tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23655276417634277902024-03-17T04:08:20.755-04:00The Red Velvet LawyerDiscussing new ways to meet the needs of law firm clients, lawyers, mediators, mediation parties, and negotiators. The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.comBlogger463125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-77721698061225534352023-12-31T17:04:00.004-05:002023-12-31T17:33:23.717-05:00<h1 style="text-align: center;"> </h1><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg53j2BePqcPCXeaJ1QQWzw7MrVxKk9FIML_UIiCn6xyOxi23OWbqccdsLQIMuakG-MpzIQOWp5d-BPYLZN6DVVH6j3UVeYjJJZ-ZipJSMXgw_cyhy8K4YsJKd2dIBKoRUoxrT1q3_wTSsNtx2FgHwcT0XVyJChVrGyYLmSEtmzJ3zkb5u1wyOD8R020BMF/s2121/GettyImages-1250032127.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="306" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg53j2BePqcPCXeaJ1QQWzw7MrVxKk9FIML_UIiCn6xyOxi23OWbqccdsLQIMuakG-MpzIQOWp5d-BPYLZN6DVVH6j3UVeYjJJZ-ZipJSMXgw_cyhy8K4YsJKd2dIBKoRUoxrT1q3_wTSsNtx2FgHwcT0XVyJChVrGyYLmSEtmzJ3zkb5u1wyOD8R020BMF/w460-h306/GettyImages-1250032127.jpg" width="460" /></a></div><h1 style="text-align: center;">Two Aspirational Words for 2024</h1><p>Almost every year, for a decade, I've chosen a word for the year representing my overall aspiration. I did miss a couple of years, including 2021 and 2022. I think my transition to retirement interrupted my usual year-end planning process. But, I'm ready to declare my aspirational word for 2024. Actually, I've picked two words. </p><p>Christine Kane, the entrepreneurial coach I used for three years, suggested the use of one word. Her selection tool is no longer available, it seems. But, she discusses the concept <a href="https://www.christinekane.com/powerful-lessons-word-year/">here</a>. </p><p>Chris Brogan chooses three words for each year. Here are his <a href="https://www.chrisbrogan.com/blog/stories/storytelling/3words2023">selections</a> for 2023. He uses them to positively guide his actions in the coming year. Should he commit to this project? Does it align with his three words? The words should inspire action. He lists seven rules for picking the words. And, he encourages you to review them daily.</p><p>I am picking two words this year: "leadership" and "gather."</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggcw6ZIlwy7RPvR3mWdrGIYsUL-T4S7t4O-tMiGaJVflu2lefN0AHh0xz2vSOIyR-sEZYIXfZUFqLgxdUmvTCfAlvGGchHpPp5h4tl9e3mCx4figIea-yWzsAulKYWgGzEl-CftVEeeisZCZQ-7LRQoPhOZV4-KYDgjfP0Cv006ei6ht5JK4hv3IyCsIra/s479/Growth%2045.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="359" data-original-width="479" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggcw6ZIlwy7RPvR3mWdrGIYsUL-T4S7t4O-tMiGaJVflu2lefN0AHh0xz2vSOIyR-sEZYIXfZUFqLgxdUmvTCfAlvGGchHpPp5h4tl9e3mCx4figIea-yWzsAulKYWgGzEl-CftVEeeisZCZQ-7LRQoPhOZV4-KYDgjfP0Cv006ei6ht5JK4hv3IyCsIra/s320/Growth%2045.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><b>"Leadership"</b> connotes the desire and ability to guide and inspire a group of people or individuals. In 2023, I decided to relaunch my online mediation training program. It will focus on Arab lawyers and other professionals as my ideal client. When I moved to Qatar in 2015, I expected to join an already existing community of mediators. Sadly, that community did not exist, and little interest existed in mediation. Local professionals focused on arbitration instead.</p><p>However, in the last several years, commercial mediation has taken off in the Arab Gulf region. I've analyzed the 2021 laws of <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html">Qatar</a> and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/1n-analysis-of-uaes-fed-law-no.html">UAE</a> on this blog. But, a mediation community still does not exist. As the former President of the Virginia Mediation Network, the largest group of practitioners, scholars and trainers in the Commonwealth of Virginia, I knew I needed to create one. So, in June 2023, I started by creating a LinkedIn group called <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/groups/14221031/">Mediation for Professionals in the Arab World</a>. It now has over 180 members from all parts of the Arab world. </p><p>In the meantime, I am happy to say I am in the last stages of the arduous process of getting the online mediation training course certified by the <a href="https://imimediation.org/">International Mediation Institute</a>. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGt_uOvB6brkFMzyL92iS7Z1Gjo_eFfjTVLvH780hm96dTZvktcGno3XvFnJEgBuQf2zq7Wb1Ri4Rl1_q4dBxGL_DOqGRAA-tvGzZ2zqHFPUA7scC7SoQk7EzZI3dnez3Ttt33_GYc6hJ-zXXzfeAQ5mHA9hXxJjzCZuiC_j32ro2xZcVwoiQUosI1myyQ/s2121/GettyImages-1071657466.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGt_uOvB6brkFMzyL92iS7Z1Gjo_eFfjTVLvH780hm96dTZvktcGno3XvFnJEgBuQf2zq7Wb1Ri4Rl1_q4dBxGL_DOqGRAA-tvGzZ2zqHFPUA7scC7SoQk7EzZI3dnez3Ttt33_GYc6hJ-zXXzfeAQ5mHA9hXxJjzCZuiC_j32ro2xZcVwoiQUosI1myyQ/s320/GettyImages-1071657466.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>I also plan to start a book club for that community with monthly meetings focused on mediation books. We will meet online. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBUfKdl8tzLHin6wTS0dM1X38Tq4X6vzDMb6rJLNwO3wc-GXtIwzw0i2bDAZBN-Qz9371ucvFNVop_QZ-I9XqJbPFuJl_-VudxPSnPPGO3Sd_yWStR3QIzVNIq7o-ngOh-CxPcnNu1DZYHUcQzmCaJXcPYZOwCiENuZO-3_WHLBmR2D0LqrwfI6vrZBSbj/s4032/20231231_132909.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="2268" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBUfKdl8tzLHin6wTS0dM1X38Tq4X6vzDMb6rJLNwO3wc-GXtIwzw0i2bDAZBN-Qz9371ucvFNVop_QZ-I9XqJbPFuJl_-VudxPSnPPGO3Sd_yWStR3QIzVNIq7o-ngOh-CxPcnNu1DZYHUcQzmCaJXcPYZOwCiENuZO-3_WHLBmR2D0LqrwfI6vrZBSbj/s320/20231231_132909.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><p>Finally, I am launching a series of short online lectures on conflict resolution topics I find meaningful. The first series will cover intractable conflicts. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3MFFgQmdnQRiIOI1YDJ943kpedaU5-I6khvsiyQEqPRvKmK4EevZ3Le93ootvzhRaBqDR28ZHUPVDiwgYi5umJcN2bE0s9uwS2IAhFo3xy4iGoKlaBdIM-SJnoez3j-iFHyN-98iL45-wweUuHwo-4EIWUK6Qbva5Yx5WULR2YLRQvwxxQRw6N84s28NF/s437/Group%2015.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="393" data-original-width="437" height="288" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3MFFgQmdnQRiIOI1YDJ943kpedaU5-I6khvsiyQEqPRvKmK4EevZ3Le93ootvzhRaBqDR28ZHUPVDiwgYi5umJcN2bE0s9uwS2IAhFo3xy4iGoKlaBdIM-SJnoez3j-iFHyN-98iL45-wweUuHwo-4EIWUK6Qbva5Yx5WULR2YLRQvwxxQRw6N84s28NF/s320/Group%2015.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>These leadership efforts, however, go hand in hand with the second word, <b>"gather"</b> (which I borrowed from Brogan). I am mindful of two things. First, as an elder, I have a desire to pass on my mediation wisdom, skill, and heart to younger generations. Second, my voice may not be the one they want to hear. So, I need collaborators in the Arab world.</p><p>At some deep place in my mind, I understood this second reality, but had not brought it to conscious awareness. Afterall, I am an older, white female, from the US, not a Muslim, and I have no Arab ancestry. Yes, I spent six years in Qatar, but my cultural competency is limited. </p><p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxL8ggrq8N8bmRInhWuot60JuSanq8Urm4lzbLByi5CIqyYnc8R5yPnSGAbxR_SG8rmn1CRM_rZ3iwmeL9XPFWMUuGJKmNCaNcblxKSc3jFkHU-d06EAV_jY8e-3WhLKQCQrfCcWx8hsEgq6cGQzyCA3qxvfnwXyMURnvOIYJv2js_hzaMIANLpMyUpWGj/s495/1601997256166.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="495" data-original-width="495" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxL8ggrq8N8bmRInhWuot60JuSanq8Urm4lzbLByi5CIqyYnc8R5yPnSGAbxR_SG8rmn1CRM_rZ3iwmeL9XPFWMUuGJKmNCaNcblxKSc3jFkHU-d06EAV_jY8e-3WhLKQCQrfCcWx8hsEgq6cGQzyCA3qxvfnwXyMURnvOIYJv2js_hzaMIANLpMyUpWGj/s320/1601997256166.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><p>Then, this week, I participated in an event called "The Neutrality Trap: The Dilemma of Keeping Silence." One speaker was a silver-haired, Black women named Joyce Gates Mitchell. She lives in the Washington D.C. area and works as a mediator and group facilitator. You can find her distinguished bio <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/joyce-gates-mitchell-9900b814/">here</a>. </p><p>She talked about searching for a role in the midst of the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in D.C. She decided not to attend the demonstrations. (Those were Covid-risky days for us older folks.) She also recognized that the young protesters were likely to interpret her voice as grounded in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, rather than capable of expressing current concerns of the Black community in light of police shootings. So, she worked to find the voices that younger protesters would find helpful and influential. She identified and shared that capacity in that moment. She gathered and collaborated.</p><p>My desire to build a mediation community in the Arab world comes from the same place. How can I build, identify, and amplify the conflict resolution skills of the region? How can I help the voices of young, Arab mediators find expression in a meaningful way in this moment? </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihq0FlndBS3ka4JghVAK1L9t6YXfUcH86d1-GxS6u3bSWTSU9OgE7nrebpv5To0MeZuSps2TEShNpF2gPUonv8rvZJl_JxEHCTU705F0Rt7v3mICpZeZ5hp-TDYADoUKOq0em50_PhbJp71nFuhnzEfRF7YG-nq4kpw6napaMsw9CmKKg0H-ZQWj0Uzbpn/s2121/GettyImages-1300836737.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihq0FlndBS3ka4JghVAK1L9t6YXfUcH86d1-GxS6u3bSWTSU9OgE7nrebpv5To0MeZuSps2TEShNpF2gPUonv8rvZJl_JxEHCTU705F0Rt7v3mICpZeZ5hp-TDYADoUKOq0em50_PhbJp71nFuhnzEfRF7YG-nq4kpw6napaMsw9CmKKg0H-ZQWj0Uzbpn/s320/GettyImages-1300836737.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Finally, I want to encourage you to list 100 things you accomplished this year. I'm sure your list will be longer than that, but it is nice to see it all in one place. </p><p>I do a "Sunday Summit" each week. You can find a copy <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1epXVSgbGpFBv6kL5Hf8TX5nuYJCS6p_2/view?usp=sharing">here</a>. One part of it has me capture "What have I accomplished this week?" It always reminds me that I am not as lazy as I think I am. An annual summary will increase that feeling of progress. </p><p>Please share your one, two or three words for 2024. And, best wishes for the new year. </p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-21918597673347912802023-12-26T13:35:00.001-05:002023-12-26T13:35:42.316-05:00<p> </p><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsRa2jm9GxXs2wXny0w9iQ8h6NdRKs8F-pTorLV_ydn7Ll9vN-U2ECMzxPFo9ahJEWEMfJahY4ZsUTkFW3_BJL9azp5loaQS5xSAhuWDRYhmNRAl2IfHjg5SEnoHdxBtNZ4eOPOStPzmLLW34VnvZhLmX_bwWYfkm_WOl8SCx9fXz0jbh6zRd1gtZuDcNA/s2119/GettyImages-1617873134.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1415" data-original-width="2119" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsRa2jm9GxXs2wXny0w9iQ8h6NdRKs8F-pTorLV_ydn7Ll9vN-U2ECMzxPFo9ahJEWEMfJahY4ZsUTkFW3_BJL9azp5loaQS5xSAhuWDRYhmNRAl2IfHjg5SEnoHdxBtNZ4eOPOStPzmLLW34VnvZhLmX_bwWYfkm_WOl8SCx9fXz0jbh6zRd1gtZuDcNA/s320/GettyImages-1617873134.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">16/16 An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Miscellaneous Provisions</span></u></span></b></span></h1><p style="text-align: left;">In this last post, I'll cover a couple of miscellaneous provisions that I have not discussed in earlier posts. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Private Mediation Centers</span></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Article 25</b> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law allows the creation of a private mediation center or branches of foreign mediation centers according to the requirements of the Ministry of Justice and in coordination with local judicial authorities. These regulators will designate the operating conditions, licensing requirements and the licensing authorities, and registration of the mediators within the centers. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Repeal of Inconsistent Laws</span></b></p><p style="text-align: left;"><b>Article 28</b> makes clear that any provisions of other laws that contradict the UAE Commercial Mediation Law shall be repealed. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-84348410514113068902023-12-24T15:53:00.003-05:002023-12-24T15:53:55.364-05:00<p> </p><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfMo61n9Gcbk1lDLV3aLi5AGeHvBJfBMvOo_WPknzMS90OEk5gjihszYBKviRHa1Ct1YN957BD1NLLoF9cT9lS8TFkANQIGDIgMsy3pO699WnEmswp787hbQ_8C6W8PalWBkZdu0LG9stUnBtSQBnXwJjNmdoqm5zKqWyjJsWDOmgyZ0RCB7aTKvCqrmzE/s2164/GettyImages-1485933260.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1385" data-original-width="2164" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfMo61n9Gcbk1lDLV3aLi5AGeHvBJfBMvOo_WPknzMS90OEk5gjihszYBKviRHa1Ct1YN957BD1NLLoF9cT9lS8TFkANQIGDIgMsy3pO699WnEmswp787hbQ_8C6W8PalWBkZdu0LG9stUnBtSQBnXwJjNmdoqm5zKqWyjJsWDOmgyZ0RCB7aTKvCqrmzE/s320/GettyImages-1485933260.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></u></span></b><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">15/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Mediator Misconduct</span></u></span></b></span></h1><h2><span><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Background</span></u></span></b></span></h2><span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">n 2006, I published a book-length article analyzing grievances filed against </span><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">mediators</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> in five U.S. states with robust complaint systems. <i> </i></span><i>See Paula M. Young, Take it or Leave it. Lump it or Grieve it: Designing Mediator Complaint Systems that Protect Mediators, Unhappy Parties, Attorneys, Courts, the Process, and the Field</i>, 21 Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol. 721 (2006), available <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445" target="_blank">here</a>. The following background discussion is taken from that article. I have not included the numerous citations.</span><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the article, I noted that studies show that sixty-five to eighty-two percent of parties to family mediation viewed their mediators as “warm, sympathetic, and sensitive to feelings.” They found them “helpful in standing up for their rights in disagreements with spouses; staying focused on the important issues; and having clear and sufficient information for decision-making.” But, eighteen to thirty-five percent of parties did not feel this way after the mediation.</span><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />A majority of parties participating in court-connected civil mediations felt that the mediation process was fair and gave them sufficient opportunity to present their cases. A majority of parties felt they had control over the process or had input in determining the outcome. Most parties thought the mediator was neutral, did not pressure them to settle, understood their views and issues, and treated them with respect. A majority of parties felt the mediation resulted in a fair agreement. Most attorney-advocates shared the same feelings. But some minority of parties and attorneys did not have these feelings about the experience.<br /><br />Sixty-one percent of disputants in fifty-four waste management mediations were satisfied with the mediation process and the outcome. But thirty-nine percent of mediation-disputants were not. Another survey found higher levels of satisfaction in a Pennsylvania special education mediation program. There, eighty-two percent of clients were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the actions of the mediator and the process. Yet, eighteen percent of participants were neutral or dissatisfied with the mediator or the process.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />In short, studies suggest that perhaps a third of mediating parties are unhappy with the process or the mediator. However, the statistics on grievances and malpractice claims filed against mediators indicate that dissatisfied parties simply “lump it” and never file a complaint against the mediator. We know that mediators commit malpractice, engage in conduct inconsistent with standards of practice, or violate core values of mediation. Yet, the majority of U.S. states do not help mediators to “name” the misconduct or aggrieved parties to claim it.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR6KyqxDY9t2g-wAz1QKVXKwlAFOT-cMH8MtVfMBjxNPe2JM7hpjUS_3wXjkMcMPv24P1HGCFHna_ex7pZq00LeS0knFR7iZveQyjYqH8GEDcNuDrM9q8_mCTwIqpkz6K6oS-U1TwkSM_KT6izHXtdmRBkwGt8OFBy3WPopG0DMNPjuXAwE5mEvarXN8w4/s1949/GettyImages-1446949192.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1537" data-original-width="1949" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiR6KyqxDY9t2g-wAz1QKVXKwlAFOT-cMH8MtVfMBjxNPe2JM7hpjUS_3wXjkMcMPv24P1HGCFHna_ex7pZq00LeS0knFR7iZveQyjYqH8GEDcNuDrM9q8_mCTwIqpkz6K6oS-U1TwkSM_KT6izHXtdmRBkwGt8OFBy3WPopG0DMNPjuXAwE5mEvarXN8w4/s320/GettyImages-1446949192.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">At the same time, mediators increasingly feel the risk of malpractice suits or of grievances filed with mediation program administrators, state bar associations, or the entities regulating a mediator’s profession of origin. Effective and well-designed grievance systems can divert some potential mediator malpractice suits into grievance processes that may satisfy both the unhappy party and the mediator, will enhance mediator skill, will allow for de-rostering of incompetent mediators, will protect the mediation process, and will protect the reputation of the field and of referring courts. As Sharon Press, [former] Director of the Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC), recently said: “It is irresponsible to divert parties into court-connected mediation programs without providing a process by which they can get help if the process is handled improperly.”</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivww2b9fUBFSVhih6L9UJ7iFNlon9cO4DlEq1eyuaRTjzIKFHhvG6OKiHtIp1phbeVca8FMf5YjjOqmoD-QcFVNHKdO7LcCBBZyG6lOcklzVKrqi_PcCw8t5uzk3lFFm7lIePwHzG7acgn85lgJ6qWI-l5TvYQuvNkFmD8w6A9uqCjE6M28WtTJuzWEA/s1988/GettyImages-506869436.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1508" data-original-width="1988" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivww2b9fUBFSVhih6L9UJ7iFNlon9cO4DlEq1eyuaRTjzIKFHhvG6OKiHtIp1phbeVca8FMf5YjjOqmoD-QcFVNHKdO7LcCBBZyG6lOcklzVKrqi_PcCw8t5uzk3lFFm7lIePwHzG7acgn85lgJ6qWI-l5TvYQuvNkFmD8w6A9uqCjE6M28WtTJuzWEA/s320/GettyImages-506869436.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What types of grievances do parties file against mediators?</span></h2>One state, Florida, can serve as an example of the types of grievances filed against mediators and the type of sanction a regulatory body is likely to impose. Florida has an ethics code for mediators, which serves as the framework for determining mediator misconduct. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Florida’s 2000 census data show a population of nearly sixteen million people, making it the most populous state analyzed in my article. As of December 2005, over 18,000 people had completed certified mediation training programs. In August 2005, 1391 county mediators, 1682 family mediators, 2166 circuit mediators, and 138 dependency mediators operated as certified mediators in the state. Sharon Press estimates that courts refer over 100,000 cases a year to mediation. From May 1992 to April 2005, the DRC processed seventy-four grievances filed against certified mediators. Accordingly, an individual mediator’s risk that he or she will have to defend a grievance complaint in Florida remains extremely low.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Florida parties most often alleged that a mediator interfered in some way with the party’s self-determination. Twenty-four of the complaints claimed that a mediator interfered with the parties’ self-determination and another twenty-five complaints alleged that mediators gave improper professional advice or opinions. The second most common allegation asserted that a mediator was not impartial. Thirty of the grievances specified this violation. Parties alleged improper continuation, adjournment, or termination of the mediation in fourteen complaints. Complainants alleged lack of mediator integrity in eleven complaints. In eight grievances, complainants stated that the mediator failed to conduct an appropriate orientation session before beginning the main sessions. Other alleged violations included: conflicts of interest (five complaints), excessive fees and expenses (four complaints), failure to maintain confidentiality (four complaints), demeanor not befitting a mediator (three complaints), improper advertising practices (two complaints), lack of professional competence (two complaints), and unfair scheduling practices (two complaints).</span></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh02sZF7v1R7uF1Aw6ZTvEMhykewI4AogkzBCxhjbRU1MWFrhuky97f5qx2jkXRWW6xNdvZ0nIi9YzrdrQU3fQ4WGsu-rrvIGpY0T3jYy7k_GF06zm7vugWhv4gVLzEeTxjAprgrAN8sDbnmGwh6AMI4yrYDbmZPh_glpX4oN-1aBc7P0aAICwJ7c9mYxmN/s2121/GettyImages-1289619390.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh02sZF7v1R7uF1Aw6ZTvEMhykewI4AogkzBCxhjbRU1MWFrhuky97f5qx2jkXRWW6xNdvZ0nIi9YzrdrQU3fQ4WGsu-rrvIGpY0T3jYy7k_GF06zm7vugWhv4gVLzEeTxjAprgrAN8sDbnmGwh6AMI4yrYDbmZPh_glpX4oN-1aBc7P0aAICwJ7c9mYxmN/s320/GettyImages-1289619390.