "the disputants' right to agree to mediator immunity from suit", as AFM put it. Earlier drafts contained even stronger prohibitions against immunity, attempting to head off the growing number of states which are granting civil immunity to mediators. (Old January Draft section 3 b)

3. Interpretation. At the request of Geraldine Soat Brown and the Chicago Bar Association ADR Committee, the drafters added a new section directing courts to construe the act in accordance with specific principles. These include notably "the need to promote the candor of disputants and mediators through protection of confidentiality, subject only to overwhelming need for disclosure to accommodate specific societal purposes." (New Draft section 4)

4. Organization. At the suggestion of Elizabeth Kent, Uniform Law commissioner from Hawaii, the drafters reorganized the act for clarity into ten new sections, and reorganized the evidenciary exclusion and privilege section to state the general evidenciary exclusion first. The expanded legal framework of the protections, as both an evidenciary exclusion and a clearly-stated privilege, was a key decision made at the December meeting in Monterey. (New draft section 5)

5. Mediator Candor. At the urging of Ron Kelly, an observer from California, the drafters strengthened confidentiality protections by reinstating a mediator's ability to keep confidential the mediators own communications (letters, emails, voice messages, etc.). (New draft section 5 c)

6. Criminal Proceedings. At the request of Judith Saul, an ABA ADR section drafting committee member from New York, the drafters reinstated an optional provision extending the act to protect mediation communications from being introduced in later criminal misdemeanor proceedings. Such optional clauses are contained in bracketed language in the final act. The drafters also added language intended to protect mediation communications in later criminal or juvenile delinquency proceedings if the mediation is conducted by programs specifically authorized to mediate these cases. (New draft section 5 a, c, d and e)

7. Collective Bargaining. At the urging of Barbara Brown and other members of the labor and employment bar, especially from New York, the drafters removed collective bargaining disputes from coverage by the act. (New draft section 3 b i )

8. Peer Mediation. At the urging of Jack Hanna and Elizabeth Donahue, mediators active in the development of school programs, the drafters removed peer mediation programs conducted by schools from coverage by the act. (New draft section 3 b ii)

9. Settlement Coercion and Mediator Reporting. At the request of Ron Kelly, the drafters strengthened and clarified protections against settlement coercion by the mediator and by judges.The redrafted section also helps ensure that disputants' later rights in court are not prejudiced by what a meditator might report about them or the merits of their case. (New draft section 7 b)

10. Reporting Child Abuse. At the request of Greg Firestone of Florida, representative from the Academy of Family Mediators, the drafters directed that the section prohibiting mediator disclosure of mediation communications be redrafted and clarified. The redraft is intended to allow mediators to decide that protecting the best interests of children outweighed the need for confidentiality and to report suspected instances of child abuse or abandonment, unless the process is specifically to mediate those claims and done by an authorized entity (New draft section 7 a)

11. Settlement Enforceability. At the direction of the NCCUSL conference at the act's first reading last July, the drafters added a section allowing disputants to confirm and enforce a mediated settlement agreement like a court judgment if no one objects after thirty days. The mechanism is similar to those providing that an arbitration award may be confirmed as a court judgment without the disputants' having to file a lawsuit first. (New draft section 10)

* * * * *

 

Ron Kelly is an official observer to the Uniform Mediation Act Drafting Committees. He has been actively involved in the formation of mediation law, court rules and administrative regulations for over ten years. He mediates and arbitrates business cases through his Berkeley offices. He welcomes comments at 510-843-6074, ronkelly@ronkelly.com, or through www.ronkelly.com. Permission is granted to copy and reprint this article with credit.

 


 

Brief Update on Status

of the Uniform Mediation Act (Revised 12/28/99) - Report from Monterey

 

The UMA Drafting Committees came to California for three days in December to engage in dialogue with activist mediators and organizations. One of the SPIDR representatives, Dennis Sharp, structured a facilitated dialogue the first day. This dealt head-on with the areas where the organized mediation community had the strongest disagreements with the latest draft act. Some of the main areas were 1) the exclusive use of a privilege structure rather than a combined approach of a privilege and an inadmissibility rule, 2) the broad exceptions generally and more specifically the exception for "manifest injustice" as determined by the trial judge, and 3) the issues of disclosure and the attempt to prevent immunity for mediators.

The drafting committees moved a great deal in efforts to find approaches which the mediation community could support, or at least not oppose. The committees eventually decided to adopt the combination of privilege and inadmissibility, extend express coverage to discovery, and greatly narrow the exceptions section. In small group work, a great deal of progress was made on the issues of disclosure and immunity, but the drafting committees had not yet adopted any formal changes to these sections before adjourning.

NCCUSL Drafting committee members and leadership expressed for the first time an open desire to develop a draft that activist mediators and organizations in California would not oppose. This presents a tough challenge. California arguably already has one of the strongest sets of legal protections for the mediation process in the country. For mediators in California to be ready to toss out their hard-won mediation protections in favor of the UMA would mean adopting language that would provide even stronger protections, and these may be difficult to adopt in many other states.

At the end of the first day, State Senator Byron Sher, a NCCUSL drafting committee member from California, asked for a "short list" of what might need to be strengthened in the UMA for California mediators not to oppose it. That night, Ron Kelly put together and circulated a list of those protections now provided under California law, which the December UMA draft would weaken if adopted (please see following).

Time is quite short to express your opinions to drafting committee members. The next meeting is in Washington DC, January 28-30, 2000. A final drafting committee meeting will be held March 31- April 2. However, this final meeting is supposed to be a polishing session, not one where major conceptual shifts are made, according to Fred Miller, the Executive Director of NCCUSL. Details of these meetings, and the full text of the most current public draft with Reporter's Notes and comments, are available through .

 

* * * * * *

 

Five Key Protections in California Mediation Law Which Would Be Lost

If December 1999 UMA Draft Enacted

- In Order of Importance -

 

1. Incompetency. Mediator cannot give competent testimony against any party (703.5).

2. No Report. Mediator may not submit any evaluation, recommendation, or report about mediation to judge (except it settled or it didn't) unless ALL PARTICIPANTS in mediation expressly authorize in writing (1121). Prevents threats and coercion by mediator.

3. Predictability. Everything inadmissible and undiscoverable, unless ALL participants expressly agree otherwise IN WRITING (1122). Simple to explain without confusing exceptions.

4. Intake Records Protected. All intake communications and efforts to get parties to mediate are protected, even if no mediation occurs (mediation consultation per 1115 c).

5. Attorneys Fees. Person trying to compel mediator to testify or produce records must pay mediator's attorney fees if loses (1127).

