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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT