The basic rule is this: the confidentiality of information held by a mediator is nearly-sacred.
The case is In re Anonymous, 283 F.3d 627 (4th Cir. 2002).
The question is whether a mediator may divulge, or be compelled to divulge, information from a mediation session.
An underlying lawsuit is settled in mediation. And a dispute arises between the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney over reimbursement of expenses.
The dispute is referred to an arbitration panel, and one of the parties wants the mediator to provide documents and testify. The other party objects.
A lengthy opinion on the matter addresses the question of what information a mediator may divulge – or be required to divulge.
The following is a summary of the findings, analysis and conclusion on this question in the opinion.
If a mediator were to divulge confidential information, that would “encourage perceptions of bias in future mediation sessions involving comparable parties and issues” and might “encourage creative attorneys to attempt to use our court officers and mediation program as a discovery tool.”
If mediators “testify about their activities” or are required to produce their “notes or reports of their activities,” the evidence would undoubtedly favor or seem to favor one side or the other. The “inevitable result” would seriously impair or destroy “the usefulness of the mediation program in the settlement of future disputes.”
The following from a California case is quoted in the opinion:
“Good mediators are deeply committed to being and remaining neutral and nonjudgmental, and to building and preserving relationships with parties. To force them to give evidence that hurts someone from whom they actively solicited trust . . . rips the fabric of their work and can threaten their sense of the center of their professional integrity.”
The following legal standard is announced in the In re Anonymous opinion for a court’s consent to a mediator’s disclosure of information:
“We will consent for the Circuit Mediator to disclose confidential information only where such disclosure is mandated by manifest injustice, is indispensable to resolution of an important subsequent dispute, and is not going to damage our mediation program.”
Applying the Standard
The In re Anonymous Court applies its legal standard as follows:
–“In this situation, [plaintiff’s former attorney] has failed to establish that the expense dispute is incapable of resolution absent the Circuit Mediator’s involvement.”
–Plaintiff “objects to the Circuit Mediator’s involvement,” contending that the Mediator “will be biased in her responses” to the former attorney’s inquiries.
–The mediation program “may be damaged when a party who has been assured of confidentiality subsequently faces a disclosure of confidential material by a mediator who is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as biased.”
–”This perception of bias is the type of damage against which our confidentiality rule, as applied to the Circuit Mediator, is attempting to protect.”
Accordingly, the Court reaches this final conclusion:
“We decline to consent for the Circuit Mediator to respond to the informal interrogatories . . . or to otherwise disclose confidential information in the expense dispute.”
What do you think about all this?
Leave a Reply