 

Prepared 12/10/99 by Ron Kelly


 

Brief Update on Status of the Uniform Mediation Act

The current draft of the UMA has now already passed its first reading before the full Uniform Law Conference (July 30, 1999). The Drafting Committee will meet three more times before submitting the final draft to the full national conference in July of 2000. Most of the concerns raised in the May 19 posting to the dispute-res list, and in the detailed May 8, 1999 letter to the Drafting Committee have still not been addressed. The stakes also have gone up considerably. The Drafting Committee stated in Denver that it is now aiming to establish these laws to also define and govern mediation in the Federal District Courts as well as in all State Courts. The Drafting Committees agreed to revise the draft Act at their October meeting, but no new revised draft had been issued as of 12/3/99.

At the Annual Conference July 30 in Denver, all delegates of the full National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law were requested to direct the Drafting Committee to amend the draft Act (see Request for Sense of the Conference Resolution below). Successive Sense of the House motions on these issues were raised on the floor by concerned delegates. They were opposed by the Drafting Committee and defeated or withdrawn. In one of the more dramatic moments, Bion Gregory, a Past President of the full Conference, moved to strike confidentiality exceptions 5-9 in section II c. He said they were so broad you could drive a truck through them. He said it was clear this was a policy issue, not a drafting question. Gregory stated that he had a lot of direct experience using mediation and that the current UMA draft would seriously hamper mediation if adopted in his state. His Sense of the House motion was formally opposed by the Drafting Committee and argued against by Drafting Committee members. It was withdrawn when it became clear Gregory did not have the votes to pass it.

Anyone who agrees that serious concerns are raised on this page is asked to say so loudly, clearly and publicly. Please raise your concerns soon to your ADR organizations, to SPIDR leadership (SPIDR UMA Committee Co-Chairs Dennis Sharp and Peter Adler at aaasharp@aol.com), to the UMA Drafting Committee Chair and Reporters, to the ABA Dispute Resolution Section (Section Chair Jim Alfini at jalfini@niu.edu), and to the Uniform Law Commissioners for your state (listed below). The Drafting Committee on the Uniform Mediation Act will be meeting next on December 10-12, 1999 in Monterey, California. Phone the Conference Administrator, Ellyce Anapolsky, or other Conference staff, at 703-525-1234, for information on attending.


 

UMA Draft (June 1999) with Requested Revisions

(without Reporter's Notes)

 

UNIFORM MEDIATION ACT - REQUESTED REVISIONS

 

 

(Statutory Text Only w/o Reporter's Notes)

 

 

(Requested additions underlined, requested deletions in strikethrough)

 

6/99 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

© 1999, National Conference Of Commissioners On Uniform State Laws

Full text of draft and official comments at http://www.law.upenn.edu/library/ulc/ulc.htm

 

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act:]

(1) "Disputant" means a person that participates in mediation and:

(A) has an interest in the outcome of the dispute or whose agreement is necessary to resolve the dispute, and

(B) is asked by a court, governmental entity, or mediator to appear for mediation or entered an agreement to mediate that is evidenced by a record.

(2) "Mediation" means a process in which disputants in a controversy, with the assistance of a mediator, negotiate toward a resolution of the conflict that will be the disputants' decision.

(3) "Mediation communication" means a statement made as part of a mediation unless the disputant would not be reasonable in expecting that the communication is confidential.The term may shall also encompass a communication for purposes of considering, initiating, continuing, or reconvening a mediation or retaining a mediator.

(4) "Mediator" means an impartial individual appointed by a court or government entity or engaged by disputants through an agreement evidenced by a record.

(5) "Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government; governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality; public corporation, or any other legal or commercial entity.

(6) "Record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

(7) "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

SECTION 2. CONFIDENTIALITY: PROTECTION AGAINST COMPELLED DISCLOSURE; WAIVER.

(a) A disputant may refuse to disclose, and prevent any other person from disclosing, mediation communications in a civil, juvenile, criminal misdemeanor, arbitration, or administrative proceeding. Those rights may be waived, but only if waived by all disputants expressly or through conduct inconsistent with the continued recognition of those rights.

(b) A mediator may refuse to disclose, and prevent any other person from disclosing, the mediator's mediation communications and may refuse to provide evidence of mediation communications in a civil, juvenile, criminal misdemeanor, arbitration, or administrative proceeding. Those rights may be waived, but only if waived by all disputants and the mediator expressly or through conduct inconsistent with continued recognition of those rights.

(c) There is no protection under subsections (a) and (b):

(1) for a record of an agreement by two or more disputants;

(2) for mediation communications that threaten to cause another bodily injury or unlawful property damage;

(3) for a disputant or mediator who uses or attempts to use the mediation to plan or commit a crime;

(4) in a proceeding initiated by a public agency for the protection of a child or other member of a class of individuals protected by the law, for communications offered to prove abuse or neglect;

(5) if a court determines, after a hearing, that disclosure is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice of such a magnitude as to outweigh the importance of protecting the confidentiality of mediation communications;

[(6) for communications evidencing professional misconduct in a report required by law to be made to an entity charged by law to oversee professional misconduct.]

[(7) to the extent found necessary by a court, arbitrator, or agency if the disputant files a claim or complaint against a mediator or mediation program.]

[(8) in a proceeding to establish the validity, invalidity, enforceability, or unenforceability of an agreement evidenced by a record and reached by the disputants as the result of the mediation.]

[(9) to the extent found necessary by a court or administrative agency hearing officer if a person who is not a disputant and to whom a disputant owes a duty files a claim or complaint against the disputant related to the disputants' conduct in the mediation.]

(d) Information otherwise admissible or subject to discovery does not become inadmissible or protected from disclosure solely by reason of its use in mediation.

 

SECTION 3. CONFIDENTIALITY: PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCLOSURE BY A MEDIATOR.

Unless disclosure is permitted under Section 2, or unless all participants in the mediation expressly agree otherwise in writing, a mediator may not:

(1) disclose mediation communications to a judge or an agency or authority that may make rulings on or investigations into a dispute;

(2) make any report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, or finding representing the opinions of the mediator to those persons described in paragraph (1); or

(3) disclose mediation communications to the general public.

 

SECTION 4. QUALITY OF MEDIATION.

(a) A mediator shall disclose information related to the mediator's qualifications or possible conflicts of interest if requested by a disputant or representative of a disputant.

[(b) Unless immunity from liability is extended to mediators by common law, rules of court, or other law of this state, a contractual term purporting to disclaim a mediator's liability for willful misconduct is void as a matter of public policy.]

(c) A disputant has the right to be represented at any mediation session. A waiver

of representation before mediation is ineffective.

 

For preliminary discussion only:

[SECTION 5. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENTS TO MEDIATE, MEDIATED AGREEMENTS.

Reporter's Working Notes: This Draft provides bracketed language that would extend provisions currently according enforcement to agreements to arbitrate and arbitration awards so that these provisions also encompass agreements to mediate and mediated agreements...extending the Draft Revised Uniform Arbitration Act provisions to mediation...]