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><br /><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Sanctions Imposed</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The complaint committees reviewing the grievances most frequently imposed, in eleven of seventeen cases, a sanction requiring the mediator to get further training. The sanction included requirements for advanced mediation training, attendance at a dispute resolution conference, communications sensitivity training, communication and listening training, family mediation training, domestic violence training, and ethics training. Three mediators also accepted sanctions requiring them to observe mediations conducted by certified mediators. Three mediators agreed to mediate or co-mediate under the observation and supervision of a certified mediator. In eight cases, the complaint committees suspended the mediators from conducting mediations or certain types of mediations until they had completed the imposed sanction. When one mediator failed to satisfy the agreed sanction, the mediator was de-certified subject to reinstatement by petition no earlier than two years after the date of the imposed sanction. In five cases, the complaint committees required mediators to adjust their fees by waiving them or forgiving unpaid fees or refunding fees charged in the mediation in which the violation occurred. They gave oral reprimands or admonishments to three mediators and a written reprimand to one mediator. Mediators also provided apologies in three cases. One sanction imposed by a complaint committee required the mediator to pay the cost of the complaint committee’s investigation. Another sanction required the mediator to write an article on confidentiality and good faith in mediation and on the limitations the ethics rules imposed on reports to judges about the mediation. In one case, as follow-up to the imposed sanction, the DRC required the mediator, before mediating again, to submit a copy of the mediator’s engagement letter along with its explanation of the fees charged.<br /></span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Other than fee or investigative cost reimbursement, complaint committees do not impose monetary sanctions or penalties in the U.S. Instead, they focus </span>on<span style="font-family: inherit;"> restorative practices designed to help the mediator gain more knowledge of applicable ethical requirements or to learn the skills needed to provide high-quality mediation. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-8c204bdd-7fff-de7f-776d-7871d514a2b8"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgndHFJr8jnDXLdHzdhzBhGpPTl4znl-4sdKyUQpey9bVAdVgMy1bHE7ropL0nqPoo8NhA6cm0_7RfvgU1pbGVcSpofKpSnjV9laBz3GvIXNgM2iiWxBgDDeiAPIAs7PxHS983FohQHGFG1AKsylCSnXpVeqVi_nHa4mUL5xLVYAa2zPEYEyCvVNpAQfXRV/s1992/GettyImages-511098360.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1504" data-original-width="1992" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgndHFJr8jnDXLdHzdhzBhGpPTl4znl-4sdKyUQpey9bVAdVgMy1bHE7ropL0nqPoo8NhA6cm0_7RfvgU1pbGVcSpofKpSnjV9laBz3GvIXNgM2iiWxBgDDeiAPIAs7PxHS983FohQHGFG1AKsylCSnXpVeqVi_nHa4mUL5xLVYAa2zPEYEyCvVNpAQfXRV/s320/GettyImages-511098360.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></span></div></div><h2><span style="font-size: medium;">Mediator misconduct under the UAE Commercial Mediation Law of 2021</span></h2><div> <b>Articles 4, 6, 7, 14, 19 and 26</b> discuss mediator ethics and misconduct. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 4</b> requires Centers to maintain lists of qualified mediators. To join a list, the mediator must be experienced, and "known for their expertise, integrity, and neutrality." This article also instructs that Minister of Justice or the local judicial authority to set the standards for "selection and deregistration of mediators. . . ."</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 6</b>, which I have discussed in an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/9n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">post</a>, governs the appointment of a private mediator. It requires the mediator to attest to his or her neutrality and independence, and he or she must contact the Center in writing if any facts or circumstances exist that "would cause either party to cast doubt on his [or her] neutrality or independence. This report will trigger the disqualification provisions of <b>Article 7</b> if a party seeks a substitute mediator. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 14</b> governs confidentiality in mediation, which I discussed in greater detail in this <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/11n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">post</a>. It prohibits a mediator from disclosing any information provided in mediation without the approval of the parties, subject to a limited number of exceptions. The article further provides: </div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"Should the mediator violate the confidentiality, independence and neutrality rules set out in this Law, the aggrieved party may resort to the Center for imposing the administrative and disciplinary measures described in Article 26 of this Law on the mediator, and without prejudice to the mediator's civil and criminal liability."</li></ul><div>Wait, what? Civil and criminal liability?</div></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Article 19</b> allows the Competent Court to find a settlement agreement invalid "where the agreement has taken place after the expiration of the mediation timeframe." A careful, competent mediator would take precautions to ensure this potential problem would not arise -- either by extending the mediation timeframe, if possible, or by ensuring that the parties signed the agreement within the existing timeframe. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitktdk15uk2FsQaFtZzYNJ6OYiDEZH_jiRLngwgFzt0kSx-YXhyvOCum3H9qTzHuwIt4-Tafhk5y-_YlXmTpyy5F4gqWY3156ayacql82O0a1WZ6v5pI8fAJeEukjmtAoJ1MEsgLnUfFtXduNhCro_IEbER74xTFTgfQottK4fxf-bBLcl0gXkF4n6rJBl/s1732/GettyImages-1437535164.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1732" data-original-width="1732" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitktdk15uk2FsQaFtZzYNJ6OYiDEZH_jiRLngwgFzt0kSx-YXhyvOCum3H9qTzHuwIt4-Tafhk5y-_YlXmTpyy5F4gqWY3156ayacql82O0a1WZ6v5pI8fAJeEukjmtAoJ1MEsgLnUfFtXduNhCro_IEbER74xTFTgfQottK4fxf-bBLcl0gXkF4n6rJBl/s320/GettyImages-1437535164.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 26</b> plays an important role in defining mediator ethics. First, it requires the Minister of Justice to issue a Code of Professional Conduct for Mediators. Second, it states that mediators on a Center's list will be disciplined and penalized under Federal Law No. 7 of 2012 Regulating the Expertise Profession before the Judicial Authorities or under local laws regulating "expertise work, as the case may be." Third, it declares that a Center "may deprive the private mediators of practicing mediation work before the Center in case they violate the confidentiality, neutrality and integrity rules." </div><div><br /></div><div>One <a href="https://www.mondaq.com/civil-law/231468/reform-of-expert-evidence-in-uae-court-proceedings">commentator</a> explains the disciplinary process under Federal Law No. 7:</div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"The New Law establishes a Committee of Expert Affairs comprised of at least five members (Article 12 of the New Law). Justice Omer Yunus Saeed is the Chairman of the Committee. Justice Tariq Yaqub Al-Khyat is the Vice-Chairman. This brings in trained jurists supervising a Committee entrusted with handling complaints relating to experts and expert reports (Article 13 of the New Law). The Committee may decide to dismiss a complaint or refer the complaint for further investigation after giving the expert an opportunity to state his case (Article 15 of the New Law). The Chairman of the Committee has the authority to request that the Public Prosecutor interrogate an expert (Article 16(2) of the New Law). The Public Prosecutor may commence disciplinary proceedings against an expert (Article 19 of the New Law). A Disciplinary Committee comprised of three judges shall conduct the investigations it deems necessary and render a reasoned decision after giving the expert the opportunity to state his case (Articles 16(1), 17 and 20 of the New Law). </li></ul>About the sanctions that the regulators can impose on a mediator, this commentator continues: "Sanctions available to the Disciplinary Committee range from a warning to final cancellation of an expert’s registration (Article 18 of the New Law). In addition, Article 31 of the New Law empowers the Minister of Justice to appoint employees to audit an expert’s work."<div><br /></div><div>This summary does not mention financial penalties, civil liability, or criminal liability. It also does not contemplate a more restorative justice approach that would help the mediator gain competency, provide restitution, or offer an apology as the Florida sanctions discussed above do. <br /><div><br /><div>I can't provide any additional detail, because I can't find an English-language copy of Federal Law No. 7. Accordingly, I feel this discussion is incomplete. </div><div><br /></div><div>Next, up? My last post in this series where I will cover four miscellaneous provisions of the Commercial Mediation Law.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </div></div></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-59058321874165098192023-12-05T17:57:00.001-05:002023-12-24T16:34:55.427-05:00<p> </p><h1 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwSK0oOhph3aXws6AaYQ1cYvRNsWORVxEYl9NsdvkkY_BAsO1a93CLKxKQUWISoMsz2GmL2OgzQ9q9Pm4eDS2Ei7BKaY6qYuKOkjtVYiW9mqhXXyX3-rmH4tiyfOpNWIBI49qZo7JBO2L-g5u52EaV21A9GdWlQDtCo7yfTMeWKA5qcjaAJrz9fAH0JviC/s2000/GettyImages-1349467325.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="2000" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwSK0oOhph3aXws6AaYQ1cYvRNsWORVxEYl9NsdvkkY_BAsO1a93CLKxKQUWISoMsz2GmL2OgzQ9q9Pm4eDS2Ei7BKaY6qYuKOkjtVYiW9mqhXXyX3-rmH4tiyfOpNWIBI49qZo7JBO2L-g5u52EaV21A9GdWlQDtCo7yfTMeWKA5qcjaAJrz9fAH0JviC/s320/GettyImages-1349467325.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></h1><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">14/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, the Mediator's Fees and Expenses</span></h1><h2><span><span><span style="font-size: medium;">Background</span></span></span></h2><div><span>Mediators can charge by the hour, the half day, the whole day, or a flat fee for the entire mediation. Most ethics codes in the U.S. discourage a contingency fee based on the settlement value because it can compromise the mediator's impartiality towards and independence from the outcome of the mediation. I wrote about this risk <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/9n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>. In some cases, usually family law cases, the spouse with greater financial resources may agree to pay the entire fee. In that case, the mediator must take care that he or she does not show partiality towards the fee-paying spouse. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Mediation rosters, whether court-connected or created by private third-party providers (like AAA, JAMS, and IMI), will often list the mediator's fee schedule. In any event, the mediator and the parties will negotiate the fee. That fee agreement typically appears in the agreement to mediate or a separate fee agreement. Typically, the fee must be paid whether the parties reach agreement or not. Some mediators will request a deposit on the fee. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Most mediators charge for any time spent before and between sessions when they are reviewing pre-mediation submissions, reading documents or exhibits, or talking with the parties or their lawyers by email, text, or phone. A mediator would also expect the parties to compensate him or her for time spent drafting, signing, copying, and filing the settlement agreement.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Parties should expect to pay any travel or lodging expenses incurred by a mediator who does not reside in the same city as the parties. Increasingly, parties are using on-line mediation to avoid those expenses. I wrote more about that option <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/8n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Sadly, fee disputes can give rise to a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445" target="_blank">complaint</a> filed against the mediator in states with robust grievance processes. A fee dispute creates more work for the mediator and can damage his or her reputation.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmxNoIWyv4zrA4q5IGSJD2pq_uwZ03HRX_sY8ZBcmxa2EdomrXtDwAxNy-dYGwyqwC430WS77gOk_IC8EOLnIZpOKYMxcD07gPYsS7vHu3iXb443OcEUG2Wst-Zi1NAm8c6b2cqIvTQfNghEaSDgNT1BKN5HvCIhK-mZIYI2o1dgbKYQ1Yox6rmMD7zdpr/s2119/GettyImages-955576384%20(1).jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1415" data-original-width="2119" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmxNoIWyv4zrA4q5IGSJD2pq_uwZ03HRX_sY8ZBcmxa2EdomrXtDwAxNy-dYGwyqwC430WS77gOk_IC8EOLnIZpOKYMxcD07gPYsS7vHu3iXb443OcEUG2Wst-Zi1NAm8c6b2cqIvTQfNghEaSDgNT1BKN5HvCIhK-mZIYI2o1dgbKYQ1Yox6rmMD7zdpr/s320/GettyImages-955576384%20(1).jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large; text-align: center;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large; text-align: center;"><b>The UAE Commercial Mediation Law Protects Mediator's Fees</b></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Articles 1, 6, and 21 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law govern a mediator's fees. </span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><b>Article 1</b> defines "Mediation Fees" as "[t]he financial consideration payable to the mediator for performing his mission and is agreed upon by the parties." It defines "Mediations Costs" as the "administrative expenses for mediation together with the fees payable to the mediator for the mediation process."</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><b>Article 6</b> provides: "The private mediator may determine his fees in agreement with the parties to the dispute, not exceeding 5% of the value of the matter in dispute."</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span><b>Article 21</b> is dedicated to the topic of mediation costs. It provides:</span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span>Subject to Article [5] of the above-referenced Federal Law No. [17] of 2016 [Establishing Mediation and Conciliation Centers for Civil and Commercial Disputes, as amended], the parties shall pay initial mediation costs, both fully and directly, to the Center before commencement of the mediation procedures, as described in the referral decision.</span></li></ul><div style="text-align: center;">***</div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Subject to Articles [6.3] and [7.1] of this Law, the Competent Court shall, under all circumstances, determine the non-agreed final mediation costs under an Order on Petition. Such costs shall be divided and distributed between the parties either equally or in proportion to the respective interests in the case, at the discretion of the Court. The Court may also order either or both parties to bear such costs and shall permit the private mediator to receive the fees due him and which are deposited into the Court's treasury. </li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>If the mediator fails to reach settlement for the dispute, the Competent Court shall issue an Order on Petition obliging the parties to pay final mediation costs based on the mediation agreement and referral decision. The Court may also order either party to pay full mediation costs if such party is the cause of failure of the mediation process due to failure to attend mediation sessions.</li></ul><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The parties and the mediator may each file a grievance against the costs assessment decision within five [5] business days following the notification date. Such grievances shall be based on a report to be filed with the competent Case Management Office and shall give rise to stay of execution of the costs assessment decision. The grievance shall be decided on by a different judge or chamber of the Competent Court after hearing the Grievant's evidence and the decision made on the grievance shall be final and may not be challenged by any means of challenge.</li></ul></div></div><p>Taken together, this language makes the fee a matter of negotiation, but gives clear recourse to a mediator seeking payment of his or her fee. Interestingly, Article 21 indicates a pre-payment of the fee before commencement of the mediation. Thus, do mediators provide parties an estimate of the costs? </p><p>While the law protects a mediator's fee even if the parties fail to reach agreement, the UAE law, unlike the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_20.html">Qatar Mediation Law</a>, does not specify the fee recovery if a mediator is recused or disqualified mid-mediation. </p><p>Finally, it allows the Court to impose a penalty, in the form of the full mediator's fee, if a party scuttles the mediation by failing to attend scheduled sessions. </p><p>Next up? Mediator misconduct. It will be my second to last post on the 2012 UAE Commercial Mediation Law. </p><p>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-8570689341331916362023-11-17T14:21:00.002-05:002023-11-17T14:21:34.595-05:00<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyKLbZb9Ko_i_6QNdqmdBC_ofRYerKriaq40BhwoUOmcnNdcU1umDhzZWHJ51JzX2iboqkEosafbFsFGYC5jflkuWPDNlKnsMkR9XnHybtT95EdTmlnoFEDuAxwy4WVGUstkGXGAooSlRpnDwPdudKYy-I7KVk_9hi9fopxkbRIZPsOH_j-HZGJY20Dn9W/s2193/GettyImages-1729351203.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1367" data-original-width="2193" height="199" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyKLbZb9Ko_i_6QNdqmdBC_ofRYerKriaq40BhwoUOmcnNdcU1umDhzZWHJ51JzX2iboqkEosafbFsFGYC5jflkuWPDNlKnsMkR9XnHybtT95EdTmlnoFEDuAxwy4WVGUstkGXGAooSlRpnDwPdudKYy-I7KVk_9hi9fopxkbRIZPsOH_j-HZGJY20Dn9W/s320/GettyImages-1729351203.jpg" width="320" /></a></b></div><b><span style="font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><br /></span></b><p></p><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 16.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Israel-Palestine Mediation Circle<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Nov. 7, 2003<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"> Hosted by Mediator Vikram and Ken Cloke<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">130 online attendees<o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Video recording here: </span></b><a href="https://www.linkedin.com/events/israelpalestine-mediationcircle7123008904510251008/comments/">(12)
Israel Palestine #Mediation Circle - launch by Ken Cloke | LinkedIn</a><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p>
<p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 107%;">Ken Cloke’s Opening Comments at 5:50
to 21:00 minutes</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK594lba_4jLVFmXZBgfTqZZkznCUZT3mx1a-EDi9HYaEFj640e1wdFSSXsnZl86WC-PwINjB8I_oLIqaGZ_bjKbHuI58S8ZUJNWi9JPJtMc3z9bF3PV8Yj3s04qHNtJl9NPcLoL3IBT-0G3RgEHiXRYnR2clqBcIHXYfju3wj-pbljfoFm82bHMk1zt8I/s500/Mediator%202.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="500" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhK594lba_4jLVFmXZBgfTqZZkznCUZT3mx1a-EDi9HYaEFj640e1wdFSSXsnZl86WC-PwINjB8I_oLIqaGZ_bjKbHuI58S8ZUJNWi9JPJtMc3z9bF3PV8Yj3s04qHNtJl9NPcLoL3IBT-0G3RgEHiXRYnR2clqBcIHXYfju3wj-pbljfoFm82bHMk1zt8I/w233-h233/Mediator%202.jpg" width="233" /></a></b></div><b><u><br /></u></b><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Ken Cloke’s Biography
<o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Ken Cloke is a world-recognized mediator, dialogue
facilitator, conflict resolution systems designer, teacher, public
speaker, author of numerous books and <a href="https://www.kencloke.com/articles">articles</a>, and a pioneer and leader
in the field of mediation and conflict resolution for the last 37 years. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 1980, [he] became a mediator, and in 1983, created
the Center for Dispute Resolution in Santa Monica, CA, where [he has]
been a mediator, arbitrator, facilitator, coach, consultant and trainer,
specializing in communication, collaborative negotiation, dialogue
facilitation, and resolving complex multi-party disputes, including
thousands of marital, divorce, family, community, grievance and workplace
disputes, collective bargaining negotiations, organizational and school
conflicts, sexual harassment, discrimination, and public policy disputes; and
designing preventative conflict resolution systems for public and private
sector organizations. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For an independent review of review of [his] mediation
skills and experience by the International Mediation Institute (IMI),
click <a href="https://www.kencloke.com/https/wwwimimediationorg/member/kenneth-cloke/profiletabreviews" target="_blank">here</a>. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In 2006, [he] co-founded <a href="https://mediatorsbeyondborders.org/" target="_blank">Mediators Beyond
Borders</a>, based in Washington D.C. MBB is an organization that
mobilizes mediators around the world to support individuals, organizations,
communities, and governments in building conflict-resolution literacy and
capacity in under-served communities. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The countries in which [he has] taught and mediated
include Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Brazil, Canada, China, Cuba,
Denmark, England, Georgia, Greece, India, Ireland, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Puerto Rico, Scotland, Slovenia, Thailand,
Turkey, Ukraine, USSR, and Zimbabwe.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">He has written 13 books on dispute resolution, several of
which deal with large scale, value-based conflicts. <a href="https://www.kencloke.com/books">books — Ken Cloke</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Transcriber’s Notes
<o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Transcript by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulamarieyoung/">Dr. Paula Marie Young</a>. I have paraphrased some of his comments for
clarity, but otherwise this transcript is a very close approximation of his
remarks. I have added the organizational
headings and links to the original quoted material.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiN_Vk_JECViSuHzxzpCRpR2LgMgN-FWp9WmmDwHp5f0IOQo_1EP5nSjef-XIi2-dHj39eq55yN1pmnsEnvo5_MKPzCbgpSec6B6JrT5-WEAOA36L2nblJ4c577eAG2ie5fEbEPEqBknypNaHX_5g6iN4t7xnRoF9nahh76rUDxFqAWLe7s4b_dqDiz0eV/s414/Negotiation%2024.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="414" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiN_Vk_JECViSuHzxzpCRpR2LgMgN-FWp9WmmDwHp5f0IOQo_1EP5nSjef-XIi2-dHj39eq55yN1pmnsEnvo5_MKPzCbgpSec6B6JrT5-WEAOA36L2nblJ4c577eAG2ie5fEbEPEqBknypNaHX_5g6iN4t7xnRoF9nahh76rUDxFqAWLe7s4b_dqDiz0eV/s320/Negotiation%2024.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Introduction<o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Core idea:</b>
Every mountain was a molehill once.
