The 16th meeting of the World Mediation Forum of the UIA was held in Lisbon, Portugal, on January 27-28, 2012. It was very well attended, as the attached attendance sheet attests. Co-President Colin Wall noted that attendees came from 31 countries.
A panel on mandatory mediation brought out some interesting recent developments, including a game-changer in Italy. Read more »
A recent U.S. District Court opinion has tested the ethical rules barring mediators from representing a party in a subsequent matter that is “identical” or “substantially related” to the mediated matter. It found that, at least in the case before the court, that test had not been satisfied and the mediator/attorney was permitted to continue to represent the client. Read more »
Two recent court decisions have bubbled through the cyber-community of ListServes and blogs. Both address attorney disqualification — one in the context of a mediation and the other in the context of an arbitration. The latter is featured here and the former will be described in a subsequent posting.
In Northwestern National Insurance Company v. Insco, Ltd, 11 Civ. 1124 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. October 3, 2011), the court granted a motion to disqualify the law firm of Freeborn & Peters LLP from continuing to represent its client Insco in an ongoing arbitration. In deciding the motion the court (a) found that it, and not the arbitration Panel, was the proper forum for such relief, and (b) determined that Freeman’s solicitation, receipt, study and use of approximately 130 e-mails between the Panel members, some containing deliberations of the Panel, was an egregious breach of its ethical duties, meriting disqualification. Read more »
In New Jersey, the Superior Court Appellate Division recently approved for publication a decision in which a party to a mediation successfully sought to enforce a settlement agreement reached orally but not commited to writing during the mediation. The objecting party had claimed that (a) the New Jersey Rule pursuant to which the mediation took place required a writing in order for the settlement to be enforceable, and (b) the purported agreement was the product of coercion by the mediator.
Of particular interest, the party seeking enforcement “supported the motion with a certification of their attorney and the mediator,” who also was deposed and testified at the hearing.
Of even more particular interest, the parties in this General Equity action selected a retired (and unnamed) Superior Court Judge as mediator. The trial judge on the motion found his former colleague’s testimony “highly credible.” Imagine that!