 Prepared by Ron Kelly 7/27/99 (510-843-6074)

 


Text of Request for Sense of the Conference Resolution

 

(Sent to all publicly available email addresses of all delegates of National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law prior to July, 1999 National Conference.)

Re: Uniform Mediation Act - 1st Reading July 30

Request for Sense of the Conference Resolution

Dear Commissioner,

Like you, I have donated thousands of unpaid hours to forming good public policy. Probably unlike you, for a decade my time has all been devoted to forming sound mediation law.

I respectfully urge you to sponsor and/or support a Sense of the Conference Resolution directing the Drafting Committee to amend the current Draft Uniform Mediation Act as follows.

1. Section 1 (3), remove the phrase "unless the disputant would not be reasonable in expecting that the communication is confidential." This phrase makes the intended protections unpredictable, and therefore of little use. "Reasonable" people differ all the time on what should be confidential. Change "may encompass" to "shall encompass", to eliminate uncertainty in protecting mediation intake communications.

2. Section 2 (a) and (b), remove the phrase "or through conduct inconsistent with the continued recognition of those rights". This phrase also makes the intended protections unpredictable. The protections could later be deemed to have been waived by completely unknowing acts.

3. Section 2 (c) (5-9), remove all of these paragraphs. They are so broad as to again make the protections unpredictable.

4. Section 3, strengthen this section. Strictly prohibit a mediator from hearing confidential information from all sides, and then later testifying against one of the parties.

5. Section 4 (b) add the phrase "for willful misconduct". Ordinary persons can contractually agree to limit liability for unintended error. There is no public benefit from discriminating against mediators, who are asked to step in between warring parties and try to make peace.

I would welcome a discussion with you on these points and any others (phone: 510-843-6074, email:

Sincerely,

Ron Kelly, Mediator

Drafting Committee Observer

 


Please Forward.

 

Will You Help Protect the Integrity of Mediation?

Uniform Mediation Act - 4/99 Draft - Summary of Concerns

Do we want people to be able to speak candidly in mediation, without fear that their own words may be used against them later in trial? Yes? If you believe this is important, then you will not like several major parts of the 4/99 Draft of the Uniform Mediation Act, and you will want to act soon.

Background

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (with the American Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section) is drafting a Uniform Mediation Act &endash; intending to promote its enactment in all fifty states. The Conference's previous uniform act on ADR (the Uniform Arbitration Act) was enacted in whole or substantial part in all states except four.

The Mediation Act is on a fast track to adoption. All substantial Drafting Committee work has been completed for first reading July 30. at the full Uniform Law Conference. This first reading is the main opportunity for the full Conference to give significant direction to the Drafting Committee.

Main Positive Elements

1. The Act seeks to establish uniform statutory protections for mediation communications from state to state. This is especially important in interstate matters to prevent later loss of confidentiality.

2. It balances confidentiality with protections against settlement coercion and mediator reporting (Sec 3 b). This is crucial to protecting the integrity of mediation as a means of producing voluntary agreements..

Major Issues of Concern

1. The 4/99 Draft's numerous broad exceptions will undermine parties' confidence in confidentiality (Sec 2 c). For example, there will be no protection against one side using mediation communications to try to later attack the enforceability of their settlement, including subpoenaing the mediator to testify against the other side (Sec 2 c 8). Another exception will authorize any judge to later decide confidentiality would promote a "manifest injustice", and simply override it (Sec 2 c 5)

2. The Draft frames protection for confidentiality as a privilege, then sets up three different classes of mediation participants (disputants, mediators, and others - Sec 2 a& b). The complexity of multiple holders of a privilege with several different classes of ability to assert protections is made worse by creating implied unknowing waiver. However, the draft fails to gain the legal advantage of actually using the recognized term "privilege" &endash; it doesn't. The Draft further makes protections for intake communications uncertain (Sec 1 d). It would discard California's approach, which requires the express written consent of all participants before reversing confidentiality protections, provides clear coverage for intake communications, and prevents subpoena of a mediator's testimony (Cal Evid C 1115, 1119, 1122, & 703.5).

3. There is no exclusion preventing a judge who is hearing a case from personally conducting a "mediation" of the case, subverting due process protections against ex parte communications.

4. The Draft will void the parties' agreement to hold the mediator harmless (a common part of commercial agreements to mediate) unless a state has already provided mediator immunity (Sec 4 c).

What Can You Do?

The sooner the better. Please take the opportunity now to contact Uniform Law Commissioners and ABA members. Urge them briefly to direct the Drafting Committee to:

1. Eliminate all possible exceptions which undermine confidence in confidentiality (delete 2 c 5 thru 9).

2. Provide that mediators cannot testify later against mediation participants (as under Cal Ev C 703.5)

3. Provide that all mediation communications, including intake, are simply off-the-record in later non-criminal proceedings, unless all participants expressly agree otherwise in writing.

4. Provide that judges will not also be mediators in the same cases they are hearing.

5 Stop trying to invite lawsuits against mediators (as earlier drafts did, and later ones still may).

Your state's Commissionersfull Actdetailed analysis, etc. at [provided links].

Summary by Ron Kelly, Committee Observer, 510-843-6074

Full text with NCCUSL Reporter's official explanations at [link].


4/99 Draft - Detailed Analysis

May 8, 1999

Mr. Gene N. Lebrun, President

Mr. John L. McClaugherty, President-Elect

Mr. Stanley M. Fisher, Division Chair

Prof. Fred H, Miller, Executive Director

All Commissioners

National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

211 E. Ontario Street. Suite 1300

Chicago, Illinois 60611

 

Hon. Michael B. Getty, Chair

Prof. Nancy Rogers, Committee Reporter

NCCUSL Drafting Committee

 

Hon. Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Co-Chair

Ms. Roberta Cooper Ramos, Co-Chair

Prof. Richard Reuben, Committee Reporter

ABA Dispute Resolution Section Drafting Committee

 

Via Email and First Class Mail

Re: Serious Concerns About the 4/99 Draft of the Uniform Mediation Act

Dear President Lebrun, President-Elect McClaugherty, Prof. Miller, Division Chair Fisher, Co-Chairs Getty, Ramos, and Moyer, Members of the NCCUSL and ABA Uniform Mediation Act Drafting Committees, Committee Reporters, and NCCUSL Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the April 1999 Draft of the proposed Uniform Mediation Act. Thank you also for the responsiveness you have shown to previous concerns I have raised about the two previous drafts. The current draft is vastly improved over these. However, I urge the full Conference to give strong direction to the Drafting Committee to makes the changes proposed below.

I know you will understand that my comments are those of someone who, like you, donates his time without compensation to try to form sound public policy on mediation. My comments are also those of someone who brings a decade of experience in the drafting and sponsoring of mediation statutes in California. As you may know, I've spent the past ten years convening and attending statewide conferences, public hearings, and private hardball negotiating meetings to help craft California's laws defining and governing mediation. These meetings involved legislators and legislative commissions, trial lawyers, mediation providers and consumers, court staff, consumer groups, and representatives of all branches of government.

