ADR Prof Blog by Andrea Schneider, Michael Moffitt, Sarah Cole,Art Hinshaw, Jill Gross and Cynthia Alkon.
The Federal Circuit recently handed down its decision in the CEATS v. Continental case. If I were teaching Mediation this year, I’d spend some real time on it.
Quick summary (oversimplifying for purposes of clarity here): Mediator appointed to patent case. Case didn’t wind up settling, and it proceeded to trial. After jury verdict, losing party discovered that the mediator had a prior relationship with the prevailing party. Losing party seeks FRCP 60(b) relief. Court says, “Yes, mediator should have disclosed the relationship, but no, relief from judgment is not available.”
Lots in there worthy of time and consideration. How did the court come to cite and apply things like the Model Standards of Conduct to this mediator? What, if any, consequences could there be for failure to disclose? (Private liability, as I’ve written previously, here, unlikely to be successful.) If the presence of a subsequent jury trial stands as evidence of a cure of any alleged prior mediator misconduct, what incentives does that create within mediation? Does the conflict rule applied to judges and arbitrators make sense for mediators? Etc.
Mediation Program on the Chopping Block That's right, despite the fact that the mediation program between Police and civilians in San Fransisco is doing so good, it is still on...By Jeff Thompson
JAMS ADR Blog by Chris PooleMuch has been written in recent years about whether arbitration has lived up to its billing as a “better, faster, cheaper” alternative to litigation. No...By Kim Taylor
Michael L. Moffitt’s The Four Ways to Assure Mediator Quality (and why none of them work) was described by the author as a cautionary piece. It influenced the thinking behind...By Michael Leathes