Court Opinion

ID: 9783658
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:55:14.620897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:29.231813
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, J.,
concurring in result only;
While I concur on alternative grounds,8 my primary concern is the continued practice of referring persons to an expensive mandatory mediation program, exercised without court discretion. Thus, although I join the majority in denouncing the appropriation of the seal of the Court of Justice and the name of the “Administrative Office *453of the Courts,” I do not believe this denouncement goes far enough.
Simply put, no court, and certainly no county attorney, should set up a mandatory9 mediation program prior to an action being instigated, especially when the cost of such a program is to be paid by the attendees. And, even then, such a mediation order should be exercised within the court’s discretion.
Because I find this mandatory practice to be particularly objectionable, I am compelled to concur in result only.

. Contrary to the majority, I believe this action arose from district court. Appellant received documentation stating that a judge referred him to mediation and then directing him to appear for mediation at the Fayette County District Court. This documentation, along with the order of the Fayette District Court generally establishing a "Mediation Pilot Project,” reflects an apparent participation on the part of the court. Were this not so, I do not believe the esteemed Fayette County District and Circuit Courts would have allowed this practice to have to continued, nor do I believe the respected Fayette County Attorney would have instituted it without permission. Because Appellant was referred to mediation ostensibly by the Fayette District Court, I agree with the Court of Appeals that Appellant’s petition for a writ of prohibition should have been filed in the Fayette Circuit Court.

. A voluntary program would be another matter entirely.