ILNews

Van Winkle: Should Indiana adopt Uniform Mediation Act?

John R. Van Winkle
October 26, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Uniform Mediation Act was adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and recommended for enactment by states in August of 2001. The UMA, initiated by the American Bar Association’s then newly formed Section of Dispute Resolution, has been adopted by 11 states and the District of Columbia. Indiana’s neighboring states of Illinois and Ohio have enacted the UMA, and the act has been introduced in 2011 in Massachusetts and New York. The touchstone of the UMA is a privilege to protect mediation confidentiality and, although Indiana’s ADR Rule 2 governing mediation provides for confidentiality and mentions privilege, it is not as clear, specific and broad as the UMA.

The core of the UMA: Is a mediation ‘privileged’?

vanwinkle-john-mug.jpg Van Winkle

The UMA was an unusual collaborative effort between drafting committees from the ABA’s Section of Dispute Resolution and the Uniform Law Commissioners. These committees decided that the most effective manner of promoting candor and confidence in the mediation process was to center the confidentiality concerns in the form of a privilege.

“The Drafters considered several other approaches to mediation confidentiality – including a categorical exclusion for mediation communication, the extension of evidentiary settlement discussion rules to mediation, and mediation incompetency.” – Official Comment 2 to Section 4 of the UMA.

In contrast, the Indiana rule simply states that mediations are to be considered as settlement negotiations and covered by the evidentiary exclusionary provisions of Rule of Evidence 408. (Ind ADR Rule 2.11) That rule also provides that any matter discussed during the mediation shall be considered “confidential and privileged in nature.” The Indiana rule somewhat mixes the concepts of confidentiality and privilege and does not define the scope of the “mediation.”

The UMA’s focus on privilege simplifies and strengthens the confidentiality of mediation by creating a privilege for mediators and participants that allows them to refuse to disclose a “mediation communication” in any discovery or evidentiary proceedings covered by the act. An important component of the act is the broadness of the definition of a “mediation communication.”

UMA extends privilege protection

One of the most important aspects of the UMA is that it extends privilege protection to any “statement, whether oral or in a record or verbal or nonverbal, that occurs during a mediation or is made for purposes of considering, conducting, or participating in, initiating, continuing or reconvening a mediation or retaining a mediator.” (UMA, Section 2(2))

Many mediations of complex and multi-party disputes not only often extend over multiple sessions, they also commonly involve numerous pre-session conference calls and planning sessions, and the provisions of the UMA clearly extend privilege coverage to these activities. Although it can be argued that Indiana’s rule also so provides, it is not clearly stated.

The definition of “mediation communication” only extends to non-verbal conduct which is intended to be an assertion. The Indiana Court of Appeals, in Bridges v. Metromedia Steakhouse Company, 807 N.E2d 162, (Ind. App.2004), found similarly in holding that a witness could testify as to observations made during a mediation as to the condition of the plaintiff’s arm.

Although the Indiana court in Bridges reached the same conclusion that would have resulted under the UMA, its analysis was focused on Evidence Rule 408 with a reference to the “general rule that matters discussed in mediation are confidential and privileged,” again combining in the analysis both confidentiality under 408 and privilege but without a clear indication of how the privilege applies.

Waiver and preclusion of the privilege

The drafters of the UMA decided that to have an effective mediation privilege, there needed to be a “blocking function.” (Official Comment 4, Sect. 4(b)) Under Section 4, a party may not only refuse to disclose a mediation communication, he or she may also prevent any other party from disclosing such a communication. Mediators and non-party participants may also refuse to disclose mediation communications and may block others from doing so also. All mediators and parties must agree in a record or orally in a proceeding to waive the privilege and a waiver can not be made by “conduct.” (UMA, Section 4)

Conclusion

As indicated above, although Indiana’s mediation rule both specifically applies Evidence Rule 408 and states that matters in mediation are “confidential and privileged,” it does not specifically delineate the scope of mediation nor does it explain the interplay and relationship of the concepts of confidentiality under 408 and privilege.

The incorporation of all or parts of the UMA into the Indiana ADR Rule 2 covering mediation would bring clarity to the scope and extent of confidentiality in mediation and, by using the same privilege focus, would simplify any analysis.•

__________

John R. Van Winkle chaired the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution and has been a full-time professional mediator and arbitrator since 1994. He is a founding member of Van Winkle Baten Dispute Resolution. The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s.
 

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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT