ILNews

IBA: Pre-Mediation Communications

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By John R. Van Winkle, Van Winkle Baten Dispute Resolution
 

vanwinkle-john-mug.jpg Van Winkle

The mediation process for complex disputes has evolved over the past twenty years and now commonly involves numerous pre-session communications, exchanges of documents and multiple sessions, extending over weeks or even months. Many disputes require what amounts to a “mediation over a mediation”. Issues arise as to what extent these pre-session exchanges are protected by the confidentiality provisions of the Indiana ADR Rules.

Indiana’s ADR Rules Do Not Specifically Address These Issues

Indiana ADR Rule 2.11 provides generally that mediation is to be governed by Evidence Rule 408. Unlike some states, however, the rules do not define mediation communications nor clearly delineate when a mediation begins and ends. There are, however, some provisions which support a broader scope for the application of confidentiality. ADR Rule 1.3, for example, defines mediation as a “process” and Rule 2.1 states that mediation is a “confidential process.” If, therefore, the “process” is defined as broader than an individual session, courts could conclude the confidentiality rules apply to the broader process and not just the activities during the mediation session. Support for this broader consideration of “process” is found in ADR Rule 2.7(A). That rule provides that a party may terminate a “mediation” at any time “after two (2) sessions have been completed”, clearly implying that mediation encompasses more than just the day or days of the sessions. Further, both ADR Rule 2 and Rule 7 set forth requirements and disclosures that by their nature must be performed before or after a session.

The Uniform Mediation Act Specifically Protects Pre-Mediation Communications

In 2001, after thorough and detailed study, initiated in part by the ABA’s Section of Dispute Resolution, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Mediation Act (“UMA”), adopted to date by twelve states.

The UMA specifically protects communications that occur “during a mediation” but also protects as confidential any additional statements

“…which are made for the purposes of considering, conducting, participating in,

Initiating, continuing or reconvening a mediation or retaining a mediator.”

UMA Sec. 2.2

This definition is broad enough to cover all statements and exchanges made conducting a “mediation for a mediation” and makes clear that counsel’s conversation with potential mediators and pre-session conversations with the mediator are protected.

Since complex mediations often require numerous conversations and communications to plan, convene and arrange the actual mediation, it is important to be clear that such activity is protected. Because, however, complex mediation can extend over weeks and months, the drafters of the UMA considered the potential for abuse if lawyers attempt to bring pre-mediation or interim mediation communications under the confidentiality protection for the wrong reasons. The drafters suggested that the privilege and communication should be restricted to those that a “party would reasonably believe would be confidential.”

As to when a mediation “starts” and “ends” the UMA drafters elected to leave that issue to the discretion of courts on a case by case basis.

Rules in other states, and cases interpreting them, have adopted the UMA’s broader confidentiality scope. California’s statute, for example, provides as follows:

“’Mediation consultation’ means a communication between a person and a mediator for the purpose of initiating or considering, or reconvening a mediation or retaining a mediator”. Cal.Evid.Code 1115(c)

The California Supreme Court recently further defined and broadened communications made “for the purpose” of mediating to include pre mediation statements between an attorney and his own client. Casel v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 244P.3d 1080 (Cal 2011).

Although, as mentioned, Indiana has not adopted the UMA, our ADR Rules are generally consistent with that Act’s approach and, more importantly, as early as 2000, the Indiana Supreme Court favorably cited and arguably partly relied upon the then draft form comments of the UMA in discussing confidentially in mediation in Vernon v. Acton 732 N.E.2nd 805 (Ind.2000).

Conclusion

Indiana counsel should feel reasonably comfortable that all pre-session communications made while, or for the purpose of considering, initiating or conducting a mediation are covered by the confidentiality provisions of the ADR Rules.

Best practice, however, would be for the parties to so specifically provide in their mediation agreement. This is especially important in pre-suit matters as such cases are only covered by the ADR Rules if the parties specifically so indicate. (ADR Rule 1.4 and ADR Rule 8.)•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT