LD 1295
pg. 8
Page 7 of 67 An Act To Enact the Uniform Mediation Act Page 9 of 67
Download Bill Text
LR 464
Item 1

 
Existing statutory provisions frequently vary not only
within a State but also by State in several different and
meaningful respects. The privilege provides an important
example. Virtually all States have adopted some form of
privilege, reflecting a strong public policy favoring
confidentiality in mediation. However, this policy is effected
through more than 250 different state statutes. Common
differences among these statutes include the definition of
mediation, subject matter of the dispute, scope of protection,
exceptions, and the context of the mediation that comes within
the statute (such as whether the mediation takes place in a
court or community program or a private setting).

 
Uniformity of the law helps bring order and understanding
across state lines, and encourages effective use of mediation
in a number of ways. First, uniformity is a necessary
predicate to predictability if there is any potential that a
statement made in mediation in one State may be sought in
litigation or other legal processes in another State. For this
reason, the UMA will benefit those States with clearly
established law or traditions, such as Texas, California, and
Florida, ensuring that the privilege for mediation
communications made within those States is respected in other
States in which those mediation communications may be sought.
The law of privilege does not fit neatly into a category of
either substance or procedure, making it difficult to predict
what law will apply. See, e.g., U.S. v. Gullo, 672 F.Supp. 99
(W.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding that New York mediation-arbitration
privilege applies in federal court grand jury proceeding);
Royal Caribbean Corp. v. Modesto, 614 So.2d 517 (Fla. App.
1992) (holding that Florida mediation privilege law applies in
federal Jones Act claim brought in Florida court). Moreover,
parties to a mediation cannot always know where the later
litigation or administrative process may occur. Without
uniformity, there can be no firm assurance in any State that a
mediation is privileged. Ellen E. Deason, The Quest for
Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency
or Crucial Predictability?, 85 Marquette L.Rev.79 (2001).

 
A second benefit of uniformity relates to cross-
jurisdictional mediation. Mediation sessions are increasingly
conducted by conference calls between mediators and parties in
different States and even over the Internet. Because it is
unclear which State's laws apply, the parties cannot be
assured of the reach of their home state's confidentiality
protections.

 
A third benefit of uniformity is that a party trying to
decide whether to sign an agreement to mediate may not know
where the mediation will occur and therefore whether the law
will provide a privilege or the right to bring counsel or
support


Page 7 of 67 Top of Page Page 9 of 67