Source: http://www.fishermediation.com/california-supreme-court-no-attorney-malpractice-exception-to-mediation-confidentiality/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 05:52:35+00:00

Document:
In a legal malpractice suit, communications between the attorneys and client during mediation of the underlying case are not admissible in the malpractice action. Those communications may not be used in subsequent proceedings and are protected by mediation confidentiality under Evidence Code § 1119 (all statutory references are to the Evidence Code), unless mediation confidentiality is waived by all participants. There is no “attorney malpractice” exception to mediation confidentiality. What follows is a summary of the Court’s opinion in Michael Cassel v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County; Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, LLP, Real Parties in Interest, 2011 Cal. LEXIS 2 (filed 1-13-11).
Petitioner Michael Cassel agreed during mediation to a settlement. He then sued his attorneys for malpractice, alleging that by bad advice, deception and coercion, the attorneys induced him to settle for a lower amount than he had told them he would accept, and for less than the case was worth. Prior to trial (Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William A. MacLaughlin), real parties in interest, the defendant attorneys moved under mediation confidentiality to exclude all evidence of private attorney-client discussions immediately preceding, and during, the mediation concerning mediation settlement strategies and defendants’ efforts to persuade petitioner to reach a settlement in the mediation. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion.
In the Supreme Court appeal, the real parties urged that under the plain language of mediation confidentiality statutes, their mediation-related discussions with petitioner were inadmissible in his malpractice action against them, even if those discussions occurred in private, away from any other mediation participant. Petitioner countered that the mediation confidentiality statutes do not protect such private attorney-client communications – even if they occurred in connection with a mediation – when the client claims that the attorneys committed legal malpractice.
2. Simmons v. Ghaderi (2008) 44 Cal.4th 570, 580 (Simmons); Fair v. Bakhtiari (2006) 40 Cal.4th 189, 194 (Fair); Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 407, 415-416 (Rojas); Foxgate Homeowners Assn. v. Bramalea California, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1, 13-14, 17 (Foxgate). Wimsatt v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 137, 163 (Wimsatt).
4. Section 1119, subdivisions (a) and (b), do not restrict confidentiality to communications between mediation “participants.” They provide more broadly that “[n]o evidence of anything said” (§ 1119, subd. (a), italics added), and “[n]o writing” (id., subd. (b)), is discoverable or admissible in a legal proceeding if the utterance or writing was “for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation…” (Id., subds. (a), (b)). The protection afforded by these statutes is not limited by the identity of the communicator, by his or her status as a “party,” “disputant,” or “participant” in the mediation itself, by the communication’s nature, or by its specific potential for damage to a disputing party.

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