There are many improvements and positive sections of this latest draft. It is much shorter and easier to understand. The language in Section 4 (c) protecting the rights of disputants to bring lawyers and other support personnel to a mediation, and the protections against mediator coercion in Section 3 are vitally important. I am very concerned however, that the current draft, if enacted, would still strip away strong current protections for the integrity of mediation which we have spent fifteen years carefully crafting and enacting into California law. My comments are based primarily on why I believe the current draft would face strong and well-organized opposition if proposed in California. They probably apply equally to many other states. If enacted in California, the current draft would create so many subjective exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality that participants could no longer feel confident to speak openly with their mediator, and it would greatly increase the number of mediators who will be subpoenaed and sued.

Following is a line-by-line identification of the troubling sections, the specific concerns, the reasoning, and possibilities for alternative approaches or language (and cites to code sections if drawn from already-enacted law here).

 

4/99 Draft Section 1 (d), Beginning Page 1, line 12,

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this Act:...

(d) "Mediation communication" means a statement made as part of a mediation unless the disputant would not be reasonable in expecting that the mediation is confidential. It may also encompass a communication for purposes of considering, initiating, continuing, or reconvening a mediation or retaining the mediator.

Concerns:

1) The phrase "unless the disputant would not be reasonable in expecting that the mediation is confidential" creates a later subjective court fight over whether its reasonable to expect confidentiality. The Consumer Attorneys of California has stated that "There is universal agreement that settlement negotiations, and discussions during mediation, should be held confidential for all time." (August 7, 1998 letter to the California Law Revision Commission regarding its Study K-410). The reasonability clause makes confidentiality uncertain and undermines the benefit. This phrase was inserted in this draft to try to accommodate concerns about mediation of large public issues conducted in public forums. This demonstrates a key problem of the whole privilege approach, which requires secrecy to keep inadmissibility, as discussed below.

Proposed Change:

I urge you to remove this phrase and address public policy mediation in a separate section.

2) The phrase "It may also encompass a communication..." also creates a later subjective fight over whether intake communications and efforts to initiate mediation are confidential. Can a disputant confidently talk openly with a mediator for the purpose of trying to get a mediation going? The Reporter's Notes (page 6, line 13) state that this sentence "makes clear that early communications about a mediation typically should be 'mediation communications'. This is not clear at all. The second sentence of the Draft's 1(d) tracks Calif. Evidence Code Section 1115 c, except that California's law doesn't say "may". Section 1115 c allows disputants to be confident that they can talk openly with a mediator when seeking to initiate a mediation. California determined that clear protection for intake communications was very important, and I am not aware of any alleged abuse of our section 1115 c.

Proposed Change:

I urge you to change "It may also encompass" to "It also encompasses".

 

4/99 Draft Section 2 - Page 7, line 16:

SECTION 2. CONFIDENTIALITY: PROTECTION AGAINST COMPELLED DISCLOSURE; WAIVER.

(a) A disputant may refuse to disclose, and prevent any other persons from disclosing, mediation communications in a civil, juvenile, criminal misdemeanor, arbitration, or administrative proceeding. These protections may be waived, but only if waived by all disputants explicitly or through conduct inconsistent with the continued recognition of the protection.

(b) A mediator may refuse to disclose, and prevent any other person from disclosing, that mediator's mediation communications and may refuse to provide evidence of mediation communications in a civil, juvenile, criminal misdemeanor, arbitration, or administrative proceeding. These protections may be waived, but only if waived by all disputants and the mediator explicitly or through conduct inconsistent with continued recognition of the protection.

Concerns:

1) This language sets the protection up as a privilege framework, and it is even called a privilege in the Reporter's Notes (page 5 line 33). But it does not gain the benefit of actually calling it a privilege. Many other laws recognize privileged communications generally and exempt them from disclosure. The Draft's approach would set up three different classes of mediation participants - disputants, mediators, and others - each with a different ability to insist on confidentiality.

Proposed Change:

I urge you to adopt California's approach. We provide that all communications are inadmissible, and protected from discovery and compelled disclosure, unless all participants in the mediation expressly agree otherwise in writing (Calif. Evidence Code Sections 1119 and 1121).

2) The phrase "These protections may be waived...through conduct inconsistent with continued recognition of the protection" again makes the confidentiality unpredictable. Because of the privilege structure of this draft, a judge or arbitrator may later view it like the attorney-client privilege which they are used to. They may decide that complete secrecy was required to keep inadmissibility. An unsophisticated disputant who talks over proposed resolutions with their CPA, or neighbor, or co-worker may be later deemed to have waived confidentiality without ever knowing it.

Proposed Change:

I again urge you to at least delete the phrase "or through conduct inconsistent with the continued recognition of the protection" in paragraphs (a) and (b).

 

4/99 Draft Section 2 (c) (5) through (9) - Beginning Page 7, line 29:

(c) There is no protection under (a) and (b):...

(5) When the court determines, after a hearing, that disclosure is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice of such a magnitude as to outweigh the importance of protecting the confidentiality of mediation communications.

[(6) For communications evidencing professional misconduct when a report is required by law to be made to an entity charged by law to oversee professional misconduct.]

[(7)To the degree ruled necessary by a court, arbitrator, or agency if the disputant files a claim or complaint against a mediator or mediation program.]

[(8)To establish the validity or invalidity, or the enforceability or nonenforceability of an agreement reached by the disputants as the result of the mediation session if the agreement is evidenced by a record.]

[(9) To the degree ruled necessary by a court or administrative agency hearing officer if a person who is not a disputant and to whom a disputant owes a legal duty files a claim or complaint against the disputant related to that disputants' actions or inactions in the mediation.]

Concerns:

Providing a long list of broad exceptions, many of which depend on later subjective judgments, would again undermine participants' confidence in predictable confidentiality.

Paragraph (5) would mean no mediation participant, or their counsel, could predict whether a judge might later decide to strip away protections to "prevent manifest injustice". Protecting people from "manifest injustice" has undisputed appeal, but imagine trying to explain what this really means to a potential mediation participant. "You can be sure that everything is confidential unless a judge later decides it shouldn't be."

Paragraph (6) would mean that many licensed professionals would be unable to safely participate in mediation. Anything they said might be used against them in later license board hearings if anyone else in the mediation had a similar license and was required to report alleged misconduct (which is common).

Paragraph (7) would mean that if a participant wanted to break open the confidentiality of the mediation, one of the surest ways to do it would be to file a claim against the mediator. A fair hearing would often require everyone to describe exactly what they said or did to argue complex patterns of whether or not the mediator was justified in her/his actions. This provides an open invitation to break confidentiality by suing mediators.

