LD 1295
pg. 52
Page 51 of 67 An Act To Enact the Uniform Mediation Act Page 53 of 67
Download Bill Text
LR 464
Item 1

 
The communications by the mediator to the court or other
authority are broadly defined. The provisions would not permit
a mediator to communicate, for example, on whether a
particular party engaged in "good faith" negotiation, or to
state whether a party had been "the problem" in reaching a
settlement. Section 7(b)(1), however, does permit disclosure
of particular facts, including attendance and whether a
settlement was reached. For example, a mediator may report
that one party did not attend and another attended only for
the first five minutes. States with "good faith" mediation
laws or court rules may want to consider the interplay between
such laws and this Section of the Act.

 
§10008. Confidentiality

 
Unless subject to Title 1, chapter 13, subchapter 1,
mediation communications are confidential to the extent agreed
by the parties or provided by other law or rule of this State.

 
REPORTER'S NOTES

 
This Section restates the general rule in the states regarding
the confidentiality of mediation communications outside the
context of proceedings.

 
Typically, confidentiality agreements are enforceable against
a signatory under state contract law, through damages and
sometimes specific enforcement. See, e.g., Doe v. Roe, 93
Misc.2d 201, 400 N.Y.S.2d 668 (1977). This furthers the Act's
underlying policy of party self-determination by permitting
the parties to determine whether, when, and how statements
made in mediation may be disclosed to friends, family members,
business associates, the media and other third parties --
outside the context of proceedings that are covered by the
privilege. It also draws a clear line to better guide the
parties.

 
Section 8 was the culmination of efforts in several drafts to
understand and manage the reasonable expectations of mediation
participants regarding disclosures outside of proceedings.
Early drafts were criticized by some in the mediation
community for failing to impose an affirmative duty on
mediation participants not to disclose mediation
communications to third persons outside of the context of the
proceedings at which the Section 4 privilege applies. In
several subsequent drafts, the Drafters attempted to establish
a rule that would prohibit such disclosures, but found it
impracticable to do so without imposing a severe risk of civil
liability on the many unknowing mediation participants who
might discuss their mediations with
friends and family members, for example, for any number of
salutary reasons.


Page 51 of 67 Top of Page Page 53 of 67