LD 1295
pg. 10
Page 9 of 67 An Act To Enact the Uniform Mediation Act Page 11 of 67
Download Bill Text
LR 464
Item 1

 
1805 (1983); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 36.220 (1997); 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. Section 5949 (1996); R.I. Gen. Laws Section 9-
19-44 (1992); S.D. Codified Laws Section 19-13-32 (1998); Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 154.053 (c) (1999); Utah Code
Ann. Section 30-3-38(4) (2000); Va. Code Ann. Section 8.01-
576.10 (1994); Wash. Rev. Code Section 5.60.070 (1993); Wis.
Stat. Section 904.085(4)(a) (1997); Wyo. Stat. Ann. Section 1-
43-103 (1991).

 
5. A product of a consensual process.

 
The Mediation Act results from an historic collaboration.
The Uniform Law Commission Drafting Committee, chaired by
Judge Michael B. Getty, was joined in the drafting of this Act
by a Drafting Committee sponsored by the American Bar
Association, working through its Section of Dispute
Resolution, which was co-chaired by former American Bar
Association President Roberta Cooper Ramo (Modrall, Sperling,
Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A.) and Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer
of the Supreme Court of Ohio. The leadership of both
organizations had recognized that the time was ripe for a
uniform law on mediation. While both Drafting Committees were
independent, they worked side by side, sharing resources and
expertise in a collaboration that augmented the work of both
Drafting Committees by broadening the diversity of their
perspectives. See Michael B. Getty, Thomas J. Moyer & Roberta
Cooper Ramo, Preface to Symposium on Drafting a Uniform/Model
Mediation Act, 13 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 787 (1998). For
instance, the Drafting Committees represented various contexts
in which mediation is used: private mediation, court-related
mediation, community mediation, and corporate mediation.
Similarly, they also embraced a spectrum of viewpoints about
the goals of mediation - efficiency for the parties and the
courts, the enhancement of the possibility of fundamental
reconciliation of the parties, and the enrichment of society
through the use of less adversarial means of resolving
disputes. They also included a range of viewpoints about how
mediation is to be conducted, including, for example, strong
proponents of both the evaluative and facilitative models of
mediation, as well as supporters and opponents of mandatory
mediation.

 
Finally, with the assistance of a grant from the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation, both Drafting Committees had
substantial academic support for their work by many of
mediation's most distinguished scholars, who volunteered their
time and energies out of their belief in the utility and
timeliness of a uniform mediation law. These included members
of the faculties of Harvard Law School, the University of
Missouri-Columbia School of Law, the Ohio State University
College of Law, and Bowdoin College, including Professors
Frank E.A. Sander (Harvard Law School); Chris Guthrie, John
Lande,


Page 9 of 67 Top of Page Page 11 of 67