Paragraph (8) would mean that there was really no confidentiality at all. Anyone could decide to later contest the enforceability of their signed settlement if they reach one, and confidentiality suddenly dissolves.

Proposed Change:

I strongly urge that you delete exceptions 5-9.

 

4/99 Draft Section 3 - Beginning Page 15, line 2:

SECTION 3. CONFIDENTIALITY: PROHIBITION AGAINST VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURES BY A MEDIATOR.

Except where disclosure is permitted under Section 2, a mediator shall not:

(a) Disclose mediation communication to:

(1) a judge; or

(2) an agency or authority that may make rulings on or

investigations into a dispute.

(b) Make any report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation,

or finding representing the opinions of the mediator to those persons described in (a).

Concerns:

1) This section is a crucial part of enabling participants to speak truthfully without fear that their own words may be used against them later. Overzealous mediators have coerced settlements by threatening to report adversely to a judge. Unfortunately, because of the numerous broad exceptions in Section 2, this protection is undercut by the initial clause "Except where disclosure is permitted under Section 2". At least in California, our legislature has unanimously declared that mediators should not be providing the kind of reports and testimony described in these exceptions.

Proposed Change:

I again urge these exceptions be cut to only 1-4.

2) This Draft's Section 3 (b) is patterned on Calif. Evidence Code Section 1121. In California, many were shocked to find that mediation was used to subvert one of the most basic due process rights - namely the right to hear what is said against you to the judge hearing your case. Courts were requiring that if a case was not settled in mediation, the mediator use what was said in mediation to make secret recommendations to the judge hearing the case that neither party was allowed to see. (See Mediation Confidentiality, 26 California Law Revision Commission Reports 407 (1996)). To prevent this, California enacted Evidence Code 1152.6, and later expanded this to the current section 1121,

1121 states "Neither a mediator nor anyone else may submit to a court or other adjudicative body, and a court or other adjudicative body may not consider, any report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, or finding of any kind by the mediator concerning a mediation conducted by the mediator, other than a report that is mandated by court rule or other law and that states only whether an agreement was reached, unless all parties to the mediation expressly agree otherwise in writing..."

The statement of legislative intent of this California section by the Law Revision Commission states that it "applies to all types of adjudications, including arbitrations and administrative adjudications,...the focus is on preventing coercion...a mediator should not be able to influence the result of a mediation or adjudication by reporting or threatening to report to the decisionmaker on the merits of the dispute or reasons why mediation failed to resolve it...A mediator"s report...may disclose mediation communications only if...all persons who participate...agree to the disclosure..."

Proposed Change:

I urge you to strengthen this section as California did by adding language such as "No court, adjudicative body, or investigator may consider any such report by the mediator. This prohibition shall not apply to a report that is mandated by court rule or other law provided that the report states only whether a participant appeared at a mediation and whether an agreement was reached."

3) If all participants in the mediation expressly agree in writing, they should be able to opt to permit mediator reporting, as is now done by agreement in some California programs.

Proposed Change:

I urge you to add the phrase "unless all of the mediation participants expressly agree in writing".

4) California law further guarantees that no mediator can testify for or against any party later in a civil proceeding if the matter does not settle. This is considered a critical protection guaranteeing the neutrality of the mediator and the process. Counsel for California's own state-run State Mediation and Conciliation Service argued strongly for this. As he pointed out, the National Labor Relations Board and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also concluded that "the complete exclusion of mediator testimony is necessary" for effective mediation. (NLRB v. Macaluso, 618 F.Ed 51 (9th Cir. 1980)

Sec. 703.5 states in relevant part that "...no mediator shall be competent to testify, in any subsequent civil proceeding, as to any statement, conduct, decision or ruling, occurring at or in conjunction with the prior proceeding, except as to [one]...that could...constitute a crime...or give rise to disqualification..."

Proposed Change:

I strongly urge you to add a section which tracks California Evidence Code Section 703.5.

 

4/99 Draft Section - Section 4 (b) Beginning Page 17, Line 5:

SECTION 4. QUALITY OF MEDIATION...

[(b) If immunity from liability is not extended to mediators by common law judicial immunity doctrine, rules of court or other law of this state, any contractual provision purporting to disclaim the mediator's liability shall be void as a matter of public policy.]

Concerns:

1) Members of the faculty advisory group have stated that they want to try to prevent the development of mediator immunity. The Reporter's Notes to the March 99 draft at page 26 line 32, and page 30, line 15 argue that making sure mediators are exposed to lawsuits seems the only reasonable public policy. Many states however, have decided to provide civil immunity for all but willful misconduct. Others are still grappling with this question. The 3/99 Draft had language which the NCCUSL Division Chair objected to. He labeled it an invitation to sue mediators. The 4/99 Draft wording is a compromise suggested by NCCUSL's President-Elect.

Disputants in many lawsuits are very angry and aiming to seriously damage each other economically. Many parties in commercial cases agree to indemnify mediators and hold them harmless as a condition of the mediator getting in between the warring parties. This follows common business practice in knowingly entering risky situations, follows common practice by municipalities granting encroachment permits, and many similar situations of known risk. This section of the 4/99 Draft is still designed to try to void parties' contractual agreements.

Proposed Change:

I urge you to at least add the phrase "for willful misconduct" after the word "liability".

2) Suggested Alternative Approach to Promoting the Suing of Mediators:

In California we have adopted a clear alternative to this approach. It involves two aspects. First, strong statutory protections against any mediation participant, mediator, or judge using mediation communications against any participant. Second, any such use in a later trial, arbitration or hearing which produces substantial prejudice is grounds to overturn the decision or declare a mistrial. California's choice was to provide testimonial immunity to protect mediators from subpoena. It was to provide a new hearing as a remedy for anyone prejudiced by illegal use of communications made in mediation.

Proposed Change:

I urge you to omit Section 4 (b), and to add sanctions such as the following for misuse of mediation communications. I urge you to track California Evidence Code Section 1128 which states "Any reference to a mediation during any subsequent trial is an irregularity in the proceedings [under]...Sec. 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any reference to a mediation during any other subsequent noncriminal proceeding is grounds for vacating or modifying the decision in that proceeding...and granting a new or further hearing...if the reference materially affected [a party"s] substantial rights..."

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, and thank you for your continuing dedicated efforts.

Respectfully submitted,

Ron Kelly, Mediator

Observer to the Drafting Committee

2731 Webster Street

Berkeley, California 94705

(phone: 510-843-6074)


Please Forward.

 Are We Going the Right Direction with the Uniform Mediation Act?

The last Uniform Act on ADR was adopted by all but four states (the Uniform Arbitration Act) so this is probably pretty important.

