| | |
uniformity of the law will provide greater protection of | | mediation than any one state has the capacity to provide. No | | matter how much protection one state affords confidentiality | | protection, for example, the communication will not be protected | | against compelled disclosure in another state if that state does | | not have the same level of protection. Finally, uniformity has | | the capacity to simplify and clarify the law, and this is | | particularly true with respect to mediation confidentiality. | | Where many states have several different confidentiality | | provisions, most of them could be replaced with an integrated | | Uniform Mediation Act. Similarly, to the extent that there may | | be confusion between states over which state's law would apply | | to a mediation with an interstate character, uniformity | | simplifies the task of those involved in the mediation by | | requiring them to look at only one law rather than the laws of | | all affected states. |
|
| | | This chapter takes effect January 1, 2004. |
|
| | | The Uniform Mediation Act was drafted such that it can be | | integrated into the fabric of most state legal regimes with | | minimal disruption of current law or practices. In particular, | | it is not the intent of the UMA to disrupt existing law in | | those few states that have well-established mediation | | processes by statute, court rules, or court decisions. For | | example, its privilege structure, exceptions, etc., is | | consistent with most of the hundreds of privilege statutes | | currently in the states. |
|
| | | Many of these can simply be repealed, and this Section | | provides the vehicle for so doing. However, states should take | | care not to repeal additional provisions that may be embedded | | within their state laws that may be desirable and which are | | not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. An Act is | | still uniform if it provides for mediator incompetency or | | provides for costs and attorneys fees to mediators who are | | wrongfully subpoenaed. For example, in Ohio the Act would seem | | to replace the need for the generic privilege statute, O.R.C. | | 2317.023, and that part of the domestic mediation statute | | O.R.C. 3109.052 relating to privilege, but not the public | | records exception, O.R.C. 149.43 or failure to report a crime, | | O.R.C. 3109.052. |
|
| | | In contrast, Alabama has fewer statutes that would be subsumed | | by the Act. For example, the Act would seem to replace the | | need for the confidentiality provision in Ala. Code 24-4-12 | | (communications during conciliation sessions of complaints |
|
|
