At the direction of the State Legislature, in 2013, the California Law Commission (Commission) undertook an intensive analysis of the rules governing the relationship between mediation confidentiality and attorney misconduct. Some of the issues evaluated by the Commission include the impact of mediation confidentiality on public protection, client rights, attorney discipline and the desire of parties to enter into mediation proceedings. Specifically, this study sought to determine whether a party in a mediation can expose communications to support a charge of attorney malpractice in connection with the mediation.
Mediation is a voluntary method of alternative dispute resolution in which a mediator assists the parties in reaching a resolution. One of the distinguishing features of mediation is that it is a strictly confidential process. Other than the parties and the mediator, the discussions that occur throughout mediation are private and not subject to disclosure, even in a court of law.
Currently, California is among eighteen states with a mediation confidentiality statute that does not carve out any exceptions to confidentiality to target attorney misbehavior. California is widely known to have one of the most stringent statutes to protect confidentiality in the course of mediation. The California Supreme Court has rebuffed attempts by appellate courts to draft exclusions to the statute on the theory that the legislative history and language clearly support unequivocal confidentiality. In 2012, Assembly Bill 2025 was introduced to the Legislature. This bill contained an exception to the confidentiality rule for communications between a client and an attorney in the event of a malpractice action. The bill was later abandoned as a result of staunch opposition.
The Commission has now been engaged in an examination of the policy controlling mediation confidentiality and attorney misconduct for a few years. In drafting its recommendation of an exception to confidentiality provisions to cover misconduct, the Commission suggested that the confidentiality statute be modified to exempt “alleged misconduct of an attorney or attorney-mediator.” The Commission has held hearings and published comments, but has yet to draft its recommendations.
Contact Shane Coons at 949-333-0900 or visit his website at www.ShaneCoonsLaw.com to find out more about his practice.