 

Do we want people to be able to speak candidly in mediation, without fear that their own words may be used against them later in trial? Yes? If you believe this is important, then you will not like several major parts of the 3/8/99 Draft of the Uniform Mediation Act.

First, imagine you are the mediator, talking to an ordinary disputant before the mediation. You say, "What you say here will only stay confidential if nobody later decides it falls under one of a dozen broad exceptions." How does this person respond?

Second, suppose a disputant later discusses what happened in mediation with other involved neighbors, or affected business associates, or with a CPA they may be consulting on the tax consequences of alternative settlements. The Draft further strips away confidentiality protections.The 3/8/99 Draft casts the protection as a privilege. Unknowing waiver of that privilege merely by talking about what happened is the downside of this approach.

Lastly, any witnesses who attend a mediation (who may get sued later themselves) get no protection at all. How candid will they be? Will they even come?

 

Do we really want to encourage more subpoenas and lawsuits against mediators? No? The 3/8/99 Draft says "the only means to hold [mediators] accountable... is to preserve the possibility of civil liability."

The Draft also says mediators can be subpoenaed to testify against any doctor, lawyer, architect, realtor or other professional whose dispute they mediated, if someone files a complaint to their licensing agency. What licensed professional will come to mediation when what they say may go straight to their licensing agency?

In California, we have taken a different approach. We have enacted laws saying that mediators cannot be subpoenaed to testify against any party in later civil trials and hearings (Evidence Code Sections. 703.5 and 1121). We have said that if any party is harmed by the use of confidential mediation communications in any later civil trial or hearing that is grounds for a new trial or hearing (Evidence Code Sec. 1128).

 

Are you concerned about the direction this Uniform Act is going? If so, please forward this, start discussions in your organizations, and/or briefly email your concern to the Drafting Committee through its Reporters, Nancy Rogers

For the full text of the 3/8/99 Draft of the Uniform Mediation Act, visit

Thank you,

Ron Kelly, Mediator

Observer to the Drafting Committee

(phone: 510-843-6074)

 


Serious Concerns - Detailed.

March 16, 1999

Hon. Michael B. Getty, Chair, NCCUSL Drafting Committee

Ms. Roberta Cooper Ramos, Co-Chair, ABA Dispute Resolution Section Drafting Committee

Hon. Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, Co-Chair, ABA Dispute Resolution Section Drafting Committee

Professors Nancy Rogers and Richard Reuben, Project Reporters, NCCUSL/ABA Uniform Mediation Act Project

 

Re: Serious Concerns About the Direction of the 3/8/99 Draft of the Uniform Mediation Act

 

Dear Co-Chairs Getty, Ramo, and Moyer, Members of the ABA/NCCUSL Uniform Mediation Act Drafting Committees, and Committee Reporters,

 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the March 8, 1999 Draft of the proposed Uniform Mediation Act. I have the highest respect for your work on the Drafting Committee and the Academic Advisory Faculty. I know you and they are donating your time to this effort. I especially appreciate the work of Nancy Rogers. As NCCUSL Drafting Committee Reporter, I understand she has lead responsibility for drafting and redrafting each new version of the proposed Act for the Conference. I believe deeply that your important work will shape the development of the emerging field of mediation for decades to come. I know the last uniform act addressing alternative dispute resolution (the Uniform Arbitration Act) was adopted in whole or substantial part by all but four states. I hope you will understand that my comments are those of someone who also donates his time without compensation to try to form sound public policy on mediation.

 

My comments are also those of someone who brings a decade of experience in the drafting and sponsoring of mediation statutes in California. As you know, I've spent the past ten years convening and attending statewide conferences, public hearings, and private hardball negotiating meetings to help craft California's laws defining and governing mediation. These meetings involved legislators and legislative commissions, trial lawyers, mediation providers and consumers, court staff, consumer groups, and representatives of all branches of government.

 

There are many outstandingly positive sections of this Draft. The language in Sections 1 (6) and 4 (c) protecting the rights of disputants to bring lawyers and other support personal to a mediation, and the protections against mediator coercion in Section 3 (a) are two major ones. I am very concerned however, that the current draft, if enacted, would strip away strong current protections for the integrity of mediation which we have spent fifteen years carefully crafting and enacting into California law. My comments are based primarily on why I believe the current draft would face strong and well-organized opposition if proposed in California. These high-lighted concerns mostly involve generic issues, and would apparently also apply equally to other states. If enacted in California, the current draft would remove existing protections from whole categories of mediation which currently have protection, create so many subjective exceptions to the general rule of confidentiality that participants could no longer feel confident to speak openly with their mediator, and greatly increase the number of mediators who will be subpoenaed and sued.

 

Following is a line-by-line identification of the troubling sections, the specific concerns, the reasoning, and possibilities for alternative approaches or language (and a cite to the code section if drawn from already-enacted law here).

 

3/8/99 Draft Section 1 (3), beginning Page 5, line 8,

"SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this Act:...

(3) "Mediation communication" means an oral or written assertion, or nonverbal conduct of an individual who intends it as an assertion and that is made:

(A) after a court or governmental entity appoints a mediator, or two or more non-aligned disputants select a mediator;

(B) by (i) a [mediation participant] in the presence of the mediator;(ii) the mediator; or (iii) the [disputants or their representatives] when asked to communicate by the mediator, if their communications relate to the subject of the mediation; and

(C) before the disputants make a record of their agreement, the mediator announces that the mediation has been concluded, only non-aligned disputants remain as participants, or there is no communication between the mediator and any of the parties relating to the dispute within [number] days. The mediator and the parties may shorten or extend this time by agreement."

 

Concerns:

First, the definition is too complex for ordinary people to understand clearly. Second, a narrow definition will exclude many from protection. This definition, if enacted, would remove current protections for many California disputants, such as those whose mediator was not selected by the parties, but appointed by a community program or a neutral agency like the American Arbitration Association. They would apparently not be covered by (A). It would remove protections for certain normal mediation communications, such as an unsolicited phone call from a disputant to a mediator during a mediation process. The call would apparently not be covered by (B). It also uses the definition of communications to try to define when mediation begins and ends.

 

Possible Alternative Language and Approach:

"Mediation communication means all communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between participants in the course of a mediation" (From California Evidence Code Sec. 1119c)

Define when mediation ends by separating off the language in the Draft's section (C). See also Cal. Ev. Code Section 1125. This provides that mediation confidentiality ends when there is a writing settling the dispute or ending mediation by either the mediator or a disputant (not provided for in the 3/8/99 Draft), or when communications end for ten days. (This last section was a firm requirement by the Consumer Attorneys of California) Also, shouldn't line 21 state that mediation ends when only aligned disputants remain, rather than when "only non-aligned disputants remain as participants" ?

* * *

 

3/8/99 Draft Section 2 - Page 15, line 1:

"SECTION 2. Confidentiality: Protection Against Compelled Disclosure; Admissibility.

