Both the mediation and legal communities in California are abuzz about the Court of Appeals decision in Cassel v. Superior Court (Cal. App. 2 Dist. November 12, 2009)which held that attorney client communications are not protected from becoming evidence when they take place at mediation if the mediator isn’t in the room at the time of the communication. Apparently, a well respected lawfirm, Wasserman, Camden and Comden, strongly urged it’s client, Mr. Cassel, to accept a $1 million settlement during a private meeting at the mediation. Mr. Cassel agreed and the settlement was drawn up. Now Mr. Cassel is claiming his lawyers coerced him into the settlment and in doing so, breached their fiduciary duty to him. Not only does he seek to unravel the settlement, but seeks additional damages from his attorneys. The Court created a judicial exception to the confidentiality statue where the communication was solely between lawyer and client. Lesson? Lawyer beware. Never let the mediator out of your sight lest your advice, if accepted, maybe subject to later challenges. And your settlement may be unenforceable. Sounds like a good deal for mediators, and a raw deal for mediation confidentiality. Lots to think about on this one.
Often when I speak about conflict and dispute resolution I mention three words that I consider to be my mantra in regards to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Communication, Understanding and...
By Jeff ThompsonAs parents, we try to protect our kids from undue stress. But the reality is that life is inherently stressful. While we may not be able to protect our kids...
By Jane McWilliamsGreetings from the future, 10 years in the future to be exact, November 28, 2030 to be even more precise. It is Thanksgiving Day 2030, and we are here testing...
By Jim Melamed