At virtually every mediation, the mediator or counsel advise the clients that mediation communications are privileged, so that parties may feel comfortable in offering concessions or otherwise making statements, as disclosure cannot be compelled in any subsequent proceeding.
Recent submissions in the ADR series in The Legal, however, have reflected that the mediation privilege often presents unexpected complications. In two recent articles, I pointed out the greater scope of the mediation privilege in Pennsylvania when compared with Pennsylvania’s exclusionary rule relating to compromise negotiations. I also indicated, however, that in a professional malpractice case, the privilege may prevent both plaintiff and defendant from presenting evidence of mediation communications that would support their respective positions. (This was contrasted with New Jersey’s Uniform Mediation Act (UMA), in which privilege does not bar the introduction of mediation communications introduced to prove or disprove a claim of professional misconduct (N.J.S.A 2A:23C-6(6)).)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