(a) A disputant may refuse to disclose, and prevent any other individual from disclosing, mediation communications in a civil, juvenile, criminal misdemeanor, or administrative proceeding.

(b) A mediator may refuse to disclose, and prevent any other individual from disclosing, that mediator"s communications during mediation and may refuse to provide evidence of mediation communications in a civil, juvenile, criminal misdemeanor or administrative proceeding.

(c) An individual waives the rights conferred in (a) and (b)if the individual either

(1) acknowledges that the individual does not seek the protection, or

(2) voluntarily discloses a significant part of a mediation communication or mediation consultation in a manner that is inconsistent with maintaining the confidentiality. Such waiver by disclosure shall be limited to the extent of the disclosure. This rule does not apply if the disclosure itself is privileged.

The protection is not waived unless all persons who are entitled to the protection waive it."

 

Concern:

Only "mediators" and "disputants" as defined in Section 1 (1) and (5) can claim protection, not additional related participants whose candor may unlock the impasse. Suppose there is an owner/contractor or buyer/seller dispute not yet filed in court. Ideally you want the project architect or the seller"s realtor to come in and help add information, and possibly expertise in evaluating and generating creative options for solving the problem. They will be advised against being candid, or even participating at all by their counsel. Their current ability to speak candidly in California mediations would be removed by this draft, because they are "participants" not yet involved in the dispute. They would rightly fear that their own words might be used against them if the dispute widens and goes to court.

 

Proposed Alternative Approach and Language:

Promote candor by providing protection to the statements of all participants, whether or not they are currently "involved in the dispute". Provide that if all participants expressly agree to later change their off-the-record statements to on-the-record statements that can be used against them, they can do so.

" (a) A [mediation] communication...is not made inadmissible...by...this chapter if either...:(1) All persons who conduct or otherwise participate in the mediation expressly agree...[or] (2) The communication...was prepared by or [for]...fewer than all the mediation participants, those participants expressly agree...and the communication...does not disclose anything said or done...in the...mediation. [For expert reports, photos, etc.] (b) ...if the neutral person who conducts a mediation...agrees...that agreement also binds any other person [assisting the mediator]..." (Cal. Ev. Code Sec. 1122 Disclosure by Agreement)

 

General Concern:

The Reporter"s Notes on this section appear to argue that you must choose between one of three different approaches: 1) creating a privilege, 2) establishing the inadmissibility of mediation communications as evidence, or 3) making mediators or others incompetent to testify in later proceedings. A main benefit claimed for the privilege approach in past hearings was that many unrelated laws protect communications which are labeled "privileged". Yet the draft uses a privilege structure without using the word "privilege". This brings the central disadvantage of privilege without the benefit. The glaring problem of the privilege approach is unknowing waiver. Under this Draft, protection will be unknowingly waived when an unsophisticated disputant, between sessions, discusses what happened in mediation with other peripherally involved parties like other neighbors in a complex or other subcontractors on a job, or with a CPA while trying to understand the tax ramifications of alternative proposed settlements. The privilege approach requires secrecy to get inadmissibility.

 

Proposed Alternative Approach and Language:

Use all three forms of protection. California has found that all three approaches are complimentary and necessary rather than being mutually exclusive. Cal. Ev. Code Sec. 1119 provides both inadmissibility and a form of privilege in protection from discovery and compelled testimony:

"Sec. 1119 Mediation Confidentiality. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter: (a) No evidence of anything said...[and] (b) No writing, as defined in § 250...prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure...shall not be compelled, in any arbitration, administrative adjudication, civil action, or other noncriminal proceeding in which...testimony can be compelled..."

 

Cal Ev. Code Sec. 703.5 additionally guarantees that no mediator can testify for or against any party later in a civil proceeding if the matter does not settle. This is considered a critical protection guaranteeing the neutrality of the mediator and the process. As argued by counsel for California"s State Mediation and Conciliation Service, the National Labor Relations Board and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that "the complete exclusion of mediator testimony is necessary" for effective mediation. (NLRB v. Macaluso, 618 F.Ed 51 (9th Cur. 1980), cited in the Draft"s Reporter"s Notes page 8, line 8)

Sec. 703.5 states in relevant part that "...no mediator shall be competent to testify, in any subsequent civil proceeding, as to any statement, conduct, decision or ruling, occurring at or in conjunction with the prior proceeding, except as to [one]...that could...constitute a crime...or give rise to disqualification..."

Cal. Government Code Sec. 11420.30 (a) states that "Anything said, any admission made, and any document prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, mediation under this article is a confidential communication, and a party to the mediation has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing the communication, whether in an adjudicative proceeding, civil action, or other proceeding.

* * *

 

3/8/99 Draft Section 2 (d) (3) and (4) - Page 20, line 32:

"(d) There is no protection under (c): ...

(3) For reports of professional misconduct when made to the agency charged by law to oversee professional conduct.

(4) To the degree ruled necessary by a court or agency if a party files a claim or complaint against the mediator..."

 

Concerns:

Re (3): The 3/8/99 Draft, if enacted, would remove existing protections and encouragements for licensed professionals to resolve disputes through mediation. California expressly extended mediation protections to licensed professionals, such as doctors, architects, and realtors. A doctor who could otherwise talk candidly with a patient in mediation would be counseled that she could not afford to do so. The patient could use anything the doctor said against her later in an administrative hearing to revoke her license.

Under section (4), if a participant wanted to break open the confidentiality of the mediation, one of the surest ways to do it would be to file a claim against the mediator. A fair hearing would often require everyone to describe exactly what they said or did to argue complex patterns of whether or not the mediator was justified in her/his actions. This provides an open invitation to break confidentiality by suing mediators.

 

Additional Concerns:

Providing a long list of exceptions, many of which are dependent on later events, undermines confidence in predictable confidentiality. The Consumer Attorneys of California has stated that "There is universal agreement that settlement negotiations, and discussions during mediation, should be held confidential for all time." (August 7, 1998 letter to the California Law Revision Commission regarding its Study K-410).

The long list of exceptions, and most especially the additional two recommended by the Faculty Advisory Committee (beginning page 23 line 36), would terminally undermine the ability of mediators to assure disputants they could speak candidly.

 

Proposed additional exception (d) (7) would remove protections in later actions "To establish the validity or invalidity of a recorded agreement." This means that confidentiality could evaporate if anyone later changed their mind about a settlement they had signed and claimed false statements were made in mediation by other participants or the mediator.

 

Proposed additional exception (d) (8) would remove protections in later actions in any situation "When the court determines, after a hearing, that disclosure is necessary to prevent a manifest injustice of such magnitude as to outweigh the importance of protecting the general requirement of confidentiality in mediation proceedings." Protecting people from "manifest injustice" has undisputed appeal, but imagine trying to explain what this really means to a potential mediation participant. "You can be sure that everything is confidential unless a judge later decides it shouldn't be."