Problems start out small, but escalate.
How do you avoid escalation?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Context:</b> Every past, present, and future war, not the
least of which are the Israeli-Palestinian War and the Russian-Ukrainian War.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">How do we get here?
What happens to allow us to shift our thinking? What are the psychological components that
lead people to war? <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Ways of Thinking that Create Escalation</u></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"></p><ol style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">I am (or we are) decent, reasonable, and nice
people.</span></li><li>Therefore, I (or we) do not deserve to be
treated badly.</li><li>If someone does treat me (or us) badly, it can’t
therefore be because of something I’ve (or we’ve) done.<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">So, it must be something about who they are.</span></li><li>The hostility that is directed towards me (or us)
is therefore unbalanced, disproportionate, unfair, and unjust, meaning I (or we)
did not deserve it. </li><li><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">The only reason why the other person would
engage in hostility towards me (or us) is because he, she, or they are cruel,
insane, immoral, or evil. </span>George Orwell wrote in <i style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Unpleasant Fact:
Narrative Essays</i><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">“Every war when it
comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of
self-defense against a homicidal maniac.”</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">
</span><a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/564678-every-war-when-it-comes-or-before-it-comes-is" style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Quote
by George Orwell: “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is...”
(goodreads.com)</a></li><li>Then, the other side’s cruelty, insanity,
Immorality, and evil justifies me (or us) in suppressing our empathy and
responding in a hostile way.<span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">So, if
someone is evil towards us, it justifies being evil towards them.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">This is a key element in creating a “blood
feud.”</span></li><li> <span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">Because they are cruel, insane, immoral, or
evil, there is absolutely no point in communicating, negotiating or mediating
with them. It’s pointless, because it
will never ever result in anything positive.</span></li><li>Indeed, doing so would mean condoning their
cruelty, insanity, immorality, and evil and would permit it to continue. [Condoning] it makes us complicit in their
evil and thereby gives them permission to perpetuate it again.</li><li> <span style="text-indent: -0.25in;">I am (or we are) not morally or ethically
responsible for communicating, negotiating, or mediating an end to our
conflict. It’s their problem. They must be the first to make a move.</span></li><li>Since he, she, or they have ignored my (or our)
needs, wishes, and interests, and they have spurned our innate decency,
reasonableness, and niceness, we are justified in acting unilaterally and
autocratically using war and violence to force the other side to provide what I
(or we) reasonably want or need.</li></ol><p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">You can see the logic in this escalation. This is the way we create enemies,
historically, and in the present. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But, it can be reversed and redirected in another way. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Desmond Tutu said: “There comes a point where we need to
stop just pulling people out of the river.
We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.” <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/954454-there-comes-a-point-where-we-need-to-stop-just">Quote
by Desmond Tutu: “There comes a point where we need to stop just ...”
(goodreads.com)</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We need to support a ceasefire and communicate in ways that
don’t make us complicit in, for example, war crimes. <o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheceWyK9YSbcb7Ejo1dSM0W2-KtzCyveDLFszuF8-nPI8gAgnUh3KcA6ZaeGoj1V4os4qdC1uBLdFrXsUAcMjg0BDCtbmL3jOgLLE-HHGYVh0bnAyuYKs3sCgP7q_fnHyLFkZkLzaW3GgMz9vc1fRmCkem6QCKe_oVFxUAVI7_13n5y19xZ3XtJBaf5tf_/s436/Energy%2051.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="393" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheceWyK9YSbcb7Ejo1dSM0W2-KtzCyveDLFszuF8-nPI8gAgnUh3KcA6ZaeGoj1V4os4qdC1uBLdFrXsUAcMjg0BDCtbmL3jOgLLE-HHGYVh0bnAyuYKs3sCgP7q_fnHyLFkZkLzaW3GgMz9vc1fRmCkem6QCKe_oVFxUAVI7_13n5y19xZ3XtJBaf5tf_/s320/Energy%2051.jpg" width="288" /></a></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Mediator Neutrality<o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Neutrality, a kind of distancing from both sides, is seen as
a gateway for empathy. But, what it
actually does is reduce our capacity to empathize.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, as mediators, it is very important for us to treat
people, cultures, and nations with equal respect. But, this does not require us to equally
respect their kindness or cruelty; their fairness and their bias; their defense
and their invasion; their freedom and their slavery; their dignity and their
contempt. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, it does not require us to draw away from pointing out
acts of cruelty, which we can now see in the wars we are experiencing in the
Middle East and Ukraine. The wars have
escalated exponentially. So, part of
what is shocking to us about these wars is the level of inhumanity, which seems
to be acceptable to both sides. And,
both sides participate in it. And, there
are reasons why that is the case. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There’s a wonderful statement by Sigmund Freud at the end of
World War I: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 8.0pt; margin-left: 1.0in; margin-right: 1.0in; margin-top: 0in;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The individual citizen can prove with dismay in this war
what occasionally thrust itself upon him already in times of peace, namely,
that the state forbids him to do wrong not because it wishes to do away with
wrongdoing but because it wishes to monopolize it, like salt and tobacco. A
state at war makes free use of every injustice, every act of violence, that
would dishonor the individual. It employs not only permissible cunning but
conscious lies and intentional deception against the enemy, and this to a degree
which apparently outdoes what was customary in previous wars.</li></ul><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://ia902907.us.archive.org/17/items/SigmundFreud/Sigmund%20Freud%20%5B1918%5D%20Reflections%20On%20War%20And%20Death%20%28A.%20A.%20Brill%20translation%2C%201918%29.pdf">[1918]
Reflections On War And Death (archive.org)</a> (at 8). <o:p></o:p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipgqpk24JezT0yxuGVDmlRg9oQz8tOs7YYWZKjInMO-cQOnDyPddfavGslubmjvOTKTu4EZJn-CQRvl4TQu_gdUr-uijqQdJuhWCnTOYRl_Dxwmk0lEYJdR4m9vEGku9dQ-H4wXDcmWDegKXHeYQtAa__xwiR_rCsbRz5OhilS_h11HQcxxgVejCplyK_7/s2309/GettyImages-1478197273.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1299" data-original-width="2309" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipgqpk24JezT0yxuGVDmlRg9oQz8tOs7YYWZKjInMO-cQOnDyPddfavGslubmjvOTKTu4EZJn-CQRvl4TQu_gdUr-uijqQdJuhWCnTOYRl_Dxwmk0lEYJdR4m9vEGku9dQ-H4wXDcmWDegKXHeYQtAa__xwiR_rCsbRz5OhilS_h11HQcxxgVejCplyK_7/s320/GettyImages-1478197273.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>On War Crimes<o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are slipping backwards in terms of war crimes, and we had
not made much progress regarding them in the first place. We certainly had the Nuremberg trials, but
they did not involve the bombing of Dresden.
We had the trials of [Japanese] miliary leaders in Tokyo, but not of the
Emperor, because we felt we needed him to stand up against communist China and
Russia. And, the trials did not include
the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Our discussion of war crimes has not been humanistic. It has been political. And so, where does that lead us? <o:p></o:p></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieUiqpNspx2QF-LBFQfjA9qd7tE43dL5DyXWv11UVLxZVeYFECMf6mnd13ftihaMWRrvSBxY_DF_NuHBDRXUMzVQ0apTO9hIUB-RZGmu_c70wMahB-ihX_EDG1lEvqK83AqprejEpTk4NYTd_35rrrO5MONv3yps6E39tJpEMG_mYmX-6YbHlQY2j5Biap/s1749/GettyImages-498009937.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1715" data-original-width="1749" height="314" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEieUiqpNspx2QF-LBFQfjA9qd7tE43dL5DyXWv11UVLxZVeYFECMf6mnd13ftihaMWRrvSBxY_DF_NuHBDRXUMzVQ0apTO9hIUB-RZGmu_c70wMahB-ihX_EDG1lEvqK83AqprejEpTk4NYTd_35rrrO5MONv3yps6E39tJpEMG_mYmX-6YbHlQY2j5Biap/s320/GettyImages-498009937.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>Call to Action <o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The answer:</b> Not just a ceasefire, but a ceasefire as
a condition for figuring out how to talk to each other. That’s where the real difficulty comes. People cannot talk when they are being shot
at or when they are shooting others.
There’s nothing in it for them.
They will follow the 10-step logic set out above.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have to figure out how to keep people from shooting at
each other, which is relatively easy compared to what we have to do after
that. We have to separate them to stop
the fighting, but then we have to bring them together in a way that allows them
to have a constructive conversation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">That is not easy. And
yet, we have all done it in our mediations or large-scale . . . multi-stakeholder
consensus building processes. And, it
becomes possible.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Two tasks:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>Get to the place where peace is possible.</li><li><span style="font-feature-settings: normal; font-kerning: auto; font-optical-sizing: auto; font-size: 7pt; font-stretch: normal; font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal; font-variation-settings: normal; line-height: normal;"> </span>Create infrastructure to make peace durable.</li></ul><!--[if !supportLists]--><o:p></o:p><p></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="mso-list: l1 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We need to think about this in the context of past, current,
and future wars. We are planting the
seeds right now for the next war.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So, how do we do this?
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Today’s event is a first step by bringing people together
who have skills in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, consensus building,
teamwork, and principles of restorative justice. Each modality has some great potential.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We have some responsibility for the deaths that are taking
place around us. We have not been as
effective or committed as we ought to have been to allow people to interact
with each other in a fundamentally different way.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can acknowledge the diversity of our experiences,
cultures, and ideas for how we talk to each other. We need to create relationships capable of
sustaining disagreement, diversity, conflict, and misunderstandings. And, figure out how we surmount those issues
and return to a state of collaboration and regenerative activity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p>I believe this is possible . . . because I’ve done it in my
life on thousands of occasions with people who hated each other. I also know how difficult it is. </p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-10854782013416402552023-11-10T11:51:00.002-05:002023-12-24T16:34:12.509-05:00<p><br /></p><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTQjZHknYN6NKWOXVKdMLrWZMDBhdtzXLHKyq1-ENOqBEKnxV6WF128t5dTedFTWkYTC5hqOemHZO9uQ22s3IIeKEM8GKz6KkK3Jvvbk39vlVF6pOEA3K6jITC48uB_oBPKuh6w0Z7azcfUgpV4qJ40zMht6Utw1rGBeeXgXSp3ZQvktvn2U5mbRlKXrIZ/s522/Lawyer%2045.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="328" data-original-width="522" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTQjZHknYN6NKWOXVKdMLrWZMDBhdtzXLHKyq1-ENOqBEKnxV6WF128t5dTedFTWkYTC5hqOemHZO9uQ22s3IIeKEM8GKz6KkK3Jvvbk39vlVF6pOEA3K6jITC48uB_oBPKuh6w0Z7azcfUgpV4qJ40zMht6Utw1rGBeeXgXSp3ZQvktvn2U5mbRlKXrIZ/s320/Lawyer%2045.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;">13/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, the Final Settlement Agreement</span></u></span></b></span></h1><div>A successful mediation ends with the parties signing a settlement agreement. I have discussed the settlement agreement in earlier posts. I discussed it in the context of party control over the process choices <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/6n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a> and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/8n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>, in the context of confidentiality <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/11n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>, and in the context of the referring court's management of the litigated case <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/11/12n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>. I will include those discussions in this post for the ease of the reader. </div><h2><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUFRMDPJ-B45j298_MJOGrmry9wtnysPJPHlo2ulNCEEv4bSwGX0o-X6INL0k5rkZ4N5PaaJpOa0yuqQfG65CX0PQnvgeFko6UAfNjYADRcGUybKLocPOMSE-XPSo50ZeQTDMCWGX0Cl5HQaZQMHCcIfhq80N0eEZP4fYH-8vYqYohXT93ASfXh6aY63qh/s507/Lawyer%2026.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUFRMDPJ-B45j298_MJOGrmry9wtnysPJPHlo2ulNCEEv4bSwGX0o-X6INL0k5rkZ4N5PaaJpOa0yuqQfG65CX0PQnvgeFko6UAfNjYADRcGUybKLocPOMSE-XPSo50ZeQTDMCWGX0Cl5HQaZQMHCcIfhq80N0eEZP4fYH-8vYqYohXT93ASfXh6aY63qh/s320/Lawyer%2026.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span><div style="font-size: x-large;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span><span style="font-size: small;">Article 1<span style="font-weight: normal;"> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law defines the settlement agreement as: "A document created by the </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">mediator</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">, signed by the parties and setting out the settlement details eventually reached by the parties for amicable </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">resolution</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> of their dispute, in whole or in part. As discussed below, requiring the mediator to "create" the settlement agreement raises some concern. </span></span></span></p><h2 style="font-size: large;">Duties of the Mediator in Connection with the Settlement Agreement</h2></span></h2><h3><span style="font-size: small;">Reports to the Center</span></h3><div><b>Article 16</b> states that: "Judicial mediation shall be terminated . . . [w]hen the parties sign a settlement agreement." <b>Article 23</b> makes extrajudicial mediation subject to the same "provisions, procedures and termination [of] cases set out in Chapter of this Law . . . ."</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 16</b> sets out the duties of the mediator in connection with settlement agreement. It provides:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"In all cases, the mediator shall . . . submit to the Centera written or electronic report on the outcome of judicial mediation, within three [3] business days starting from the expiry of judicial mediation for whatever reason."</li></ul></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><p><b>Article 18</b> adds additional duties. It provides:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"If, at the end of the mediation process, the parties reach agreement for the dispute, in whole or in part, the mediator shall furnish a report to the Center accompanied by the settlement agreement signed by the parties for affirmation."</li></ul><p></p><p> As noted above, Article 1 says the mediator will "create" the settlement agreement. The word "create" has several <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create">definitions</a>. They include to bring into existence something new; cause; occasion; or design. These definitions do not necessarily indicate a direct, participatory role in the drafting process, unlike the language used in the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_19.html">Qatar Mediation Law</a>. The word choice in the UAE law suggests that the drafters of the law have more experience with commercial mediation, in which the parties' attorneys play the key role in drafting the settlement agreement and are highly competent in determining what terms they should include. It also respects a boundary establishing that the agreement does not involve any performance by the mediator, who is not even a third-party to the agreement. This approach is a great improvement over the approach taken in Qatar.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivVgwus8D4cixpJEkXsHsievzWvpkExXQURfhKDZjgXMpkyfAJeUmsJvSrswgFg1GyCJJB8UlKF1oEdqQ6Y-KNGhCy_ohRlXPDnoj7sZH-x8gzXUilmnfUCm1ZRMH8bI9weHuXeM86A2RCKJsyuvEUEelvCctQ9hSW8fpDQKAbSjsF0BBZPN6qbwTE8xBq/s507/Lawyer%2048.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivVgwus8D4cixpJEkXsHsievzWvpkExXQURfhKDZjgXMpkyfAJeUmsJvSrswgFg1GyCJJB8UlKF1oEdqQ6Y-KNGhCy_ohRlXPDnoj7sZH-x8gzXUilmnfUCm1ZRMH8bI9weHuXeM86A2RCKJsyuvEUEelvCctQ9hSW8fpDQKAbSjsF0BBZPN6qbwTE8xBq/s320/Lawyer%2048.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the U.S., you will see a number of approaches to drafting the final settlement agreement. Before the parties terminate the session, the mediator will help draft a list of agreed terms. Based on that list, either the </span>mediator or the lawyer for one of the parties will create the first draft of the agreement. Like any contract drafting process, the drafts will go back and forth between the parties until the language satisfies both lawyers. In some states, if the mediator is not licensed to practice law in that state, he or she cannot draft the settlement agreement. That act could be punished under laws governing the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831491">unauthorized practice of law</a>. </p><div>In less complicated matters, where the parties appear <i>pro se</i>, the mediator will draft the settlement agreement, but he or she will advise the parties to have a lawyer look over it before they sign it. Parties can ignore that advice and sign it without a lawyer's input. </div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div>A well-trained mediator will handle the drafting process in a way consistent with the nature of the dispute and the needs of the parties.</div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Contents of the Settlement Agreement</span></b></h3><div><b>Article 1</b> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law defines the settlement agreement as "setting out the settlement details eventually reached by the parties . . . ." Unlike the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_19.html">Qatar Mediation Law</a>, the UAE Commercial Law does not specify the elements of the required settlement agreement. In any event, the parties need a document with sufficient particularity to allow the parties to properly perform the agreement, for enforcement if performance problems arise later, and for the court so it can "authenticate" the settlement agreement, which I discuss below. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_19.html">Qatar Mediation Law</a>, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not require the disclosure of the expert opinion in the settlement agreement. <span style="font-family: inherit;"> Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, the UAE law does not require</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> the mediator to sign the settlement agreement in order for it to be enforceable. The mediator is a neutral. He is not a party to the dispute. He is not bound by the settlement agreement as a performing contract party. Accordingly, he should not be required to sign the agreement. </span></div><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh68vjAbpRL45mPbfHHNqv4WsBwH-6B_s-wzEYPLjUkKDOniNsv5Ou6-KCmzKdW84Vw8gyoniZclFzZ4erxGwv8PJ9394F4_XLaouCmTkNPrKj1ZSEKWuLXtXoP6yjYM-VwpDxpF8wBO9wZVspT9FrKh64lajUFR3uA-0GUENihrVsxqHVfqHFW5bLC-wYW/s510/Lawyer%2015.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="510" data-original-width="337" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh68vjAbpRL45mPbfHHNqv4WsBwH-6B_s-wzEYPLjUkKDOniNsv5Ou6-KCmzKdW84Vw8gyoniZclFzZ4erxGwv8PJ9394F4_XLaouCmTkNPrKj1ZSEKWuLXtXoP6yjYM-VwpDxpF8wBO9wZVspT9FrKh64lajUFR3uA-0GUENihrVsxqHVfqHFW5bLC-wYW/s320/Lawyer%2015.jpg" width="211" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Filing the Settlement Agreement with the Court</span></b></span></h3><div>As noted above, <b>Article 16</b> requires the mediator to notify the Center when the mediation ends by filing a report. The law does not indicate what the mediator must include in the report. <b>Article 18</b> specifies that the report be accompanied by "the settlement agreement signed by the parties for affirmation." <b>Article 16</b>, states that the Center "shall keep the parties and the Competent Court informed of both the report and judicial mediation outcome within three [3] days." But, <b>Article 18</b> requires the Center to "immediately submit both the agreement and report to the Competent Court." </div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, the last duty of the mediator and the Center is to ensure that the court is made aware of the successful completion of the mediation by filing the settlement agreement with the Competent Court. </div><div><br /></div><div>The law authorizes the Competent Court, under <b>Articles 18 and 19,</b> to authenticate the settlement agreement. As noted below, authentication creates significant legal effect.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglIRpsqrIZAtgmB6pGq1R6UdfiUYy1pDcx_-qEc6ECR5fbMovPx1tIluyLndh2lG8VhJ7gLpUnjzuCYgW3pLKa-eWOBHzMhNM-JKzlZI1eT3URj_yq52-TdqowjrnwUCnP791Gtj90cFxmjVdg5cdvH-5Eg7DyTAFnLGi0VS229aTMfDR9ZNfs6uJDxFc-/s509/Litigation%2011.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="509" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglIRpsqrIZAtgmB6pGq1R6UdfiUYy1pDcx_-qEc6ECR5fbMovPx1tIluyLndh2lG8VhJ7gLpUnjzuCYgW3pLKa-eWOBHzMhNM-JKzlZI1eT3URj_yq52-TdqowjrnwUCnP791Gtj90cFxmjVdg5cdvH-5Eg7DyTAFnLGi0VS229aTMfDR9ZNfs6uJDxFc-/s320/Litigation%2011.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><b style="font-size: large;">Duties of the Court in Connection with the Settlement Agreement</b></div><div><b style="font-size: large;"><br /></b></div><div>The court's duties in connection with the settlement agreement fall into three categories: (1) authentication of the settlement agreement; (2) case management after the parties sign the settlement agreement, and (3) enforcement of the settlement agreement.</div><h4>Authentication</h4><div>After the Competent Court receives a request to authenticate the settlement agreement, <b>Article 18</b> instructs that: "The Competent Court shall affirm such agreement and issue a decision terminating the dispute, in whole or in part as the case may be." <b>Article 23</b>, governing extrajudicial mediation, states: "The supervising judge shall have the same powers of the Competent Court in terms of . . . receipt of the mediator's reports and affirmation of the settlement agreement, as described in Chapter Two of this Law." </div><div><br /></div><div>Under <b>Article 19</b>, the court may refuse to authenticate the agreement. A party claiming invalidity of the settlement agreement must file a case coinciding with the application to affirm the settlement agreement. Grounds for invalidity include a party's lack of mental capacity or diminished capacity at the end of the mediation; the parties' failure to reach a settlement agreement; the invalidity or voidability of the settlement agreement; that the parties reached agreement after the mediation timeframe expired; if the mediation agreement is invalid or avoidable; or when a party fails to offer a defense in mediation due to an invalid notice of the proceedings or was unaware of the pending mediation for "any other reason beyond its reasonable control." I note here that the defenses to a valid settlement agreement are quite narrow compared to those allowed under the Qatar Mediation Law. </div><div><br /></div><div>While the language is confusing, it appears a party must seek invalidation within 30 days "following the date on which the judicial dispute termination is served upon that party." Even if the court finds the settlement agreement invalid, in whole or in part, the mediation agreement shall remain valid, unless its invalidity was the basis for invalidating the settlement agreement. Presumably, this provision of <b>Article 19</b> would protect the parties' ability to return to mediation if it might result in a valid settlement agreement. Finally, if one of the parties has buyer's remorse, he or she will need to raise one of the defenses and provide sufficient proof of the defense all within 30 days required by <b>Article 19</b>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Any decision on the validity of the settlement agreement is final and subject to appeal by way of cassation. