LD 1295
pg. 29
Page 28 of 67 An Act To Enact the Uniform Mediation Act Page 30 of 67
Download Bill Text
LR 464
Item 1

 
but the protections may be waived under Section 5 or under
Section 3(c).

 
2. The mediation privilege structure.

 
a. Rationale for privilege.

 
Section 4(b) grants a privilege for mediation communications
that, like other communications privileges, allows a person to
refuse to disclose and to prevent other people from disclosing
particular communications. See generally Strong, supra, at
Section 72; Developments in the Law - Privileged
Communications, 98 Harv. L. Rev. 1450 (1985). The Drafters
considered several other approaches to mediation
confidentiality - including a categorical exclusion for
mediation communications, the extension of evidentiary
settlement discussion rules to mediation, and mediator
incompetency. Upon exhaustive study and consideration,
however, each of these mechanisms proved either overbroad in
that they failed to fairly account for interests of justice
that might occasionally outweigh the importance of mediation
confidentiality (categorical exclusion and mediator
incompetency), underbroad in that they failed to meet the
reasonable needs of the mediation process or the reasonable
expectations of the parties in the mediation process
(settlement discussions), or under-inclusive in that they
failed to provide protection for all of those involved in the
mediation process (mediator incompetency).

 
The Drafters ultimately settled on the use of the privilege
structure, the primary means by which communications are
protected at law, an approach that is narrowly tailored to
satisfy the legitimate interests and expectations of
participants in mediation, the mediation process, and the
larger system of justice in which it operates. The privilege
structure also provides greater certainty in judicial
interpretation because of the courts' familiarity with other
privileges, and is consistent with the approach taken by the
overwhelming majority of legislatures that have acted to
provide broad legal protections for mediation confidentiality.
Indeed, of the 25 States that have enacted confidentiality
statutes of general application, 21 have plainly used the
privilege structure. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 12-2238
(West 1993); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 16-7-206 (1997);
Iowa Code Section 679C.2 (1998); Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 60-
452 (1964); La. Rev. St. Ann. Section 9:4112 (1997); Me. R.
Evid. Section 408 (1997); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, Section 23C
(1985); Mont. Code Ann. Section 26-1-813 (1999); Nev. Rev.
Stat. Section 48.109(3) (1993); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section
2317.023 (West 1996); Okla. stat. tit. 12, Section 1805
(1983); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 36.220 (1997); 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. Section 5949 (1996) (general); 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


Page 28 of 67 Top of Page Page 30 of 67