* * *

 

3/8/99 Draft Section 3 - Page 25, line 16:

"SECTION 3. CONFIDENTIALITY: NON-DISCLOSURE BY THE MEDIATOR.

(a) Unless all of the parties agree or the mediator is compelled to testify pursuant to an exception in 2(d) of the statute, a mediator shall not disclose mediation communications or mediation consultations outside the mediation including a report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, or finding of any kind by the mediator to others outside the mediation, including to the judge, or other appointing authority, who may make rulings on or persons who might investigate the matters in dispute."

 

Concern:

This section is a critical part of protecting mediation participants against overzealous mediators coercing a settlement. The wording of the draft should be clarified so it can not be misinterpreted to allow, instead of prohibit, mediator reports to judges or investigators. In California, many were shocked to find that mediation was used to subvert one of the most basic due process rights - namely the right to hear what is said against you to the judge hearing your case. Courts were requiring that if a case was not settled in mediation, the mediator use what was said in mediation to make secret recommendations to the judge hearing the case that neither party was allowed to see. (See Mediation Confidentiality, 26 California Law Revision Commission Reports 407 (1996)).

 

Because the Draft states "a mediator shall not disclose mediation communications... outside the mediation including a report... to the judge..." it may be misinterpreted to allow and provide secrecy for such reports. This interpretation is hard for many to believe, but was routine practice in some courts in California before enactment of Cal. Ev. Code Sec. 1152.6, (later expanded in to 1121) which explicitly prohibited this practice in all but child custody mediations conducted by the court.

 

Suggested Alternative Language:

(a) Except as otherwise provided herein, a mediator shall not disclose mediation communications or mediation consultations outside the mediation, unless all of the mediation participants expressly agree in writing. Neither a mediator nor anyone else may submit to a court or other adjudicative body, or to persons who might investigate the matters in dispute, any report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, or finding of any kind by the mediator, concerning a mediation conducted by the mediator. No court, adjudicative body, or investigator may consider any such report by the mediator. This prohibition shall not apply to a report that is mandated by court rule or other law provided that the report states only whether a participant appeared at a mediation and whether an agreement was reached.

 

This language was drawn from Cal. Evidence Code Sec. 1121, Mediator Reports and Communications. "Neither a mediator nor anyone else may submit to a court or other adjudicative body, and a court or other adjudicative body may not consider, any report, assessment, evaluation, recommendation, or finding of any kind by the mediator concerning a mediation conducted by the mediator, other than a report that is mandated by court rule or other law and that states only whether an agreement was reached, unless all parties to the mediation expressly agree otherwise in writing..."

 

The statement of legislative intent of this California section by the Law Revision Commission states that it "applies to all types of adjudications, including arbitrations and administrative adjudications,...the focus is on preventing coercion...a mediator should not be able to influence the result of a mediation or adjudication by reporting or threatening to report to the decisionmaker on the merits of the dispute or reasons why mediation failed to resolve it...A mediator"s report...may disclose mediation communications only if...all persons who participate...agree to the disclosure..."

* * *

 

3/8/99 Draft Section - Section 3 (b) (3, 4, 5) Page 25, line 25, page 26 line 3:

"(b) A mediator does not violate the general rule of non- disclosure:

(3) For a record of an agreement by two or more parties.

(4) For reports of professional misconduct when made to the agency charged by law to oversee professional conduct.

(5) To file a claim or complaint with the appropriate authority or court against the mediator."

 

Concern:

Having seven exceptions (eight if the Faculty Advisory Committee recommendation is accepted) undercuts the protection participants could otherwise expect. At least in California, the legislature has unanimously declared that mediators should not be providing the kind of reports and testimony described in exceptions (3), (4), and (5). The wording of the current draft is also unclear.

 

Suggested Alternate Approach:

Omit exceptions (3), (4), and (5)

* * *

 

3/8/99 Draft Section 4 - Page 28, line 7:

"SECTION 4. QUALITY OF MEDIATION.

(a) Qualifications. Courts and administrative agencies that refer parties to a mediator or pool of mediators may establish qualifications for these mediators. A mediator shall disclose his or her qualifications if requested by a mediation disputant or representative of a disputant."

 

Concern:

Too many courts and agencies have set up panels and simply copied the "qualifications" for judicial arbitrators, namely "lawyers only need apply". This harms the public and the field by restricting referrals to mediators from a single profession.

 

Suggested Additional Language:

Add "Mediators should not be required to possess specific academic degrees or professional licenses, nor should the possession of a specific academic degree or professional license disqualify a person from acting as a mediator" (From the California Dispute Resolution Counsel Principle II. A.)

* * *

 

3/8/99 Draft Section 4 (b) - Page 28, line 12:

"(b) Immunity. Except as provided by [section or common law judicial immunity doctrines], a mediator shall not be immune from civil liability for matters arising out of the mediation. Any contractual provision purporting to disclaim such liability shall be void as a matter of public policy. "

 

Concern:

The anti-immunity phrasing of this section will discourage states that have not yet enacted mediator immunity statutes from doing so. Mediators in many states are still organizing to try to achieve immunity. This section further seems designed to try to outlaw clauses in many current commercial mediation contracts. Disputants in some commercial lawsuits are trying to completely destroy each other economically. Many commercial mediators insist that the parties indemnify them and hold them harmless as a condition of getting in between the warring parties. This follows common business practice in risky situations. The Reporter"s Notes at page 26 line 32, and page 30, line 15 argue that making sure mediators are exposed to lawsuits seems the only reasonable public policy.

 

Alternative Approach:

In California we have adopted a clear alternative to this approach. It involves two aspects. First, strong statutory protections against any participant, mediator or judge, using mediation communications against any participant. Second, any such use in a later trial, arbitration or hearing which produces substantial prejudice is grounds to overturn the decision or declare a mistrial. California"s choice was to provide testimonial immunity to protect mediators from subpoena. It was to provide a new hearing as a remedy for anyone prejudiced by illegal use of confidences shared in mediations.

 

Suggested Alternative Language:

Omit Section 4 (b).

Add sanctions such as the following for misuse of mediation communications. "Any reference to a mediation during any subsequent trial is an irregularity in the proceedings [under]...Sec. 657 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Any reference to a mediation during any other subsequent noncriminal proceeding is grounds for vacating or modifying the decision in that proceeding...and granting a new or further hearing...if the reference materially affected [a party"s] substantial rights..." (From California Evidence Code Section 1128)

* * *

 

Since I have only had the 3/8/99 Draft for a few days, and wanted to respond before the hearing begins later this week, I apologize for the rushed nature of this letter. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Ron Kelly, Mediator

Observer to the Drafting Committee

2731 Webster Street

Berkeley, California 94705

(phone: 510-843-6074)