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTaDiEVirtPwoandxFnECgeiXpZ8JGGENUM9uIjpNKXGOlk01nx_pKNljKBq__hmL9rF3kv9YDmMpSrxF6_z5ttLg8Pe2idrSkZLARPZeyfS0aR4bknRn2G45ZCaF8qTpsKWSGbFRTzAGEMP5hkHJ9GYkRaZgVd9AhcEHnSykmf__0oMv_js6bMorqGQ/s2121/GettyImages-466365997.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTaDiEVirtPwoandxFnECgeiXpZ8JGGENUM9uIjpNKXGOlk01nx_pKNljKBq__hmL9rF3kv9YDmMpSrxF6_z5ttLg8Pe2idrSkZLARPZeyfS0aR4bknRn2G45ZCaF8qTpsKWSGbFRTzAGEMP5hkHJ9GYkRaZgVd9AhcEHnSykmf__0oMv_js6bMorqGQ/s320/GettyImages-466365997.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4>Litigated Case Management and Enforcement</h4><div>Next, the court must manage the litigated case in light of the authenticated settlement agreement. Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law that expressly penalizes a party for filing a lawsuit on a claim resolved in mediation, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law focuses on enforcement of the settlement agreement. <b> Article 20</b> provides: "Subject to Article 19 of this Law, the court-affirmed settlement agreement shall be binding upon the parties, may not be reevoked, and shall have the same probative force of court judgments. Hence, the merits and grounds of the same dispute between the parties may not be brought again to the Court, and the Court shall order such probative force sua sponte." It thus expressly invokes principles of res judicata or estoppel.</div><div><br /></div><div>In addition, the law gives the court power to refund judicial fees. <b>Article 6</b> provides that: "In case the dispute ends in a settlement agreement, the Claimant shall get back the judicial fees paid thereby as described in Article 21.2 of this Law." <b>Article 21</b>, in turn provides: "When the mediator's mission comes to an end and full settlement is reached for the dispute, all parties involved may get back the judicial fees paid. They may also get back half of the judicial fees paid by them in case the settlement involves part of the matter of dispute." </div><div><br /></div><div>Next up? A short post on mediator fees.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-59449082780458503372023-11-08T10:23:00.003-05:002023-12-24T16:33:44.972-05:00<p> </p><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkEuJWdkK1JtUVxtfiKSdZ__0h_QiQZrEae9ntb5uYMGsePTSCJNdZLUBrFBIVCQbi8vSGDCo3W1EgjGk0SSfUyfsquBstSqEZ2HGA663j4WGl0d94rEmCIcNRYaQh-hga3BOGXH6ujgL48n5OqAn_DmXwF1-j37qbUaCKTXLywZDPWLMlI67dfwsp-1Df/s465/Litigation%2019.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="369" data-original-width="465" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkEuJWdkK1JtUVxtfiKSdZ__0h_QiQZrEae9ntb5uYMGsePTSCJNdZLUBrFBIVCQbi8vSGDCo3W1EgjGk0SSfUyfsquBstSqEZ2HGA663j4WGl0d94rEmCIcNRYaQh-hga3BOGXH6ujgL48n5OqAn_DmXwF1-j37qbUaCKTXLywZDPWLMlI67dfwsp-1Df/s320/Litigation%2019.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;">12/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Referring Court's Management of the Litigated Case and the Mediation</span></u></span></b></span></h1><div><span>I now want to turn to the court's role throughout the mediation process.</span></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Court's Power to Refer Parties to Mediation</span></h2><div><span>The UAE Commercial Mediation Law makes clear that courts may refer cases to mediation if the parties have executed an agreement to mediate. </span>Two sets of judges come in to play depending on which mediation track the parties choose.</div><div><br /></div><div>As I noted in an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/8n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">post</a>, <b>Articles 1, 3, 5, 22, and 23</b> give the parties the power to enter mediation voluntarily by executing a mediation agreement either before or after a dispute arises. The agreement can be a separate contract or a condition included in a contract. Under <b>Article 5</b>, the agreement must be in writing, and it survives the death of any party.</div><div><span><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span><b>Article 5</b> provides: </span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"The Competent Court may issue a decision to refer the dispute to mediation at any stage of the case, based on the court's proposal coupled with the approval of the parties, based on the request of the parties, or in enforcement of the mediation agreement.</li></ul><div style="text-align: center;">* * * </div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"Referral decisions issued by the Competent Court may not be challenged by any of the ordinary or extraordinary methods of challenge."</li></ul></div><div><span><b>Article 6,</b> governing the appointment of a private mediator, provides: </span>"If the mediation agreement designates a private mediator, the Competent Court shall observe such designation upon issuing the referral decision . . . ."</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 1</b> defines the Competent Court as "the Trial Court that hears the case referred to mediation or the court judge supervising the case management office, as the case may be." It defines the Referral Decision as "the decision issued by the Competent Court to refer the parties to a dispute to mediation in an attempt to have their dispute amicably settled."</div><div><br /></div><div>Parties working through Centers on disputes that have not yet gone to litigation [extrajudicial mediation] are governed by <b>Articles 22 and 23</b>. Under <b>Article 23</b>, parties must file an application for mediation, which must include a copy of the mediation agreement and any supporting documents. "The application shall indicate the desire of any or all parties to resort to mediation . . . ." The law gives the Supervising Judge the same powers of the Competent Court to appoint a mediator.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 1</b> defines the Supervising Judge as: "The judge supervising the [C]enter."</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYA2LxeIDYIapiCuEpYOthUZROIzgHQrVWtwpXeuaaUqo7DCCRKjW-QTDx4D4xTyxB6-FcP2ApnpZq2iIm85s6mZQUjNj0K3IBsXDkmoxkVW-as9-hq8VPGUSvpqRZtLUve7wSdFohz6eswW-iKTCSpvh-SGxaGAh9MHxVT6IcEJU1UMhM4FvxqoDP79QU/s507/Time%204.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYA2LxeIDYIapiCuEpYOthUZROIzgHQrVWtwpXeuaaUqo7DCCRKjW-QTDx4D4xTyxB6-FcP2ApnpZq2iIm85s6mZQUjNj0K3IBsXDkmoxkVW-as9-hq8VPGUSvpqRZtLUve7wSdFohz6eswW-iKTCSpvh-SGxaGAh9MHxVT6IcEJU1UMhM4FvxqoDP79QU/s320/Time%204.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Time Limits on the Mediation Process and the Judge's Role in Extending Them</span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></b></div><div><div>Note that <b>Article 5</b> also says that the mediation "may not exceed three months of the date of notifying the mediator of the assignment, and shall be renewable for a similar period only once under a decision of the competent court at the request of the mediator and with the approval of the parties. Similarly, <b>Article 23</b>, governing extrajudicial mediations, limits the mediation to "three months of the date of the mediator's acceptance of [the] mediation mission. Such timeframe shall be renewable once for a similar duration under a decision of the supervising judge, based on an agreement to be concluded by the parties according to the same conditions set out in Article 3 of this law [referring to the mediation agreement]." </div><h2><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVwLis4EV4B70VKNlxCqzE_WG4o656X-bLlt5oBDSgMVfhsO4sC-ZN5JaOzNzQSOWJrljnfAItIBACyCDt0aJdvTAUJ_dcntijp6-GnIfSSJRvqBkn6T9ivO7c31U_07zN-BB6KoALbB5YmyFZIcUfGwt89QOEGSAmMbZJq_2o-cHw4A639-wde8yeejC4/s463/174327396.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="463" data-original-width="370" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVwLis4EV4B70VKNlxCqzE_WG4o656X-bLlt5oBDSgMVfhsO4sC-ZN5JaOzNzQSOWJrljnfAItIBACyCDt0aJdvTAUJ_dcntijp6-GnIfSSJRvqBkn6T9ivO7c31U_07zN-BB6KoALbB5YmyFZIcUfGwt89QOEGSAmMbZJq_2o-cHw4A639-wde8yeejC4/s320/174327396.jpg" width="256" /></a></div></h2><h2><span style="font-size: medium;">What are the Responsibilities of the Court while the Parties Attempt to Resolve the Dispute by Mediation?</span></h2><h3><span style="font-size: small;"><div style="font-weight: 400;"><b>Expert Fees</b></div><div style="font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-weight: 400;"><b>Article 11</b> gives the mediator the power to engage experts to provide technical expertise. The mediator will negotiate the fee and the scope of engagement. However, the Competent Court will set the fees if a dispute arises over them. </div></span></h3><h3><span style="font-size: small;">Provisional and precautionary measures</span></h3><div>The court can maintain the status quo during mediation in two ways. First, <b>Article 5</b> states: [D]uring the mediation period, the Competent Court may . . . take necessary measures and actions to safeguard the rights of the parties and issue urgent or interim decision deemed necessary."</div><h3><span style="font-size: small;">Tolling power</span></h3><div>In addition, the court can also maintain the status quo under the tolling provisions of <b>Article 5</b>. It provides: "Legal and judicial time limits shall be interrupted once the referral decision is issued and shall only become effective again after the mediation comes to an end." Again, while the language is general, I assume it allows a tolling of any statute of limitations while the parties mediate. It would also seem to toll any time limits for filings or other matters under any rules of civil procedure. </div><h3><span style="font-size: small;">Managing new or pending cases</span></h3><div>The court has responsibilities for managing any litigation either pending or filed during the mediation. However, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law fails to spell out those responsibilities comprehensively. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not expressly instruct the court to stop considering the pending lawsuit. Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, it does not impose a penalty on any party who files a lawsuit while the mediation process is pending or in the presence of a valid agreement to mediate. </div><div><br /></div><div>An exception exists for extrajudicial mediation, where parties have a mediation agreement and seek to settle the dispute through a Center without first filing suit. <b>Article 24</b> provides that if the plaintiff brings a suit "in respect of a dispute brought to the mediator in enforcement of a mediation agreement" the court "shall dismiss the case if so requested by the defendant before any claim or plea relating to the subject of the case is submitted by the defendant, unless the Court is convinced that the mediation agreement is invalid or impossible to be implemented." The language is confusing, but seems to say that the court will quickly dismiss any lawsuit alleging the invalidity of the mediation agreement and seeking to proceed in court, unless the claim seems plausible. <b>Article 25</b> says the filing of this case by the defendant "shall not preclude commencement or continuation of extrajudicial mediation procedures." </div><div><br /></div><div>In the absence of similar provisions in <b>Article 5</b>, governing judicial mediation, parties will invoke the more general language found there allowing the court to "safeguard the rights of the parties and issue . . . decisions deemed necessary" about any pending or new lawsuits while the mediation process begins or continues. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Management of Multi-Party Disputes</b></div><div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Article 10</b> gives the court supervisory power over multi-party disputes that protects the mediation process. It provides: "For multiparty disputes, the parties may, subject to approval of the Competent Court, agree that the mediation procedures would continue when any of them fails to get involved in whatever way, unless such failure would adversely affect the proper administration of mediation and settlement of the dispute between them." This provision does not appear in the Qatar Mediation Law. Its utility is obvious. </span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKbb34bWBVVovs8QbF60rI4vRLhksXAGVgqzL-lb0ndAPY8fCWRD_Hfao5CVRXHGgu_3f6ii9LiUnW2o8GWp9A7TFrC6DQMoIeAYGcrVlnqNgEAyo4F56sfXtZyZWRR8XybXLuHrBtRwmQOaYW2j15Tcpl2jtg8nHJYPPiMWEuqmSQLEvWVOTdA6acd1Aq/s495/Jobs%2014.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="347" data-original-width="495" height="224" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKbb34bWBVVovs8QbF60rI4vRLhksXAGVgqzL-lb0ndAPY8fCWRD_Hfao5CVRXHGgu_3f6ii9LiUnW2o8GWp9A7TFrC6DQMoIeAYGcrVlnqNgEAyo4F56sfXtZyZWRR8XybXLuHrBtRwmQOaYW2j15Tcpl2jtg8nHJYPPiMWEuqmSQLEvWVOTdA6acd1Aq/s320/Jobs%2014.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What are the Court's Responsibilities When the Mediation Ends?</span></h2><div><b>Failure to Reach Agreement in Mediation and Return to Litigation</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 17</b> provides that in the event a judicial mediation does not resulting in a settlement agreement, the mediator will report to the Center, which in turn will report to the court the failed mediation. "[T]he Competent Court shall assign the case to hearings for reconsideration, with no need for new notification." <b>Article 23</b>, governing extrajudicial mediation, states: "The supervising judge shall have the same powers of the Competent Court in terms of . . . receipt of the mediator's reports and affirmation of the settlement agreement, as described in Chapter Two of this Law." Presumably, these powers include allowing the parties to proceed in litigation. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Court Affirmation of the Settlement Agreement</b></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Article 18</b> requires the mediator to file with the Center a report and a signed copy of the settlement agreement at the close of the mediation, whether the mediated agreement resolves the dispute in whole or in part. The Center will forward these documents to the Competent Court. Then, </div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"The Competent Court shall affirm such agreement and issue a decision terminating the dispute, in whole or in part as the case may be. Once affirmed, the agreement shall be deemed a writ of execution and the executive formula shall be fixed thereto at the request of either [or] both parties in light of the provisions of the settlement agreement submitted to the Court. In addition, the affirmed agreement shall be enforced according to the procedures set out in the above-referenced civil procedure law, as amended."</li></ul></div><div>Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law that expressly penalizes a party for filing a lawsuit on a claim resolved in mediation, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law focuses on enforcement on the settlement agreement. <b> Article 20</b> provides: "Subject to Article 19 of this Law, the court-affirmed settlement agreement shall be binding upon the parties, may not be reevoked, and shall have the same probative force of court judgments. Hence, the merits and grounds of the same dispute between the parties may not be brought again to the Court, and the Court shall order such probative force sua sponte." It thus expressly invokes principles of res judicata or estoppel.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, a party who has any buyer's remorse after mediation should express it in the authentication stage, because <b>Articles 18 and 20</b> should prevent the filing of a lawsuit after the court authenticates the settlement agreement. </div><div><br /></div><div>Under <b>Article 19</b>, a party claiming invalidity of the settlement agreement must file a case coinciding with the application to affirm the settlement agreement. Grounds for invalidity include a party's lack of mental capacity or diminished capacity at the end of the mediation; the parties' failure to reach a settlement agreement; the invalidity or voidability of the settlement agreement; that the parties reached agreement after the mediation timeframe expired; if the mediation agreement is invalid or avoidable; or when a party fails to offer a defense in mediation due to an invalid notice of the proceedings or was unaware of the pending mediation for "any other reason beyond its reasonable control." Any decision on the validity of the settlement agreement is final and subject to appeal by way of cassation. </div><div><br /></div><div>While the language is confusing, it appears a party must seek invalidation within 30 days "following the date on which the judicial dispute termination is served upon that party." Even if the court finds the settlement agreement invalid, in whole or in part, the mediation agreement shall remain valid, unless its invalidity was the basis for invalidating the settlement agreement. Presumably, this provision of <b>Article 19</b> would protect the parties' ability to return to mediation if it might result in a valid settlement agreement. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtDJiNuxzR7Z-RpRSxGh_jx91paAhQSJY0icYlj4dyXMFYtC5nmFMQkMV13jDy62OcntuF7bfYGAjPotWjBxj21-kGUHwuK2-8pX3a3ZSW9UmhwjhI2He11HPWraHorZ9P5_zfeXsz481WxlzIIbWA3-aBmXSH4zCdL6k0bmL3tC5VwysmMq9dOr9fL9YE/s2119/GettyImages-955576384.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1415" data-original-width="2119" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtDJiNuxzR7Z-RpRSxGh_jx91paAhQSJY0icYlj4dyXMFYtC5nmFMQkMV13jDy62OcntuF7bfYGAjPotWjBxj21-kGUHwuK2-8pX3a3ZSW9UmhwjhI2He11HPWraHorZ9P5_zfeXsz481WxlzIIbWA3-aBmXSH4zCdL6k0bmL3tC5VwysmMq9dOr9fL9YE/s320/GettyImages-955576384.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div><div><b>Refund of Judicial Fees</b></div><div><br /></div><div>In addition, the law gives the court power to refund judicial fees. <b>Article 6</b> provides that: "In case the dispute ends in a settlement agreement, the Claimant shall get back the judicial fees paid thereby as described in Article 21.2 of this Law." <b>Article 21</b>, in turn provides: "When the mediator's mission comes to an end and full settlement is reached for the dispute, all parties involved may get back the judicial fees paid. They may also get back half of the judicial fees paid by them in case the settlement involves part of the matter of dispute." </div><h3><span style="font-size: medium;">Management of the Mediator and Her Fees</span></h3><div>The court also must ensure that the mediation is not causing unreasonable delay in the resolution of the dispute. Under <b>Article 8</b>, the court may terminate the appointment of a mediator who has failed to resign, at the request of the parties, if he "fails, becomes unable or ceases to perform his mission in such a manner that would give rise to unnecessary procedural delay . . . based on a decision of the Competent Court that may not be challenged by any means of challenge." </div><div><br /></div><div><b>Articles 6 and 21</b> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law expect that the parties, along with the mediator, will set compensation for the mediator, payable even if the parties fail to reach agreement. However, </div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"[T]he Competent Court shall, under all circumstances, determined non-agreed final mediation costs under an Order on Petition. Such costs shall be divided and distributed between the parties either equally or in proportion to their respective interest in the case, at the discretion of the Court. The Court may also order either or both parties to bear such costs and shall permit the private mediator to receive the fees due him and which are deposited in to the Court's treasury." </li></ul>In addition, the Court has discretion to allocate the mediator's fees if the parties fail to reach agreement. <b>Article 21</b> states:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"If the mediator fails to reach settlement for the dispute, the Competent Court shall issue an Order on Petition obliging the parties to pay final mediation costs based on the mediation agreement and referral decision. The Court may also order either party to pay full mediation costs if such party is the cause of failure of the mediation process due to failure to attend mediation sessions."</li></ul></div><div>I'll talk more about the settlement agreement and its authentication by the court in my next post. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-82059917737912289812023-10-25T19:25:00.006-04:002023-12-24T16:33:23.719-05:00<p> </p><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwj9pxohPHcYeRF5rH5Fw7cUIfgmDCedocMIxpjuhT-sX4hKbIuVKgvT1dvaN8Ilfm8-Uw1nt7V4rgwpMH_pJb5BLF0Nu0vM0hDBMqKVzafb_RKWF9xNuo4MUd8LPhI5lir4f5ndlz7mqsQscO-dwS-DcCI8Eq5dZPfH6ipfp1896I-uVr_L4SEGTc3Rr-/s2119/GettyImages-979000094.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2119" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwj9pxohPHcYeRF5rH5Fw7cUIfgmDCedocMIxpjuhT-sX4hKbIuVKgvT1dvaN8Ilfm8-Uw1nt7V4rgwpMH_pJb5BLF0Nu0vM0hDBMqKVzafb_RKWF9xNuo4MUd8LPhI5lir4f5ndlz7mqsQscO-dwS-DcCI8Eq5dZPfH6ipfp1896I-uVr_L4SEGTc3Rr-/s320/GettyImages-979000094.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;">11/n An Analysis of the UAE’s Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Confidentiality in Mediation, Part 2: A Few Unanswered Questions</span></u></span></b></span></h1><div>In my last <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/10n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">post</a>, I set out a framework for analyzing statutes or rules governing confidentiality in mediation. I will use it to analyze the UAE's Commercial Mediation Law. In addition, in an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/8n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">post</a>, I also analyzed party control over the disclosure of information exchanged during mediation.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Articles </span>10, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18<span style="font-family: inherit;"> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law govern confidentiality in mediation. </span>Unfortunately, the law does not give a specific list of the types of communications deemed confidential. Instead, it provides a very general definition of confidential "information" in Article 14.</div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In this post, I will consider:</span></div><div><ul><li><span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -48px;">Who is the holder of the privilege who may prevent the disclosure of confidential information?</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -144px;">In what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -144px;">What is confidential? What is exempted from confidentiality?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></li><li><span>How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>What is the penalty for wrongful disclosure? </span><span> </span><span> </span></span></li></ul></div><h2><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNr_1WN5dqkX9l5tlbTpN1zVxLBqNJtPs5BUgA9hG-bIBJec5DPruOBtAD9-eTqfiaaTOhfCiSGiCm2Vq0hoN7A4NJnpx_y7s7NUKuhtZIYVwVXhu_ttOvBd2PZgdzgyThKfn31Vwe5ZIF2B0D0CADhwOyEtNe55fBS1Nwr_gUBBhEtTQK6cZPsrY9ipAb/s480/Student%2027.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="356" data-original-width="480" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNr_1WN5dqkX9l5tlbTpN1zVxLBqNJtPs5BUgA9hG-bIBJec5DPruOBtAD9-eTqfiaaTOhfCiSGiCm2Vq0hoN7A4NJnpx_y7s7NUKuhtZIYVwVXhu_ttOvBd2PZgdzgyThKfn31Vwe5ZIF2B0D0CADhwOyEtNe55fBS1Nwr_gUBBhEtTQK6cZPsrY9ipAb/s320/Student%2027.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></h2><h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"><h3 style="font-size: medium; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">Who holds the privilege?</span></h3></span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 1</b> defines "Parties" as: "The parties to the mediation agreement."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 10</b> makes caucus communications confidential. It </span>permits the mediator to hold "private sessions with each party . . . but may not disclose to the other party any information that comes to his knowledge within such sessions, <u>without the prior approval</u> of the disclosing party." (Emphasis added.) <span style="font-family: inherit;">This limitation is a big deal! It makes the parties the holder of the privilege and requires an express waiver of the privilege. Unlike the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_16.html" target="_blank">Qatar Mediation Law</a>, the mediator may not make disclosures without prior party consent. The law shifts the burden to the mediator to maintain confidentiality. A well-trained mediator will confirm what he may disclose before returning to the joint session or before entering a private "caucus" session with the other party. This approach reflects the laws in other jurisdictions that make caucus communications confidential, </span><u style="font-family: inherit;">unless</u><span style="font-family: inherit;"> the party specifically agrees to the disclosure of a particular communication. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 14</b> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law defines what communications are deemed confidential 9discussed below) and it expressly prevents "the Center, mediator, parties and everyone involved in the mediation process . . . from disclosing any information that comes into existence during the mediation procedures, without the approval of all parties involved . . . . ." Thus, again, the law indicates that the parties jointly hold the privilege of confidentiality. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 15</b> prevents a mediator from giving testimony against either party relating to the mediation "unless otherwise permitted by the party concerned or agreed by the parties . . . ." While this language is not particularly clear, it suggests that the party who made the original disclosure retains the confidentiality privilege over it and can block any attempt to get the mediator to disclose it.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 16</b> requires the mediator to "deliver back to each party all statements and documents initially received from such a party and [she] may not retain the same or any copies thereof." Accordingly, the parties retain the privilege over any documents shared in mediation.</span></div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">Analysis</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Recall the list in my <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/10n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">Part 1 post</a> of possible holders of the privilege:</span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediator only?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties only?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">All participants?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jointly between mediator and parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties control disclosures as between themselves.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediator is given means to avoid being compelled to give testimony about the mediation.</span></li></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The UAE Commercial Mediation Law only mention the parties as the holder of the privilege, but the mediator is specifically precluded from giving any testimony about the mediation..</span></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJhTQoV9W9k8b3SOj9wsv2kbvAJtN5iqYW32Ukys72xnIEtn2DE2hF6suAniHtE6Qw7aPldXjy9o4c8iWelss81UcmmEn66XJgsusKtRpotD_fz8dlvxbNjonP9d9TlgMzqc9bUG9lB2tekMAdL_6ontxSEt2OxzCzXn3TqMl7iEZu9JSOZfg5GHCm0vVV/s507/Judge%207.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJhTQoV9W9k8b3SOj9wsv2kbvAJtN5iqYW32Ukys72xnIEtn2DE2hF6suAniHtE6Qw7aPldXjy9o4c8iWelss81UcmmEn66XJgsusKtRpotD_fz8dlvxbNjonP9d9TlgMzqc9bUG9lB2tekMAdL_6ontxSEt2OxzCzXn3TqMl7iEZu9JSOZfg5GHCm0vVV/s320/Judge%207.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><h3><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="text-indent: -144px;"><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">I</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">n what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail? </span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></span></span></h3><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 14</b> prohibits disclosure of confidential communications "before any court or any other entity whatsoever." </span></div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">Analysis</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Recall the list in my <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/10n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">Part 1 post</a> of proceedings in which a party might assert the privilege:</span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Any subsequent legal or administrative proceeding between the parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Any other context involving the parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">In legal or administrative proceedings involving third-parties to the mediation?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">In formal discovery process by the parties to mediation or by third parties?</span></li></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The language in the UAE Commercial Mediation Law leaves little room for any ambiguity. It would preclude any subsequent disclosure to any person, court, or administrative body in any context. Full stop. This approach is much clearer than the language found in the Qatar Mediation Law, which I discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_16.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Sadly, it may prevent the disclosure of i</span>nformation assembled for research or program accountability or assessment, if disclosed outside the Center's management team.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWPnm0UXyOpA2yPEf_0gvoWC9hnXh8bC1-e72ckBMG709nZRgkve1l4SbD9CkMzYXsMOIBXF8blbaVoWrTaV84vM6GN6U2yCqEA_RpDpsASBjkxJvxM08NmCmfat2Zfz_kvT7zDjVC2SS8IXLFhaqZvzXtvJ2wLt-LUC9jG4Gd4RUSuzbNKGVeSVBNgrd0/s2448/GettyImages-472300762.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1224" data-original-width="2448" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWPnm0UXyOpA2yPEf_0gvoWC9hnXh8bC1-e72ckBMG709nZRgkve1l4SbD9CkMzYXsMOIBXF8blbaVoWrTaV84vM6GN6U2yCqEA_RpDpsASBjkxJvxM08NmCmfat2Zfz_kvT7zDjVC2SS8IXLFhaqZvzXtvJ2wLt-LUC9jG4Gd4RUSuzbNKGVeSVBNgrd0/s320/GettyImages-472300762.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What is confidential? What is exempted from confidentiality?</span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>- In General</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></div><div>Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, which included a long list of the communications deemed confidential and a long list of exceptions to confidentiality, the UAE Commercial Law provides a short, but inclusive definition with few exceptions. <b> Article 14</b> states: </div><div><ul><li>"Mediation procedures shall be of a confidential nature, so such procedures or any documents or information provided within the course of which or any agreements or compromises made by the parties involved may not be involved before any court or any other entity whatsoever. Accordingly, the Center, mediator, parties and everyone involved in the mediation process shall be prohibited from disclosing any information that comes into existence during the mediation process, without approval of all parties involved . . . ."</li></ul><div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Parties bound by this rule are the Center, mediator, parties, and "everyone involved in the mediation process." Thus, the law would also bind third-party witnesses and experts. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thoughtfully, the drafters explicitly recognized that only a communication that "comes into existence during the mediation procedures" is confidential. That distinction was not clear in the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">Qatar Mediation Law.</a></span></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Analysis:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">R</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">ecall the</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">list in my</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"> </span><a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/10n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">Part 1 post</a><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">of communications</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">that could be designated as confidential mediation communications: </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><ul><li>The mere fact of settlement?</li><li>The terms of a settlement?</li><li>Statements made by the parties in the course of settlement discussions – oral or written?</li><li>Acts or conduct of the parties?</li><li>Pre-existing documents, other written evidence, or tangible items <u>disclosed</u> in mediation?</li><li>Documents or other evidence <u>created</u> in mediation process?</li><li>Statements made by or notes of the mediator?</li><li>Appraisals, fact- or legal-expert opinions, etc. obtained to prepare for settlement negotiations?</li><li>Agreement to mediate?</li><li>Communications in setting up the mediation? Even “ex parte” communications with mediator? Intake information?</li><li>Communications made between multiple sessions? </li><li>Communications made at the time between reaching agreement in mediation and the final execution of the settlement agreement?</li><li>Information assembled for research or program accountability or assessment?</li></ul></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">Based on that list, the following communications seem to be protected by the UAE Commercial Mediation Law despite the failure to define </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">"mediation procedures" or the "mediation process" in Article 1.<br /></span></div></span></h2><h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Statements made by the parties in the course of settlement discussions – oral and written.</span></li><li>Documents or other evidence <u>created</u> in the mediation process.</li><li>Statements made by or notes of the mediator.</li><li>Appraisals, fact- or legal-expert opinions, etc. obtained to prepare for settlement negotiations, <u>if</u> the " information . . . comes into existence during the mediation procedures." The caveat is important. </li></ul></div><p style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><span>Unlike, Articles 10 and 28 of the Qatar Mediation Law that define the length of "mediation procedures" from inception to closure, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law is silent. Thus, it is unclear if c</span>ommunications in setting up the mediation -- even “ex parte” communications with the mediator -- and, intake information are confidential, including the mediation agreement. It is also unclear whether <span>c</span>ommunications made between multiple sessions of mediation and communications made at the time between reaching agreement in mediation and the final execution of the settlement agreement are also confidential. Nonetheless, the term "mediation procedures" should be interpreted broadly to include these types of communications, since the field considers the process as beginning when the mediator accepts the appointment and as ending when the parties sign the final Settlement Agreement. </p><p style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">Finally,<span style="font-family: inherit;"> the a</span>cts or conduct of the parties are not clearly covered by confidentiality.</p></div><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">A well-trained mediator -- no matter the nature of the applicable law -- will always check with the disclosing party before releasing any confidential information to the other party or any third party. </span></span></div></span></h2><h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div></div></span></h2><h3><span style="font-size: small;">- Exceptions to Confidentiality</span></h3><h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></h2><h2><span><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Article 14 lists only three exceptions:</span></span></span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><ul><li><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">unless the information relates to a criminal act,</span></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">the final settlement agreement, and</span></span></li><li><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">"the documents and papers required for [the settlement agreement's] enforcement."</span></span></li></ul></div></span></h2></div></div><h3 style="font-size: medium; text-align: left;">- Confidentiality of Caucus Communications</h3><h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">As noted above, </span>Article 10<span style="font-weight: normal;"> permits the mediator to hold "private sessions with each party . . . but may not disclose to the other party any information that comes to his knowledge within such sessions, </span><u style="font-weight: normal;">without the prior approval</u><span style="font-weight: normal;"> of the disclosing party." (Emphasis added.) </span></div></span></h2><h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div><span style="font-size: small;">- Disclosure of the Settlement Agreement</span></div><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Articles 18<span style="font-weight: normal;"> (for judicial mediation) and </span>23<span style="font-weight: normal;"> (for extrajudicial mediation) of the UAE Commerical Mediation Law require the mediator to provide the Center or court with the signed settlement agreement and a report, presumably the report required by either </span>Articles 16 or 17<span style="font-weight: normal;">. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Thankfully, it does not require the inclusion of any expert's opinion, as does Article 24 of the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">Qatar Mediation Law</a>.</span></span></div><div style="font-size: large;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: large;"><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">Taken together, parties have a lot of control over confidentiality in the process. The exceptions to confidentiality are quite limited and reflect more conservative standards for disclosures.</div><div style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;"><br /></div><div style="font-size: medium;"><div style="font-size: 24px; font-weight: 700;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium; font-weight: normal;">On the other hand, a party or the mediator may disclose:</span></div><div style="font-size: 24px;"><ul><li style="font-weight: 700;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Communications made prior to the start of the mediation. This limitation prevents someone from bringing a pre-existing document into mediation and trying to vest it with confidentiality it did not have previously, like a set of tax documents.</span></span></li><li style="font-weight: 700;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Communications related to a criminal act. Many jurisdictions grapple with this sort of potentially broad public policy exception, but most mediators would agree that mediation should not be used to further or plan a crime. </span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">A party's failure to attend two consecutive sessions of mediation under </span>Article 16<span style="font-weight: normal;">.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The mediator's report to the court about "the outcome of the judicial mediation" under </span>Articles 16 and 18<span style="font-weight: normal;">, so long as the report does not disclose confidential information. This report could disclose the fact that the parties reached agreement in whole or in part; or the fact that the parties failed to reach agreement and, under </span>Article 17<span style="font-weight: normal;">, describe "how far the parties and their attorneys are committed to attending scheduled sessions." I am not sure what the law intends with this part of any mediator report, but it suggests the mediator need only disclose that further sessions would not be beneficial. </span></span></li><li style="font-weight: 700;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The settlement agreement under Article 18 and any related enforcement documents.</span></span></li></ul></div></div></div></span></h2><div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTNB0ayQwbDTsGx0-VxqUmWPFGlhwIfedh8LDhSSNsj-2uGs2l7D2GuirA48yFdIfrRmAM11Cy4nUENvhlW4qmJ4fIAkbv3JwN_wAUVfHNVAPgfeyz3kh_L1Mm4SFRQ-45hdDBV59HEoZaozuDcuUhCCkJbW6U6yvTeSyQPXWq7jzs785n-WuZvmG85Z47/s2127/GettyImages-1294166699.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1409" data-original-width="2127" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTNB0ayQwbDTsGx0-VxqUmWPFGlhwIfedh8LDhSSNsj-2uGs2l7D2GuirA48yFdIfrRmAM11Cy4nUENvhlW4qmJ4fIAkbv3JwN_wAUVfHNVAPgfeyz3kh_L1Mm4SFRQ-45hdDBV59HEoZaozuDcuUhCCkJbW6U6yvTeSyQPXWq7jzs785n-WuZvmG85Z47/s320/GettyImages-1294166699.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Who can enforce confidentiality? </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></span></span></span></h2></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 14</b> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not state who can enforce confidentiality other than the parties and the mediator (by refusing to give testimony). The same article, as noted above, prevents disclosure of </span>confidential communications "before any court or any other entity whatsoever."</div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 15</b> prevents a mediator from giving testimony against either party to the dispute without the consent by the party "concerned" or agreement of both parties. That provision should preclude disclosure of any confidential communications "with regard to the matter of the dispute that is covered by the mediation or any matter arising out thereof, even after the end of the mediation procedures . . ."</span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Analysis:</b></span></span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>Recall the list in my <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/10n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">Part 1 post</a> of potential persons who might have an interest in enforcing the confidentiality of mediation communications:</span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties to the mediation? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Witnesses or other participants?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">The mediator?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Interested non-parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Courts and other public agencies?</span></li></ul><div><h4><span style="font-weight: normal;">The UAE </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Commercial</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Mediation Law clearly gives each party the power to enforce confidentiality, but it is silent about whether any other participant (other than the mediator) can enforce confidentiality. It is crystal clear in stating against whom the </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">parties</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> may enforce the privilege.</span></h4></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHtQL0GtlzjngWczW9cRic8b6S6YnoEEPowiiigkkdcpOuypTXea4UY6F_zyIvfw_PjziFgROJE3CfT8GN2ZtrIJvNmvrg4qSadD5J2dJl-EtxVFGtW_X_o_zQdXqE04CQsheLW4or71Z1QRhVRwKsMRLO9tEIOiG2im8y4umFlQUbOqjWvFK22S5pBZ9t/s3008/GettyImages-1371460654.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2000" data-original-width="3008" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHtQL0GtlzjngWczW9cRic8b6S6YnoEEPowiiigkkdcpOuypTXea4UY6F_zyIvfw_PjziFgROJE3CfT8GN2ZtrIJvNmvrg4qSadD5J2dJl-EtxVFGtW_X_o_zQdXqE04CQsheLW4or71Z1QRhVRwKsMRLO9tEIOiG2im8y4umFlQUbOqjWvFK22S5pBZ9t/s320/GettyImages-1371460654.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><h3><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span></h3><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In my <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/10n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">Part 1 post</a>, I set out a number of options for the scope of the privilege:</span></div><div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Absolute with no exceptions?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">One broad exception: when interests of justice or public policy requires disclosure?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">A list of specific exceptions, like:</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Bad faith</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Past illegal conduct or crime</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Fraud</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Abuse of process</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit crime or disclosure of ongoing crime</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or other bodily harm</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</span></li></ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or neglect by a governmental agency in charge of persons in its care</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</span></li></ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threat of harm to property</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Commission of crime in mediation</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">When disclosure is mandated by another state law</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">When disclosure is mandated by court or administrative agency</span></li></ul></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The UAE Commercial Mediation Law adopts the third option by creating confidentiality subject to a very short list of enumerated exceptions. Frankly, this approach to confidentiality in mediation shows the sophistication of the drafters. Yet, I expect that over time, courts or the drafters will want to expand the list of exceptions or will read the "crime" exception broadly to cover public policy concerns that may arise later. </span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPXL3AChUkUhLz2s9b5OvQtUeU4tu_EWa4gcMDlvFUAwrDYastUvgEV9JwlWASksyKpmx5LjJTykfbsbPtobi45MS7tjIrHEOMAbst8Qr2W71Y6yCLc1VtOzvaGEaHSxhht2QvOjJVjuP6FFym3MFr7QfafGEX8jbErBGhex0XS6x3dVolAdNM1MrjHRby/s478/Sports%205.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="358" data-original-width="478" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPXL3AChUkUhLz2s9b5OvQtUeU4tu_EWa4gcMDlvFUAwrDYastUvgEV9JwlWASksyKpmx5LjJTykfbsbPtobi45MS7tjIrHEOMAbst8Qr2W71Y6yCLc1VtOzvaGEaHSxhht2QvOjJVjuP6FFym3MFr7QfafGEX8jbErBGhex0XS6x3dVolAdNM1MrjHRby/s320/Sports%205.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>What is the penalty for wrongful disclosure? </span><span> </span></span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Problems arise when someone breaches the confidentiality of mediation. A party can find that enforcing confidentiality is difficult. A party can also have difficulty calculating damages arising from a breach. </span>In my <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/10/10n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">Part 1 post</a>, I suggested several reasons for why parties seek to breach mediation confidentiality.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Unlike <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_16.html" target="_blank">Article 30 of the Qatar Mediation Law</a> which provides a substantial monetary penalty for violating confidentiality, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not impose any sanction for breach of confidentiality by a party or other participant who is not the mediator. It only sanctions the mediator for disclosures under <b>Articles 14 and 26</b>. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 14</b> provides:</span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"Should the mediator violate the confidentiality . . . rules set out in this Law, the aggrieved party may resort to the Center for imposing the administrative and disciplinary measures described in Article 26 of this law on the mediator, and without prejudice to the mediator's civil and criminal liability."</li></ul></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 26</b> allows a Center to "deprive the private mediators practicing mediation work before the Center in case they violate the confidentiality . . . . rules." In addition, Center mediators are subject to the rules and disciplinary measures of the Center and of Federal Law No. 7 of 2012 Regulating Expertise Profession before the Judicial Authorities, an analysis of which is beyond the scope of this post. </span></div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Conclusion</span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The UAE Commercial Mediation Law provides meaningful protection for mediation communications. Parties hold the privilege to prevent disclosures to "the court" or third-parties and must expressly waive the privilege. Only the parties can enforce the privilege. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In addition, the law prohibits the mediator form testifying about the mediation. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Center can sanction the mediator for wrongful disclosures. But, neither the court nor the Center can sanction the parties or third-parties for disclosure of confidential information. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The scope of the privilege is broad, with only three exceptions. </span></div><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Next up? I'll discuss the court's management of the case pending mediation and precautionary measures available to parties while they mediate. </span></p><p>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-19961550670251698562023-10-04T15:10:00.005-04:002023-12-24T16:33:02.273-05:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQvTlOt9hfxrkjuKqPmi_DPyx6O6Mfycqf-mnAowFtKg7v5Y2kEMS9XQFK2i-25vAmipIv2fxEKcOiYu7dYPLftzZ6V_0bbemJEozoCpWS8N6l9P9L-sJe0sGkDpsv7o7ObUtfIX79Dp0NnaRS9pndGH0cosTCk1rhVmcEAbLJWBrGV4MYkyQ6kTsvTenF/s461/Mediation%2011.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="461" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQvTlOt9hfxrkjuKqPmi_DPyx6O6Mfycqf-mnAowFtKg7v5Y2kEMS9XQFK2i-25vAmipIv2fxEKcOiYu7dYPLftzZ6V_0bbemJEozoCpWS8N6l9P9L-sJe0sGkDpsv7o7ObUtfIX79Dp0NnaRS9pndGH0cosTCk1rhVmcEAbLJWBrGV4MYkyQ6kTsvTenF/s320/Mediation%2011.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">10/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Confidentiality in Mediation, Part 1: The </span>Analytical<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Framework</span></span></u></span></b></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">post</a>, analyzing party control over process choices, I talked about confidentiality in mediation. I said: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>This topic has confounded many organizations trying to set guidelines for confidentiality in mediation. In 2001, the National Conference on Uniform State Laws in the U.S. produced the <a href="https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1427&context=jdr">Uniform Mediation Act</a> after many drafting sessions occurring over several years. A large part of the draft law applies to confidentiality. After a lapse of 22 years, only <a href="https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=45565a5f-0c57-4bba-bbab-fc7de9a59110">twelve</a> states have adopted it. Instead, other states rely on their own laws governing mediator confidentiality.</li></ul><span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Similarly, various iterations of rules governing confidentiality exist all over the world. Accordingly, to create some structure to the analysis, I am providing this discussion covering:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"></p><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">What are the breakdowns in the process that lead to a desire to breach mediation confidentiality?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">What are the public policies supporting confidentiality in mediation?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Why do we r</span><span style="text-indent: -96px;"><span>ely on a statute to protect these interests</span></span><span style="text-indent: -96px;"><span>?</span></span></span></li><li><span style="text-indent: -96px;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">What are the possible approaches to mediation confidentiality?</span></span></li><ul><li><span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -48px;">Who is the holder of the privilege who may prevent the disclosure of confidential information?</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -144px;">In what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -144px;">What is confidential?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><span> How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span> </span><span> </span><span><br /></span></span></li></ul></ul><h2><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM1QQ2VpytmkX4Zt1fFZN-KbeoFwMUZAW2no3Az0AC4xziNcRzYaM-DNvRHy7P_n0A1ohGHlIf5N_lEuXlQbBhfOrybeqOoeKJqDj4DUv86tSsEZyDzJppqmw85Rdtq3BC8PUajWVIUJnuhXCEl5AQXIemuA4mR9LeMeowI1iq_nkoDCUWbY0_R2mymg/s414/Communication%204.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="414" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM1QQ2VpytmkX4Zt1fFZN-KbeoFwMUZAW2no3Az0AC4xziNcRzYaM-DNvRHy7P_n0A1ohGHlIf5N_lEuXlQbBhfOrybeqOoeKJqDj4DUv86tSsEZyDzJppqmw85Rdtq3BC8PUajWVIUJnuhXCEl5AQXIemuA4mR9LeMeowI1iq_nkoDCUWbY0_R2mymg/s320/Communication%204.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div></h2><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What are the Breakdowns in the Process that Lead to a Desire to Breach Mediation Confidentiality?</span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties may wish to breach confidentiality in an effort to void a settlement agreement when they discover later that the mediator committed malpractice or engaged in misconduct. Similarly, a party may try to unwind a settlement agreement tainted by fraud or duress by introducing mediation communications showing a party's failure to disclose material information, a party's intentional misrepresentation of material facts, or a party's proffer of incorrect financial data. A party might also want to raise a defense of unfairness or unconscionably using mediation communications. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">A party may also wish to show that the other party failed to participate in a failed mediation in good faith or to use mediation communications to clarify an ambiguous provision of the settlement agreement. Finally, a party may simply have buyer's remorse and will search for any way to void the settlement agreement.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjnuP1rzVQrZGbB6BW3XTwFtpGOMfDA5yzgHac6EoDztqcVSTS5_HVLh8xDGIln4Q5Oa3r9wl_jPvhwoWjcjVhbin2IPZFNIQCuUCm2sCNssV2bZmsHGKoMhe_MIm1RvxQMS3ml1wO2LEMuXVUkIXl30mTI1cgkOGBUUZsXa8EbciD4IocMwKQYh3ycRb-/s2121/GettyImages-477085626.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjjnuP1rzVQrZGbB6BW3XTwFtpGOMfDA5yzgHac6EoDztqcVSTS5_HVLh8xDGIln4Q5Oa3r9wl_jPvhwoWjcjVhbin2IPZFNIQCuUCm2sCNssV2bZmsHGKoMhe_MIm1RvxQMS3ml1wO2LEMuXVUkIXl30mTI1cgkOGBUUZsXa8EbciD4IocMwKQYh3ycRb-/s320/GettyImages-477085626.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What are the Public Policies Supporting Confidentiality in Mediation?</span></h2><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Statutes, laws, or rules governing confidentiality in mediation attempt to address two conflicting public policies. The first seeks to preserve confidentiality in the mediation process to encourage the early, cost effective resolution of disputes. On the other hand, the justice system emphasizes the production and consideration of all available evidence.</span></p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />The reasons for preserving confidentiality in mediation include the following: </span><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">First, effective mediation requires candor. Because the mediator has no coercive power, he or she is dependent on increasing the amount and quality of the communication between the parties, if not their trust of each other. Thus, a mediator uses confidential communications to identify interests, needs and issues; explore fully all possible bases for agreement; encourage parties to accommodate each other’s interests; and uncover underlying causes of the conflict. That process often results in the admission by a party of facts that he or she would not otherwise disclose. These disclosures often come in a private caucus, in which the mediator promises confidentiality. <br /><br />Second, fairness to the disputants requires confidentiality. Typically, no specific rules or procedures exist to safeguard against one party's abuse of the process by using it as cheap discovery of relevant facts. Mediation should not be used solely as a vehicle for making one's case at trial.<br /><br />Third, the mediator must remain neutral in fact and in perception. Thus, we need to avoid the potential situation where the mediator is forced to divulge information against one party when subpoenaed in a later proceeding by the other party. Even the risk of this type of post-mediation disclosure could damage the public’s perception that individual mediators and the mediation process are neutral and unbiased. In addition, subpoenas issued to mediators cause distraction and potential harassment. Even lawyer-mediators may feel the need to hire a lawyer to resist a subpoena. Even if a mediator appears <i>pro se</i>, the court appearance will take time and energy away from other aspects of the mediator's life and career. In addition, the threat of subpoenas can discourage people from serving as volunteer mediators in various programs. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Fourth, confidentiality is an incentive for many to choose mediation. Some parties will use it to protect information like trade secrets or patents. Other parties will use it to avoid airing their "dirty laundry" in public that could damage a party's reputation or brand, or make hiring of quality employees more difficult. Many parties will use mediation to avoid adverse court precedent when the stakes are high or when liability is uncertain. <br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8mgLommxECjbsZEb26wLF7DEaAsLw6BekKBiAnD5QpqtGlfWcKKaienpTxKh9fOhU7SLK45JHnpL3Ji-RR2tVl92YH3kHNiBxlCtxBHTcMmkyW3VVom6kTEoa23BNZOVIesdJ4KwgKaBMKQ4F0-tqvNdc4p6oJxVnYqeOIj3YjmV74X2oE0WwxSEou4-B/s2103/GettyImages-502386492.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1425" data-original-width="2103" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8mgLommxECjbsZEb26wLF7DEaAsLw6BekKBiAnD5QpqtGlfWcKKaienpTxKh9fOhU7SLK45JHnpL3Ji-RR2tVl92YH3kHNiBxlCtxBHTcMmkyW3VVom6kTEoa23BNZOVIesdJ4KwgKaBMKQ4F0-tqvNdc4p6oJxVnYqeOIj3YjmV74X2oE0WwxSEou4-B/s320/GettyImages-502386492.jpg" width="320" /></span></a></div><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Why do we Rely on a Law to Protect these Interests?</span></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Evidentiary exclusions at trial governing compromise and settlement negotiations are under-inclusive. Some courts have ruled that only offers of settlement are excluded, not any admission of facts made during negotiations. Problems also exists where the two -- offers and admission of facts -- are intertwined.<br /><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">First, some evidentiary rules, like Rule 408 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, do not preclude information revealed in settlement negotiations to be used for another purpose. They can be used <br /></span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">to show bias of a witness,</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">to show an obstruction of justice, or</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">to show a prior inconsistent statement.</span></li></ul><span style="font-family: inherit;">Moreover, some evidentiary rules of exclusion, like Rule 408 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, do not apply to administrative proceedings or criminal proceedings.<br /><br />Second, rules governing discovery of information in litigation are under-inclusive and permit discovery of information that may lead to admissible evidence.<br /><br />Third, private agreements to keep mediation communications confidential are under-inclusive. The agreement cannot bind parties who did not sign the agreement. Confidentiality agreements may lead to enforcement problems and create difficulty in calculating damages caused by the breach of confidentiality. Moreover, public policy typically precludes contracting to exclude evidence needed at a subsequent trial or hearing.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv4cwAnRSch6yXptGqpGv58cS9b7n0_U0zaDIQEL_pwOkXVIHt1LNdBx3GBWt8Ea2r0T3w2U9EzTD3ByD0HGgag5FcbSY8S0YYfYDmnhx6bRh3OFEkMXyO8UG6mx7tx7QuiCBxMvkIFNgvH4QwMsXSVKmPwSdRk86_QurrSDZ-05CS7I-t4yZsKeE5ZmZz/s507/Communication%2035.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" data-original-height="507" data-original-width="338" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiv4cwAnRSch6yXptGqpGv58cS9b7n0_U0zaDIQEL_pwOkXVIHt1LNdBx3GBWt8Ea2r0T3w2U9EzTD3ByD0HGgag5FcbSY8S0YYfYDmnhx6bRh3OFEkMXyO8UG6mx7tx7QuiCBxMvkIFNgvH4QwMsXSVKmPwSdRk86_QurrSDZ-05CS7I-t4yZsKeE5ZmZz/s320/Communication%2035.jpg" width="213" /></span></a></div><div><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"></p><h2><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What are the Possible Approaches to Mediation Confidentiality? </span></h2><h3><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Who is the holder of the privilege who may prevent the disclosure of confidential information?</span></h3><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediator only?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties only?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">All participants?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jointly between mediator and parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties control disclosures as between themselves</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediator given means to avoid being compelled to give testimony about the mediation</span></li></ul><h3><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">In what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail?</span></h3><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Any subsequent legal or administrative proceeding between parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Any other context involving the parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">In legal or administrative proceedings involving third-parties to the mediation?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">In formal discovery process by parties to mediation or by third parties?</span></li></ul><h3><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">What is confidential?</span></h3><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">The mere fact of settlement?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">The terms of a settlement?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Statements made by the parties in the course of settlement discussions – oral or written?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Acts or conduct of the parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Pre-existing documents, other written evidence, or tangible items <u>disclosed</u> in mediation?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Documents or other evidence <u>created</u> in mediation process?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Statements made by or notes of the mediator?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Appraisals, fact- or legal-expert opinions, etc. obtained to prepare for settlement negotiations?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Agreement to mediate?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Communications in setting up the mediation? Even “ex parte” communications with mediator? Intake information?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Communications made between multiple sessions? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Communications made at the time between reaching agreement in mediation and the final execution of the settlement agreement?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Information assembled for research or program accountability or assessment?</span></li></ul><h3><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></h3><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties to the mediation? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Witnesses or other participants?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">The mediator?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Interested non-parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Courts and other public agencies?</span></li></ul><h3><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></h3><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">The mediator?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Non-party participants or witnesses?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Private third-parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Public third-parties?</span></li></ul><h3><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span></h3><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Absolute with no exceptions?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">One broad exception: when interests of justice or public policy requires disclosure?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">A list of specific exceptions, like:</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Bad faith</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Past illegal conduct or crime</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Fraud</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Abuse of process</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit crime or disclosure of ongoing crime</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or other bodily harm</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</span></li></ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or neglect by a governmental agency in charge of persons in its care</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</span></li></ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threat of harm to property</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Commission of crime in mediation</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">When disclosure is mandated by another state law</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">When disclosure is mandated by court or administrative agency</span></li></ul></ul><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In my next post, I'll apply this analytical framework to the UAE Commercial Mediation Law. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </span></p></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-85614563459757666142023-09-28T18:01:00.002-04:002023-12-24T16:32:26.472-05:00<p> </p><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl2lDBsSEO4v2typzi14TbONcqiyw5t_cngLwi2lAPx4akW6pCgH0-KAhDmce2G978QYyYCSoaJx4PsZ89515x5X7tWnRuC3IROx3VaHyQchqsG4LokMdyG7qttj0nXX6k2ItnFq6Z36QKu2HXNTtefc8XymJeycCHsK6YXsIR2_6bAChFLHwzk3mlplcH/s2119/GettyImages-1209894258.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2119" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhl2lDBsSEO4v2typzi14TbONcqiyw5t_cngLwi2lAPx4akW6pCgH0-KAhDmce2G978QYyYCSoaJx4PsZ89515x5X7tWnRuC3IROx3VaHyQchqsG4LokMdyG7qttj0nXX6k2ItnFq6Z36QKu2HXNTtefc8XymJeycCHsK6YXsIR2_6bAChFLHwzk3mlplcH/s320/GettyImages-1209894258.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">9/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law No. 6 of 2021, Mediator Impartiality</span></u></span></b><span><u>: Using the Firestone Grid as an Analytical Tool</u></span></span></h1><p style="text-align: left;"><br />Mediator impartiality is one of the core values of mediation. My research revealed that conduct that makes a party believe that the mediator has lost his or her impartiality is the most frequently cited reason for <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445">filing a complaint</a> against a mediator in the U.S. states of Virginia and Maine. It appears as the second most frequently raised allegation in Florida, Georgia, and Minnesota. Parties easily perceive bias in the mediator's conduct or attitudes and it can result in disengagement with the process, a failed mediation, and ongoing impasse in the dispute.</p><p style="text-align: left;"></p><h2 style="text-align: left;">Introduction</h2>Mediator neutrality (or impartiality) gets attention in several articles of the <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RBhmuZJF-jrXUjzYaRDjCgpxNqSS5guu/view?usp=drive_link">UAE Commercial the Mediation Law</a>. Article 6 of the law provides:<p></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The [privately appointed] mediator shall sign a document proving his acceptance of the mediation mission as well as his neutrality and independence towards the parties and subject of the dispute . . . . . In the course of the mediation process, the mediator shall notify the Center in writing of any facts or circumstances that have arisen or may arise and that would cause either party to cast doubts on his neutrality or independence. In which a case, the procedures set out in Article [7.2] of this Law shall apply [governing removal or recusal of the mediator].</li></ul>(Emphasis added.)<p></p><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Article 7, governing the appointment of a mediator off a Center's list also requires mediators to "abide by the rules of neutrality and independence towards both the parties to the dispute and the matter of dispute."<br /><br />Article 26 identifies one form of misconduct that can result in a mediator's discipline. It provides: "The Center may deprive the private mediators of practicing mediation work before the Center in case they violate the . . . neutrality and integrity rules."</span></span></h1><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Mediator misconduct can easily include, or result in, inappropriate relationships to parties or the subject matter of the dispute that undermines mediator impartiality. Article 26 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law subjects mediators on a Center's list to the disciplinary measures and penalties set out in Federal Law No. [7] of 2021 Regulating the Expertise Profession before the Judicial Authorities. (I'll talk in detail about the scope of the law's regulated misconduct and its penalties in a later post.) As noted above, a Center, and perhaps the Ministry, can discipline a mediator failing t</span>o adhere to rules governing impartiality.</p><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium; font-weight: 400;">Article 26 requires the Minister of Justice to issue a Code of Professional Conduct for mediators. It is not clear whether the Code of Conduct applies to all mediators, or only to those mediators on any Center's list. This ethics code could better define the requirements that support mediator neutrality and independence.</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigwN7CKGVdFgvqaltDxc5psqP3YmBEdecd1Se0jbWewlxhKbR90WtTnOIjnAoMvJypUrV33uDnwxq-ELD2XPYN-Dr3bzCW1MAWZzdCASqp_W4LLGUGw79iV51ySRG76okMVbwjQC-tITk32rWeH9gWTZMwGwdJPjvziToCXnL7Q2-xKYvzYJcyXsX13g/s305/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%206.31.31%20PM.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigwN7CKGVdFgvqaltDxc5psqP3YmBEdecd1Se0jbWewlxhKbR90WtTnOIjnAoMvJypUrV33uDnwxq-ELD2XPYN-Dr3bzCW1MAWZzdCASqp_W4LLGUGw79iV51ySRG76okMVbwjQC-tITk32rWeH9gWTZMwGwdJPjvziToCXnL7Q2-xKYvzYJcyXsX13g/w203-h210/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%206.31.31%20PM.png" /></a></div></span></h1><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The Firestone Grid</span></h2><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Mediator impartiality fits generally into four categories: (1) conflicts of interest, (2) conduct bias, (3) bias in favor of a specific outcome, and (4) lapses of impartiality that undermine party self-determination.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.gregoryfirestone.com">Greg Firestone</a>, a Florida mediator, spoke about mediator impartiality at the October 2003 conference of the Association for Conflict Resolution. He suggested that the field think about these issues along two dimensions that create four quadrants on a grid. See the grid set out at the end of this post. On one side of the grid are the terms “parties” and “outcome.” On the other side of the grid are the terms “relationship” and “conduct." The resulting four quadrants are the following: “relationship-parties,” “conduct-parties,” “relationship-outcome,” “conduct-outcome.”</span><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHW1u11bEAeTuvMqkbNOG4ife5mqglEmfKlep2T1GzuPHIrfbDo-AZDT_4IDl_pNKJP5YDLXaJ_gK1hT2AIkhrfzBTaKLNBr_tN1GijTVeOtRgD2jrFy41jknLqPhut7avCe-DzWGkkMV045TunFz9TRiQJcrRsSZd1JHJGLknOSHTuLP2LoVu9VWN8bsg/s2050/GettyImages-1333237214.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHW1u11bEAeTuvMqkbNOG4ife5mqglEmfKlep2T1GzuPHIrfbDo-AZDT_4IDl_pNKJP5YDLXaJ_gK1hT2AIkhrfzBTaKLNBr_tN1GijTVeOtRgD2jrFy41jknLqPhut7avCe-DzWGkkMV045TunFz9TRiQJcrRsSZd1JHJGLknOSHTuLP2LoVu9VWN8bsg/s320/GettyImages-1333237214.jpg" /></a></div><h1 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></h1></span></h1><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Quadrant 1: Impartiality in the Mediator’s Relationships with the Parties</span></h2><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">- Past, Present, and Future Relationships</span></h3><span style="font-size: small;">The mediator’s impartiality towards the parties is often discussed in terms of conflicts of interests. Firestone suggests that parties should consider the following issues when choosing a mediator. A party should learn if the mediator has any current or prior relationships with the other parties to the mediation or their counsel. Has the mediator represented a party in a legal matter previously? Has she provided one of the lawyers therapeutic counseling?</span><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br />Does she play golf with one of the lawyers? Does the mediator attend the same church, temple, or mosque as one of the parties? Do their children play on the same football team? Does the mediator get most of his or her business from one company or firm related to one of the parties? Can she remain impartial to the party who is not the repeat player in the referral system, like an insurance company? <br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">As noted above, Article 6 touches on this quadrant in several ways. First, it requires a written affirmation that the mediator's neutrality and independence "towards the parties . . . ." It requires ongoing monitoring of "any facts or circumstances" that might cause a party to doubt the mediator's ongoing neutrality and independence. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"> Under Article 7, a party may request the disqualification of a mediator "for any reason whatsoever at any stage of the mediation process . . . ." In that situation, the court will appoint a substitute mediator. <br /><br />Mediators appointed off a Center's list must also adhere to the rules governing neutrality and independence "towards both parties to the dispute . . . ." Article 7 does not provide any additional requirements. Presumably, the rules of the Center will govern the mediator's duty to disclose conflicts of interest and the removal of a mediator for any perceived loss of neutrality or independence.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Article 8 imposes a duty on the mediator to recuse if he or she loses her neutrality towards a party. It provides:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">The mediator shall, sua sponte, step down or recuse himself from proceeding with the mediation mission if there is any cause between him and either party to the dispute that would make him feel discomfort or inability to proceed with the settlement procedures without bias in favor of either party, unless otherwise agreed.</span></li></ul></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">This provision, however, focuses on the mediator's subjective concerns about his or her bias. It also allows the parties to waive the requirement of recusal, thus recognizing that the parties may not share the mediator's concern about actual or potential bias against one or more parties.<br /><br />Finally, unlike the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DLOVQEj_e0yTdDt108ON2oIPhBpPAhLCsl2nDzUmVv8/edit?usp=drive_link">Qatari Mediation Law</a>, which is silent on this specific issue, Article 15 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law prohibits a mediator from mediating "any dispute where either of its parties [are] the mediator's spouse or [a] relative by blood or marriage up to the fourth degree." The law thus recognizes the very intertwined familial relationships that exist in the region and presumptively disqualifies the mediator from acting in disputes involving relatives. In some ways, this prohibition may run counter to cultural norms where a family member might intervene on an informal basis in a dispute involving another family member. <br /><br />Mediators must also avoid creating any conflicts of interest during the course of the mediation – for instance, by buying stock in the company owned by one of the parties. <br /><br />Finally, mediators should avoid creating an appearance of impropriety by representing parties in the future in the same or similar matter. Article 15 addresses this situation in several contexts. It prohibits a mediator "[t]o be an arbitrator, expert witness, or an attorney on any legal proceeding against either of the parties, with regard to the matter of dispute that is covered by mediation or any matter arising out thereof, even after the end of mediation procedures." In other words, a mediator cannot use his or her mediation practice to be a feeder system for other roles the mediator might play with the same parties in connection with the same or a related dispute.<br /><br />Mediators should error on the side of over-disclosure of conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. They should check for conflicts with the same care imposed on lawyers by legal ethics rules. <br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3Hq3YlYkT5oJVzapj5KrSw_F-35YyndaBhtVLFjLm4qttzS4S1TuRyxJAnejlAum7QQDjhVngUgLXJT_gGQ8jeRfwR4uGXX4vVrR8SKPSHdhFc-x4_rgiNqUJsF4UMUowpF28GEaNQytOv17PDvBFuLj-huYaD0syvBsB7Q0eHYZ-Sn9Pler1fW2LgjBZ/s1795/Rona%2035.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3Hq3YlYkT5oJVzapj5KrSw_F-35YyndaBhtVLFjLm4qttzS4S1TuRyxJAnejlAum7QQDjhVngUgLXJT_gGQ8jeRfwR4uGXX4vVrR8SKPSHdhFc-x4_rgiNqUJsF4UMUowpF28GEaNQytOv17PDvBFuLj-huYaD0syvBsB7Q0eHYZ-Sn9Pler1fW2LgjBZ/s320/Rona%2035.jpg" /></a></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div></span><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Quadrant 2: Neutrality of the Mediator’s Conduct Toward the Parties</span></h2></div><div>Next, Firestone urges mediation parties to consider whether the mediator can maintain, through his or her conduct, neutrality towards the parties. Will the mediator become frustrated, disrespectful, or heavy-handed if he or she believes a party or his or her client is uncooperative? Does the mediator hold any racial, religious, or cultural biases? Can he work with people that express racial bias? Does she think in traditional ways that may impose gender biases or reinforce gender-role expectations in the mediation?</div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br />Does anger make the mediator uncomfortable in a way that he may cut off a party’s expression of it? Does crying make the mediator uncomfortable in a way that he may suppress the expression of sadness, fear, vulnerability, regret, and other emotions expressed in this way or other ways? Can she work with borderlines, narcissists, sociopaths, and other high conflict personalities without those parties pushing her buttons or manipulating her?<br /><br />Does she accept referral fees from lawyers who regularly use her in mediation, therefore consciously or unconsciously creating a bias in favor of the referring attorneys and their clients? Is one party paying the full cost of the mediation so that the mediator may end up showing bias in favor of that party? Is the party a repeat player? Can the mediator remain even-handed knowing that she may be dependent on one party for her next referral?<br /><br />As noted in the Quadrant 1 discussion, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law addresses neutrality towards the parties in Articles 7, 8, 9, 15, and 26. <br /><br />In addition, Article 21 governs payment of the mediator's fees. The parties will agree on the fee splitting. If the parties fail to agree on the payment of fees, "the competent court shall . . . determine the non-agreed final mediation costs . . . [and the fee payment] shall be divided and distributed between the parties either equally or in proportion to the respective interest in the case, at the discretion of the Court." This type of court supervision may mitigate any mediator bias in favor or against one party arising from fee-based circumstances, although it will not likely mitigate against the repeat player bias. <br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii4BirJ5FgtV4xnb963tXy_WH3e4jgCHoEZVKMZU0Hi8ggYoi8eoNsulyZgBLaFA7ecjV8jFJb17RRVmP-x9l9Txy5OF1Imh7NbOLP4Ao4DA1EAdbH3uRLwtsa41MtbGFqV49pZiue9AuQll8RBf2nQCUsoURoVQSeXOn3sVKxc0fwUUF11uHmHsTwTuHS/s509/Growth%2050.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEii4BirJ5FgtV4xnb963tXy_WH3e4jgCHoEZVKMZU0Hi8ggYoi8eoNsulyZgBLaFA7ecjV8jFJb17RRVmP-x9l9Txy5OF1Imh7NbOLP4Ao4DA1EAdbH3uRLwtsa41MtbGFqV49pZiue9AuQll8RBf2nQCUsoURoVQSeXOn3sVKxc0fwUUF11uHmHsTwTuHS/s320/Growth%2050.jpg" /></a></div><br /><br /></span><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Quadrant 3: Impartiality in the Mediator’s Relationship to the Outcome</span></h2></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">In an ideal setting, a mediator will defer to the high-quality decision making of the parties to settle (or not) and on what terms. I discussed party self-determination over the outcome in an earlier posts <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/5n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a> and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/6n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>. Firestone suggests that parties must consider the following situations because they change a mediator’s relationship to the outcome of the mediation. They can undermine party self-determination.<br /><br />Does the mediator brag about a high settlement rate? Does the court-connected program director refer cases to mediators with high settlement rates? Should a party, therefore, be concerned that the mediator views the case as the next notch on his belt? Will he work hard for his settlement rate even if it requires coercive interventions that disfavor one party (a Quadrant 4 issue, discussed below)?<br /><br />Does he have a vested interest in the outcome because his fee is based on a percentage of the agreed settlement? Does she unduly prolong the mediation session to earn a larger hourly fee? Does he act in a way to ensure future referrals from the repeat player?<br /><br />Does she believe that all human rights-related mediations must result in an agreement consistent with UN guidelines? Can he mediate with impartiality as to the outcome in an air pollution case if his son suffers from severe asthma? Can she mediate with impartiality an age discrimination case if she believes people should retire at age 65?<br /><br />The UAE Commercial Mediation Law addresses a mediator's relationship to the outcome in several articles, but very generally. As noted above, Article 6 requires the private mediator to maintain "neutrality and independence towards the . . . subject of the dispute." Similarly, Article 7 requires a mediator appointed off a Center's list to "abide by the rules of neutrality and independence towards . . . the matter of dispute." Despite their generality, both these provisions show a great deal of knowledge and experience on the part of the drafters of this law. <br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG8xvLqN_HqfwBgIlN7C2juUN42dpfYntlzttDCf_v14SbZh2vh3n-rgCqygnN-94xhyphenhyphenESjTUXV9VSTRlkhBoLSCe3Rwb1N2ZanLvcLIq-RYycMR4giPpxNqd5CRzQ69R9G8BuWZMVxXPUSk8PH4GBuGxeKYrYiUrGIgXoA8iySle2yYpQAI-wHyvMaCUM/s507/Emotion%2030.jpg"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgG8xvLqN_HqfwBgIlN7C2juUN42dpfYntlzttDCf_v14SbZh2vh3n-rgCqygnN-94xhyphenhyphenESjTUXV9VSTRlkhBoLSCe3Rwb1N2ZanLvcLIq-RYycMR4giPpxNqd5CRzQ69R9G8BuWZMVxXPUSk8PH4GBuGxeKYrYiUrGIgXoA8iySle2yYpQAI-wHyvMaCUM/s320/Emotion%2030.jpg" /></a></div></span><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Quadrant 4: Neutrality of the Mediator’s <u>Conduct</u> Towards the Outcome</span></h2></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Firestone also suggests parties should consider whether the prospective mediator can maintain neutral conduct towards the outcome. This post interprets that concern as conduct that undermines party self-determination intentionally or unintentionally. It's the place where mediator impartiality and party self-determination overlap. <br /><br />Conduct towards the outcome may reflect a mediator’s belief that he knows more than the parties about the law, their dispute, or other factors, and so he should play a role in its substantive resolution. Conduct towards the outcome may also reflect a lack of mediation skill or an over-reliance on the skills the mediator has developed in his profession-of-origin. For instance, does the mediator use coercion, intimidation, or other heavy-handed tactics? Does she fall back on her lawyerly problem-solving skills of giving legal advice because she lacks the skills to adopt a less coercive approach? Does he or she truly respect party-self determination? Does the mediator engage in interventions or processes inconsistent with the definition of mediation? Does she add terms to the settlement agreement on which the parties have not agreed?<br /><br />As noted in my earlier post, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law raises some red flags in connection with a mediator's conduct towards the outcome. <br /><br />Article 10 provides:<br /><br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">In the course of mediation sessions, the mediator may hold discussions with all parties involved on the matter of dispute and their claims and pleas and take whatever actions deemed appropriate to bring their points of view closer to each other, with the aim of reaching an amicable resolution. To that end, the mediator may give opinion if requested by the parties, evaluate the documents and evidence furnished by the parties and introduce the judicial principles relating to the dispute and others for facilitating the mediation process.</span></li></ul>(Emphasis added.) <br /><br />May take any actions deemed appropriate? <br /><br />As I noted in an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/8n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">post</a>, clearly, this provision raises issues touching on the core values of mediation. First, some interventions by a mediator can undermine his or her neutrality. Second, some interventions, as I discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/5n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>, and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/6n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a> can undermine party self-determination over the outcome. A well-trained mediator will know the professional limits to any intervention, but clearly a mediator must use only interventions that respect the core values of mediation. No room exists for coercion, deception, fraud, misinformation, or threats of any kind. This list only outlines the outside limits on inappropriate actions that can undermine mediator impartiality and party self-determination.<br /><br />Of lesser concern, the law contemplates a very active evaluative role of the mediator. The law allows a mediator's opinion, evaluation of any relevant documents, and what appears to be a legal evaluation of guiding judicial principles. But, unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, it does not explicitly give mediators the power to propose solutions. However, the language allowing mediators "to take whatever actions deemed appropriate" could be interpreted broadly to allow mediator's to propose solutions. I discussed the risk of this type of intervention <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_23.html">here</a>. <br /><br />Nonetheless, this more active evaluative role can affect the parties' perceptions of mediator bias in favor of one party, if the mediator does not handle the evaluation skillfully. A mediator can abuse this opportunity, especially unskillful mediators. <br /><br />I note that a mediator in the UAE may not give an opinion about the dispute without party consent. However, the law is unclear about whether parties must give prior consent to an evaluation of relevant documents or the introduction of a judicial principles. Explicit party consent to a more evaluative role of the mediator can go a long way in preserving the mediator's neutrality, as perceived by the parties.</span></div><div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Conclusion</span></h2></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Taken together, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law is far more comprehensive on the issue of mediator neutrality than the Qatari Mediation Law discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_10.html">here</a>. But, like any law, room for improvement exists.<br /></span><p style="text-align: left;">Next up? The articles of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law governing confidentiality in mediation. </p><p style="text-align: left;">Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </p><span style="font-size: small;"><br /><div style="text-align: center;">* * *</div><br />Here is the Firestone grid, with my updates and interpretation.<br /><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYVFcdsozgfeVyw9UVfEYHLEvegTO_LMQxlQl_zhvsAtT08jkRnw6lByE3jQMH6eB_ye9AthXh4rpNe3w9r-rj4Se5Pijn5gGCF1KYjGrYviCbbVEnA6xzpRGwspnGKjlGFt0ihC_72xEM0o7tC7Xuvo9IZHKqJ9AGlplk96x9SJWsVmT8SnhAL2s98g/s711/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%204.44.59%20PM.png"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYVFcdsozgfeVyw9UVfEYHLEvegTO_LMQxlQl_zhvsAtT08jkRnw6lByE3jQMH6eB_ye9AthXh4rpNe3w9r-rj4Se5Pijn5gGCF1KYjGrYviCbbVEnA6xzpRGwspnGKjlGFt0ihC_72xEM0o7tC7Xuvo9IZHKqJ9AGlplk96x9SJWsVmT8SnhAL2s98g/w500-h565/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%204.44.59%20PM.png" /></a></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><br /></span></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-80329625536131185552023-09-24T18:48:00.004-04:002023-12-24T16:32:04.645-05:00<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjslkTpF94FkREmICdJlhOE5Owx8BG6B2MBExm9DK_GWfn5hUPb-jz1zwAKHy9K6AYJRrDC2DkyjAeEQk0ouwPmvStrFjFWZEuBjJLeV2GQVh-70hhlJz4SkmtSKvGpFSgP6DUo5iKUAXjWAYeiYRnJAdiNm-tsh29tRhmaLyWnXWSDf0h1QweaUj5-IRuj/s507/Arab%2025.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjslkTpF94FkREmICdJlhOE5Owx8BG6B2MBExm9DK_GWfn5hUPb-jz1zwAKHy9K6AYJRrDC2DkyjAeEQk0ouwPmvStrFjFWZEuBjJLeV2GQVh-70hhlJz4SkmtSKvGpFSgP6DUo5iKUAXjWAYeiYRnJAdiNm-tsh29tRhmaLyWnXWSDf0h1QweaUj5-IRuj/s320/Arab%2025.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><h1><span><u><span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">8/n An Analysis of UAE’s Commercial Mediation Law, </span>Federal<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Law No. 6 of 2021, Party Self-Determination, Part 4: Mediator Influence, Process Design, and </span></span></span><span style="font-size: large; font-weight: bold;">Party<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Control Over the Process</span></span></u></span></h1><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In my last post <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/7n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>, I discussed a framework, developed by <a href="https://www.leonardriskin.com" target="_blank">Prof. Leonard Riskin</a>, for considering issues of party self-determination and the extent of mediator influence in the process design and process choices. In two earlier posts <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/5n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/6n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>, I considered party self-determination over substantive issues arising in the mediation, as well as high-quality decision-making about the outcome in the context of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law, a copy of which is available <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RBhmuZJF-jrXUjzYaRDjCgpxNqSS5guu/view?usp=drive_link" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>As I noted in my earlier post, m</span>any steps in the mediation process invite input from the parties or their lawyers. But, the program design or the interventions of a mediator can undermine that procedural self-determination.</span></p><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The following list provides some of the process decisions in which parties or their lawyers could exercise more decision-making authority and, thus, more control over the process:</span></div><div><ul><li>Can the parties choose mediation, and can they opt out of the process if ordered to participate?</li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who may participate in the process, and how many representatives may attend for each party?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who will be the mediator or mediators?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How many mediators will participate?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">What will be the orientation or style of the mediator?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who decides whether to file pre-mediation submissions with the mediator? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How will the participants handle language differences?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Should the mediation be in-person or online?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">If in-person, where should the parties hold the mediation? What country, city, or venue? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How should the room be arranged? Consider table selection and orientation, seating arrangements, and amenities available.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">What options for food and beverage should exist?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How long should each session last? Will some parties need more frequent breaks? Will the mediation require multiple sessions over several days?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How will the issues and interests be framed?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Will the parties have freedom to express emotion, especially anger, anxiety, sadness, or aggression?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How will the disclosure of information in the process be treated under rules of confidentiality?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How will the option generation process proceed? Can the mediator suggest options or make proposals?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">How will offers and counteroffers be conveyed? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who influences the choice of objective criteria?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who influences which neutral fact- or neutral legal-experts participate in the process?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who decides whether and when to caucus, and which party participates in the caucus first? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who drafts the final settlement agreement?</span></li></ul><div>As a practical matter, a good, well-trained, ethically aware mediator would discuss these issues with the parties either in pre-mediation contacts or during the mediation. But, as I explained in my last <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/7n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">post</a>, some mediators would cede a lot of control to the parties over many of these decisions as a matter of an "elicitive" orientation. On the other extreme, a highly "directive" mediator would make most of these process decisions for the parties.</div><div><br /></div><div>This post will apply the Riskin analytical framework, described in my last post, to the UAE Commercial Mediation Law.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJkWa0q4G7bhkJJklp-UErAVqpayQajrj4pGp_ptac2p2CZkKqU_lsptH3kuB2oKRW0AaQjV4BxJpxfAHTDUo_eCcG5LMG1NR8LjG-3djd6h74q4yEw7ECleVFLMFeFN884Q4zP4Fe1_0jdpRjAcjkiplE0Kjwvabq5ygHIp-roLY9AhYEeP5dzT4Sv3YJ/s1992/UAE.