The Dilemma:

At an initial private meeting with a lawyer and his lay client in a mediation, it became obvious to the mediator that he had previously mediated in a matter which was related to the present dispute, the outcome of which was not known to the present parties. In the mediator’s view, it had no direct bearing on the present mediation and presented no direct conflict of interest.

However, the mediator felt that the parties needed to be aware of the fact of his involvement, not least because a claim might result from resolution of the present matter which would be directed against insurers who had been involved in the earlier matter. He was concerned about how the insurers might react to his involvement in both matters. He was bound by the confidentiality provisions of the mediation agreement in the earlier matter not to disclose his involvement in that earlier matter.

He was aware that his unilateral withdrawal from the present matter without explanation would, for a number of reasons, be a serious blow to the lay clients.

What happened:

The mediator spoke privately to the lawyers and explained only that he had had some involvement “in a related matter”. The lawyer whose client had a potential claim against insurers was concerned about the possibility that the mediator’s involvement (as he inferred) in both matters might be used by the insurers as a reason not to meet the latest claim.

The mediator sought unsuccessfully to contact the lawyer who had acted for the insurers in the first matter. He then contacted the claims manager of the insurers in that matter (who was known to him). He explained a “hypothetical situation” to the claims manager, who (a) authorised the mediator to disclose his involvement in the earlier matter to those in the present matter and (b) offered to speak directly to the lawyer with a potential claim arising from the present matter.

The mediator conveyed this information to the lawyers and the communication referred to in (b) was apparently made. Both lawyers subsequently confirmed that they had no concerns about proceeding with the mediation. The mediator had not spoken to the clients about any of this and agreed with the lawyers that he would explain privately to each client in the presence of their lawyer that he had had some involvement “in a related matter”. Having done so, he left the clients and lawyers to discuss the situation privately. Both lawyers subsequently confirmed that their clients had no concern about proceeding. The matter was then closed and the mediation proceeded.

(Incidentally, at a time when matters were uncertain, the mediator had taken steps to arrange for a colleague to take over from him if necessary.)

What had the mediator missed? Why was the mediator still cautious when speaking to the clients?


________________________

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Mediation Blog, please subscribe here.


Kluwer Arbitration
image_pdfimage_print

One comment

  1. With the limited facts I think the mediator should have declined to continue the mediation . Disclosure the the mediator had been involved “in a related manner” is vague and does not seem to be much of a disclosure.

    Also these “rules” from the uniform act would seem to be an issue:

    If a mediator’s conflict of interest might reasonably be viewed as undermining the integrity of the mediation, a mediator shall withdraw from or decline to proceed with the mediation regardless of the expressed desire or agreement of the parties to the contrary.

    Subsequent to a mediation, a mediator shall not establish another relationship with any of the participants in any matter that would raise questions about the integrity of the mediation. When a mediator develops personal or professional relationships with parties, other individuals or organizations following a mediation in which they were involved, the mediator should consider factors such as time elapsed following the mediation, the nature of the relationships established, and services offered when determining whether the relationships might create a perceived or actual conflict of interest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *