Source: https://www.mediate.com/ScottGilmore/pg24.cfm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:39:34+00:00

Document:
Articles by Scott > Exceptions to Confidentiality?
The broad reach of mediation confidentiality in California is based upon the California Evidence Code, which states that every communication, whether or not in writing, that was “made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation” is confidential and is not admissible in any subsequent proceeding or subject to discovery. (Evidence Code § 1119). Mediation confidentiality also finds support in Evidence Code §§ 703.5 and 958. Beginning in 2001 with the California Supreme Court decision in Foxgate Homeowners’ Association, Inc. v. Bromaela California, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1, the scope of mediation confidentiality as contained within the relevant statutes has been considered to be “clear and absolute” by the California Supreme Court. That principle was further confirmed in the opinions in Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal. 4th 402, Fair v. Bakhtiari (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 189 and Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 570.
Beginning in 2007 the scope of mediation confidentiality and its potential for the unintended protection of attorney misconduct became a focus of judicial review. In Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137, the Second Appellate District interpreted mediation confidentiality to be broad enough to potentially protect attorneys against claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising during the mediation process. In Wimsatt, a party who had settled a personal injury lawsuit during mediation thereafter sued his attorney in the underlying action for breach of fiduciary duty. The client claimed that his attorney had significantly lowered the settlement demand - - without the client’s permission - - which was then ultimately reduced (in the client’s mind) to the amount he was able to obtain by way of settlement at the mediation. But the court in Wimsatt invited action by the legislature to reconsider "California's broad and expansive mediation confidentiality statutes and to craft ones that would permit countervailing public policies to be considered."
However, the currently proposed exceptions to mediation confidentiality appear to include more than just attorney malpractice during the course of a mediation -- which was the focus of the opinions in Wimsatt and Cassel. Rather, the Commission suggests that exceptions to the mediation confidentiality would include not only attorney misconduct and/or malpractice, but also misconduct or malpractice by an attorney serving as a mediator. Of course, these additional proposed exceptions concern me because, as an attorney who mediates, no professional relationship -- such as an attorney-client relationship -- exists between me and either the attorneys or the parties to a mediation. So why should a claim be allowed against a mediator based upon some form of fiduciary or professional relationship, where no such relationship exists? Mediation is intended to reduce litigation, yet the potential breadth of these proposed exceptions suggests that the mediation process may become fertile ground for even more litigation.
This process will probably continue for at least a few more years. But it appears certain that, at some point, legislation will be passed which will exclude attorney misconduct during the course of mediation from the scope of mediation confidentiality. What may happen to any proposed exceptions to mediation confidentiality with respect to attorneys who serve as mediators is less clear. Of course, I will be paying close attention to that part of process.

References: § 1119
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.