LD 1295
pg. 19
Page 18 of 67 An Act To Enact the Uniform Mediation Act Page 20 of 67
Download Bill Text
LR 464
Item 1

 
do not have the substantial rights under additional sections
that are provided to parties. Rather, these non-party
participants are granted a more limited privilege under Section
4(b)(3). Parties seeking to apply restrictions on disclosures by
such participants - including their attorneys and other
representatives - should consider drafting such a
confidentiality obligation into a valid and binding agreement
that the participant signs as a condition of participation in
the mediation.

 
A mediation party may participate in the mediation in person,
by phone, or electronically. A person, as defined in Section
2(6), may participate through a designated agent. If the party
is an entity, it is the entity, rather than a particular
agent, that holds the privilege afforded in Sections 4-6.

 
6. Section 2(6). "Person."

 
Sections 2(6) adopts the standard language recommended by the
National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws for
the drafting of statutory language, and the term should be
interpreted in a manner consistent with that usage.

 
7. Section 2(7). "Proceeding."

 
Section 2(7) defines the proceedings to which the Act applies,
and should be read broadly to effectuate the intent of the
Act. It was added to allow the Drafters to delete repetitive
language throughout the Act, such as judicial, administrative,
arbitral, or other adjudicative processes, including related
pre-hearing and post-hearing motions, conferences, and
discovery, or legislative hearings or similar processes.

 
8. Section 2(8). "Record" and Section 2(9). "Sign."

 
These Sections adopt standard language approved by the Uniform
Law Conference that is intended to conform Uniform Acts with
the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) and its federal
counterpart, Electronic Signatures in Global and National
Commerce Act (E-Sign) (15 U.S.C 7001, etc seq. (2000).

 
Both UETA and E-Sign were written in response to broad
recognition of the commercial and other use of electronic
technologies for communications and contracting, and the
consensus that the choice of medium should not control the
enforceability of transactions. These Sections are consistent
with both UETA and E-Sign. UETA has been adopted by the
Conference and received the approval of the American Bar
Association House of Delegates. As of December 2001, it had
been enacted in more than 35 states. See also Section 11,
Relation
to Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.

 
The practical effect of these provisions is to make clear that
electronic signatures and documents have the same authority as


Page 18 of 67 Top of Page Page 20 of 67