LD 1295
pg. 57
Page 56 of 67 An Act To Enact the Uniform Mediation Act Page 58 of 67
Download Bill Text
LR 464
Item 1

 
must be disclosed under a reasonableness standard. Prudence,
professional reputation, and indeed common practice would compel
the practitioner to err on the side of caution in close cases.
Moreover, mediators with full-time or otherwise extensive
mediation practices may wish to avail themselves of the common
technologies used by law firms to identify conflicts of
interest. Finally in this regard, it is worth underscoring that
this duty to disclose conflicts of interest is intended to
further party self-determination and the integrity of the
mediation process, and is not intended to provide a cover or
vehicle for bad faith litigation tactics, such as fishing
expeditions into a mediator's professional or personal
background. Such conduct would continue to be subject to
traditional sanction standards.

 
2. Section 9(c) and (f). Disclosure of mediator's
qualifications

 
Sections 9(c) and (f) address the issue of mediator
qualifications, and, like the conflicts of interest provision,
are intended to further principles of party autonomy and
informed consent. In particular, these Sections do not require
mediators to have certain qualifications, specifically
including a law degree; nor, unlike the conflicts of interest
provision, do they impose an affirmative duty on the mediator
to disclose qualifications. Rather, the mediator's obligation
is responsive: if a party asks for the mediator's
qualifications to mediate a particular dispute, the mediator
must provide those qualifications.

 
In some situations, the parties may make clear that they care
about the mediator's substantive knowledge of the context of
the dispute, or that they want to know whether the mediator in
the past has used a purely facilitative mediation process or
instead an evaluative approach. Compare Leonard L. Riskin,
Understanding Mediators' Orientations, Strategies, and
Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed, 1 Harv. Negotiation L.
Rev. 7 (1996) with Joseph B. Stulberg, Facilitative Versus
Evaluative Mediator Orientations: Piercing The "Grid" Lock, 24
Fla. State Univ. L. Rev. 985 (1997); see generally Symposium,
Fla. State Univ. L. Rev. (1997). Experience mediating would
seem important to some parties, and indeed this is one aspect
of the mediator's background that has been shown to correlate
with effectiveness in reaching settlement. See, e.g., Jessica
Pearson & Nancy Thoennes, Divorce Mediation Research Results,
in Divorce Mediation: Theory and Practice, 429, 436 (Folberg &
Milne, eds., 1988); Roselle L. Wissler, A Closer Look at
Settlement Week, 4 Disp. Resol. Mag. 28 (Summer 1998).

 
It must be stressed that the Act does not establish mediator
qualifications. No consensus has emerged in the law, research,
or commentary as to those mediator qualifications that will
best produce effectiveness or fairness. As clarified by
Section 9(f),


Page 56 of 67 Top of Page Page 58 of 67