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1504" data-original-width="1992" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJkWa0q4G7bhkJJklp-UErAVqpayQajrj4pGp_ptac2p2CZkKqU_lsptH3kuB2oKRW0AaQjV4BxJpxfAHTDUo_eCcG5LMG1NR8LjG-3djd6h74q4yEw7ECleVFLMFeFN884Q4zP4Fe1_0jdpRjAcjkiplE0Kjwvabq5ygHIp-roLY9AhYEeP5dzT4Sv3YJ/s320/UAE.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><h3><span style="font-family: inherit;">Relevant Articles of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law</span></h3><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The following Articles of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law raise issues of party control over the process choices:</span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 1 definition of the terms Mediation, Judicial Mediation, Extrajudicial Mediation, Mediation Agreement, Private Mediator, Settlement Agreement, and Mediator's Fees.</span></div><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 3 governing the Mediation Agreement</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 4 governing the qualified mediator list</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 5 governing the court's power to refer parties to judicial mediation</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 6 governing appointment of a private mediator</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 7 g</span>overning appointment of a mediator through the mediator list</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 8 governing mediator recusal, removal, disqualification and unfitness</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 9 governing the mediation procedures</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 10 governing the mediation sessions</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 11 governing the powers of the mediator</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 12 governing remote mediation</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 14 governing confidentiality of information</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 15 setting out mediator prohibitions</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 16 governing termination of judicial mediation</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 17 governing the failure to reach settlement</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 18 governing the court's affirmation of the settlement agreement</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 22 governing recourse to extrajudicial mediation, and</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 23 governing extrajudicial mediation procedures.</span></p><h3>Theory to Practice: Application of the Riskin Framework to the UAE Commercial Mediation Law</h3><div>As I noted <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/4n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">earlier</a>, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law is "authorizing" legislation. It allows courts to enforce agreements to mediate, refer parties to mediation, and enforce any settlement agreements arising from mediation. It generally covers mediator qualifications, selection of a mediator, the mediator's role, the maximum length of sessions to ensure that if the process fails, the litigation can proceed on a timely basis, and confidentiality of mediation communications.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGtPY-2fMmco5ehIG6VVdM1GQjpXoudA4tnyWnlJGMIw92CGVMDv-9QJlQ_bMfJGkNOF8TLr9KPWN9f-p36SMM1F9Ubjk-k0-QEQjJzdTZv1CFJm4nfWsJSkYHPw9audZKiQQJLBiadnOV2LupLWA7pv6LLcBkK7FjHBcbXGFJYgqVDwSXw_Dh4gYlHE1-/s507/Growth%2023.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="507" data-original-width="338" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGtPY-2fMmco5ehIG6VVdM1GQjpXoudA4tnyWnlJGMIw92CGVMDv-9QJlQ_bMfJGkNOF8TLr9KPWN9f-p36SMM1F9Ubjk-k0-QEQjJzdTZv1CFJm4nfWsJSkYHPw9audZKiQQJLBiadnOV2LupLWA7pv6LLcBkK7FjHBcbXGFJYgqVDwSXw_Dh4gYlHE1-/s320/Growth%2023.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Two Tracks for Mediation</h4><div>The UAE Commercial Mediation Law contemplates two tracks for mediation. The law defines the first track, "judicial mediation" as "[a] form of mediation sought by the parties to have their dispute resolved after having first resorted to litigation, and at any stage of the case," The law defines the second track, "extrajudicial mediation," as "[a] form of mediation directly sought by the parties to have their dispute resolved before they resort to litigation, in enforcement of the Mediation Agreement." </div><div><br /></div><div>Extrajudicial mediation is tied to "Centers." The law defines a "Center" as: "The Mediation and Conciliation Center described in the above-referenced Federal Law No. [17] of 2016 as amended or in any other local law."</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvjX_ZaqFXl_exib0lffy6QjjAErI5kArgTeaf1xg1pXa7e1DHn_Padtq0iueQC1p7Y1gUHSiYR6yefgeLZ1ZaByUjaif0owslHrwBsHznven7sG4WWbm7aPRi4yyKINi2s7kvdEZu6eQjXeXPDCcc6hRmJNz53W4eLCPlgXiApj80-AnSLPIgZhAInn8m/s436/Three%209.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="436" data-original-width="393" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvjX_ZaqFXl_exib0lffy6QjjAErI5kArgTeaf1xg1pXa7e1DHn_Padtq0iueQC1p7Y1gUHSiYR6yefgeLZ1ZaByUjaif0owslHrwBsHznven7sG4WWbm7aPRi4yyKINi2s7kvdEZu6eQjXeXPDCcc6hRmJNz53W4eLCPlgXiApj80-AnSLPIgZhAInn8m/s320/Three%209.jpg" width="288" /></a></div><h4><b>Can the Parties Choose Mediation, and Can they Opt Out of the Process if Ordered to Participate?</b></h4><div><b>- Getting into Mediation</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>Articles 1, 3, 5, 22, and 23 give the parties the power to enter mediation voluntarily by executing a Mediation Agreement either before or after a dispute arises. The agreement can be a separate contract or a condition included in a contract. Under Article 5, the agreement must be in writing, and it survives the death of any party. </div><div><br /></div><div>Articles 5 and 23 allow the court to refer parties to mediation, if they agree. It allows the court to put the litigation process on hold while the parties mediate. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>- Getting Out of Mediation</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">Qatari Mediation Law</a> -- which suggests that the court has unilateral power under Article 15 to refer parties to mediation while giving the parties the ability to opt out of the process -- courts in the UAE must have explicit party consent before referring parties to mediation. <i> See</i> Articles 5 and 23. At the same time, Article 16 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law gives parties an opt-out provision by stating: </div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Judicial mediation shall be terminated in any of the following cases . . . When the parties and the mediator agree that the judicial mediation should be terminated prior to reaching a settlement agreement for whatever reason; Where either party to the dispute notified the mediator or the Center of its desire to cease to get involved in the mediation process . . . .</li></ul></div><div>The provisions governing extrajudicial mediation do not expressly create an opt-out option. I assume the rules governing mediation at each Center would control that option.</div><div><br /></div><div>Taken together, the law ensures that parties have absolute control over whether they will engage in mediation. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-qkJQJ8KrJxO0Xk6CHaw_CIfvPOcTDkmPJbtbcLLXwZi3wByadSXUL1UsmwDntm4_yn89zfjX3rxn_3EEWuB2DnsX1ZFDKJWY3BT74y0ctvZ0jC0tWiI47_-RQICFI4acbWXXAjunZjY_7Xxg60QE-dQu3fV0SQj923u28Q0gD4C6fDmDeniWjQd8radp/s414/Lawyer%2053.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="414" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-qkJQJ8KrJxO0Xk6CHaw_CIfvPOcTDkmPJbtbcLLXwZi3wByadSXUL1UsmwDntm4_yn89zfjX3rxn_3EEWuB2DnsX1ZFDKJWY3BT74y0ctvZ0jC0tWiI47_-RQICFI4acbWXXAjunZjY_7Xxg60QE-dQu3fV0SQj923u28Q0gD4C6fDmDeniWjQd8radp/s320/Lawyer%2053.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4>Can the Parties Choose to Hold Mediation In-person or Online?</h4><div>In a world where Covid still remains a leading cause of death, illness, and disability, many parties (and mediators) may wish to hold the mediation sessions online. In the pre-vaccine era, I recall reading about the death of a mediator in southwest Virginia who caught Covid during an in-person mediation. Arguably, a mediator has an ethical obligation to design a process that protects the health and well-being of the parties. So, online mediation should be a part of a well-designed program.</div><div><br /></div><div>Most third-party providers contemplate online mediation, and many have offered specific training for mediators to ensure a high-quality, confidential process. </div><div><br /></div><div>While some people suggest a loss of the ability to read emotion or body language in online sessions, my experience indicates that those concerns are misplaced. Even assuming the loss of some of this verbal and non-verbal content, online mediation offers some advantages. It allows parties who are distant from each other to participate in an affordable process by avoiding travel expenses for the parties, their lawyers, or the mediator. It allows them to bring in neutral fact- or legal-experts -- like actuaries, accountants, medical experts, lawyers. or retired judges, and so on -- much more easily and at a lower cost. It also allows parties to bring in managers at higher levels of decision-making to provide additional settlement authority in a much more convenient and efficient way. </div><div><br /></div><div>My colleague, <a href="https://dougnoll.com" target="_blank">Doug Knoll</a>, says online mediation has become the preferred format in California. In this way, the pandemic has had a positive disruptive influence on the field of mediation.</div><div><br /></div><div>Keeping with this trend, Article 12 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law allows online mediation. It provides: "The mediator may hold mediation sessions depending on electronic means and remote communication technologies, according to the controls and procedures to be issued under a resolution of the minister or the head of the local judicial authority, as the case may be." </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJjLB_dMhuv8hge-bL1Ihzz-RFAf8t1Eyp_5Il4XQ_y8245QQ2TbK7oBGZCZk1NOI6T7aTWCG85AGJM6n2vjYtDuOMe_nmMKFtYYk7LhwnxlsOm0GfuyhjRgRuKiLhUMiFHTGGy3RZrRTtIRnZJyGMpSQigW0i_H3QuKHMVaF4VkF-tcA2_5GvEoaHZi-v/s465/Lawyer%2068.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="465" data-original-width="369" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJjLB_dMhuv8hge-bL1Ihzz-RFAf8t1Eyp_5Il4XQ_y8245QQ2TbK7oBGZCZk1NOI6T7aTWCG85AGJM6n2vjYtDuOMe_nmMKFtYYk7LhwnxlsOm0GfuyhjRgRuKiLhUMiFHTGGy3RZrRTtIRnZJyGMpSQigW0i_H3QuKHMVaF4VkF-tcA2_5GvEoaHZi-v/s320/Lawyer%2068.jpg" width="254" /></a></div><h4><b><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who will be the Mediator or Mediators? </span></b></h4><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Articles 1, 4, 6, 7, and 8 give the parties control over the </span>selection<span style="font-family: inherit;"> of the mediator, either listed or private. Article 1 defines "Mediator" as "[e]ach natural or legal person engaged by the Parties to perform a mediation missions for amicable resolution of their dispute, whether such mediator is a private mediator or is included in the Center's mediator lists." </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 4 requires the Center to create a list of mediators who are experienced, and "nominated based on a resolution of the Minister or the head of the local judiciary." The list can include: "retired members of the judiciary, lawyers listed in the rosters of practicing and non-practicing lawyers kept by the Ministry, others of high credentials[,] and global experts in the legal field and business field who are known for their expertise, integrity and neutrality." </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Article 6 governs the use of a private mediator designated by the parties in the Agreement to Mediate. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 7 gives the court the power to pick one or more mediators off the Center's list, if the parties have not designated a private mediator. Parties have three business days to agree on a mediator from that list. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>- Mediator Dismissal</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Article 7, however, limits party self-determination when "either party objects to, and requests disqualification of, the mediator, or where the mediator is removed, steps down, passes away or fails to keep performing his mission for any reason whatsoever. . . ." In those situations, <u>the court</u> "shall appoint a substitute mediator from the ones included in the mediator lists." Better practice would be to allow the parties to select the substitute mediator, within a reasonable time frame that does not delay the resolution of the case. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 8 governs recusal, removal, disqualification, and unfitness of the mediator. One provision states: </div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>If the mediator fails, becomes unable or ceases to perform his mission in such a manner that would give rise to unnecessary procedural delay, yet fails to steps [sic] down, he may be removed at the request of either party to the dispute based on a decision of the competent court that may not be challenged by any means of challenge.</li></ul></div><div>This provision suggests that the court must approve any removal of the mediator after a party raises a concern with the court.</div><div><br /></div><div>Taken together, parties not only have great control over the appointment of a private or listed mediator, but they can also influence his or her dismissal or termination. However, the legal scheme contemplates a more active role for the court if the parties require a substitute mediator. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>- Mediator Lists or Rosters: A Cautionary Note</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Many mediation programs create rosters of approved mediators to simplify the process of selecting a mediator. However, some people in the field argue that requiring the selection of a rostered mediator infringes on party control over the process. Why can't they choose instead a wise elder, an industry expert, or a retired judge who is not on the roster, if they deem him or her competent to serve as the mediator? </div><div><br /></div><div>In addition, rosters can end up reflecting cultural biases and discrimination. Are they populated with people who have diverse religious, cultural, language, gender, and age attributes? Or, are they dominated by older men, often white Westerners? Fifty years after the more widespread use of mediation, the U.S. still grapples with the <a href="https://www.troutman.com/insights/lack-of-diversity-continues-to-hurt-alternative-dispute-resolution.html" target="_blank">lack of diversity</a> among mediators. In 2018, the American Bar Association Section on Dispute Resolution finally adopted a <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/abanews/2018-AM-Resolutions/105.pdf" target="_blank">resolution</a> supporting diversity in the field. I sincerely hope the UAE avoids making the same mistake, especially given the diversity of its population and the companies that do business in the country. </div><div><br /></div><div>Giving parties in the UAE the option to select a private mediator, as specified under Article 6, can help them avoid any limitations of the lists maintained by the Centers. However, cautious lawyers need to include this private mediator option in the ADR clause of any contracts they draft.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPpZCw_S10Js0jTyCtMyA8e4UMwmAA--s1jXdA_zBwESQpJx-VDceFNjOwEeTeZJ6CZOYvwUqbuglzcXWSd6yKZSSLr0wqAO6B481RnjbfoVyCvcAb_wLtrusXe7X1GghhihyEmVaQg7cUNwSynCD-pm_5CE8DS9h6BD2SMbxwjKG1zcUtF3xxD5bDgN8R/s414/Negotiation%2010.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="414" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPpZCw_S10Js0jTyCtMyA8e4UMwmAA--s1jXdA_zBwESQpJx-VDceFNjOwEeTeZJ6CZOYvwUqbuglzcXWSd6yKZSSLr0wqAO6B481RnjbfoVyCvcAb_wLtrusXe7X1GghhihyEmVaQg7cUNwSynCD-pm_5CE8DS9h6BD2SMbxwjKG1zcUtF3xxD5bDgN8R/s320/Negotiation%2010.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4><b>How Many Mediators will Participate?</b></h4><div>In my earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">post</a>, analyzing the Qatari Mediation Law, I stated that one aspect of the selection process needs revising. Articles 4 and 8 of that law require the parties to select an odd number of mediators. This requirement betrays the heavy hand of arbitrators in the drafting process who do not understand that an odd number of neutrals is not required in mediation. Mediators have no decision-making authority. Thus, no need exists for an odd number of mediators to break a tie vote. Moreover, requiring three mediators will increase the cost of mediation without adding significant value, except perhaps in extremely complex cases. Thus, eventually, the Qatari law should be revised to eliminate this requirement.</div><div><br /></div><div>Instead, if the parties elect to use more than one mediator, they will typically opt for a co-mediation model involving two mediators. The selected mediators compliment or supplement each others' skills in one way or another. One co-mediator may bring language, substantive expertise, or cultural competency to the process, while the other co-mediator may bring process expertise and mediation experience, a facility in handling emotions, or some other desirable qualification. </div><div><br /></div><div>The UAE Commercial Mediation Law shows the more extensive experience of its drafters with the process of mediation. It does not place any limits on the number of mediators the parties may choose. </div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8_k2pCRsgG5USD8hfvuFTcu3EhdOR0nwCwmTUOfFCy_WzroArxEiSRhnd_-9pG8ZCY_KiURgk4-4UNVwbyB2GuwkHQJAA6fGGJjC5dlAGxzfPjfWAhMB-jvG8avcEOvFE_NwyT42PzcGORTDhRRHtOnoTUUPU2eURI2BPspoIopXv-s1oiPOLX_07JQMY/s413/Time.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="413" data-original-width="413" height="248" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8_k2pCRsgG5USD8hfvuFTcu3EhdOR0nwCwmTUOfFCy_WzroArxEiSRhnd_-9pG8ZCY_KiURgk4-4UNVwbyB2GuwkHQJAA6fGGJjC5dlAGxzfPjfWAhMB-jvG8avcEOvFE_NwyT42PzcGORTDhRRHtOnoTUUPU2eURI2BPspoIopXv-s1oiPOLX_07JQMY/w248-h248/Time.jpg" width="248" /></a></div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">How Long Should each Session Last? Will Some Parties Need More Frequent Breaks? Will the Mediation Require Multiple Sessions over Several Days?</span></h4><div>Articles 5, 9, 10, 16, and 23 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law deal with session length and termination of the process. Article 5 provides: </div><div><br /></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The Competent Court shall include the following details in the decision of referral to mediation:</li></ul><div style="text-align: center;">* * * </div><ul style="text-align: left;"><ul><li>The mediation duration, which may not exceed three months of the date of notifying the mediator of the assignment, and shall be renewable for a similar period only once under a decision of the competent court at the request of the mediator and with the approval of the parties." </li></ul></ul></div><div>Similarly, Artice 23, governing extrajudicial mediation, limits the mediation time frame to three months beginning on the date the mediator accepts the appointment. Parties may agree to one extension of three months, if the supervising judge approves the extension. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, if the mediator requests, the parties agree, and the court approves, the mediation could continue over a period of six months.</div><div><br /></div><div>Articles 9 and 10 mention "mediation sessions," thus the law contemplates the option of holding more than one session. However, this Article seems to give the mediator the power to set the session dates and venues. A good mediator will negotiation these matters with the parties or their lawyers., especially when the failure to attend two consecutive mediations can end the process and result in the imposition of the full cost of the mediation on the missing party. <i>See</i> Articles 16 and 21.</div><div><br /></div><div>Article 16 allows the mediation to end when the parties sign a settlement agreement; when the parties agree that judicial mediation should end "for whatever reason"; when any party tells the mediator he or she wants to end the mediation; when the mediator decides the process is "not beneficial and that there is no possibility to reach a resolution for the dispute"; if a party fails to attend two consecutive mediation sessions "without reasonable excuse"; or the scheduled time frame expires. Thus, this article gives one or both parties the power to end the session for any reason.</div><div><br /></div><div>Taken together, the parties share control over the length of the mediation process with the court and the mediator. Parties, through the mediator, can seek an extension of the process for an additional time, but a court must approve the extension. Finally, they can end the mediation for any reason "whatsoever." </div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">How will the Issues and Interests be Framed?</span></h4><div>Two of the important skills mediators bring to the process -- that parties tend not to have -- are the ability to identify issues and<a href="https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/mediation/mediation-focus-on-interests-not-rights/#:~:text=Negotiation%20and%20mediation%20research%20favors%20a%20mediator%27s%20focus%20on%20client%20interests&text=There%20is%20a%20better%20way,negotiation%20research%20on%20mediation%20techniques."> frame them as interests</a>, rather than as positions. While a mediator will encourage the parties to dig deeply to identify those interests, ultimately most mediators will assume the responsibility to translate them in a way that will help the parties resolve the dispute. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcF5Rhagv3Sckz-je7xRGpkqKsCiAV2oOqu43aiQNGd29SDX4kSR5GhoMgZ24Po-OW_1AOGbwJBTL3UF7bB-mWV7OAqOOVmb3aaziFGBnTlxpjKiLaiqKVh4C3HbjJuOAKvRK9nib6ur5xmwgI09HxH_YmFteXxz_0ETIISLXptQ20sQAwZvzJI5-AM6M7/s360/Mediator%203.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="325" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcF5Rhagv3Sckz-je7xRGpkqKsCiAV2oOqu43aiQNGd29SDX4kSR5GhoMgZ24Po-OW_1AOGbwJBTL3UF7bB-mWV7OAqOOVmb3aaziFGBnTlxpjKiLaiqKVh4C3HbjJuOAKvRK9nib6ur5xmwgI09HxH_YmFteXxz_0ETIISLXptQ20sQAwZvzJI5-AM6M7/w169-h187/Mediator%203.jpg" width="169" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div>Zena Zumeta, a well-known U.S. family mediator and trainer, has developed an <a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1-8-WPld9XACiErjuGCaOfKY62w5mUCDT/edit?usp=share_link&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">interest framing technique</a> that I have used with great success. </div><div><br /></div><div>Parties should be careful that the mediator does not define the issues/interests too narrowly. Even a business dispute can have elements of personal concern, like the original negotiator's potential loss of face, reputation, or promotional opportunities. A good mediator will explore those interests in caucus. A business dispute could also affect community well-being. Take for example, a contract or performance dispute relating to the construction of a World Cup stadium in Qatar. I discussed problem-definition in my earlier post <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/7n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike Article 4 of the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">Qatar Mediation Law</a>, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not give the mediator explicit authority to determine issues in the dispute. Nonetheless, a well-trained mediator will identify issues/interests with the active participation of the parties. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg99E9_996AI6XlOjdkm0v_E45VyN8HIqHRk2yzaBmq7zHa055DBLiHRyzqhjxec9oYmlKMgrk5UghNYjHINkqguad41DR5J6teH2OjW3T8cEfRC2xdOWDL-fiV5w79qd08fuHonAAH2LtLnWrob89KhVI6kJZ72IGd95e2EO-W_lcMNUGvDx7Bs14HAcs5/s492/Communications%203.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="348" data-original-width="492" height="226" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg99E9_996AI6XlOjdkm0v_E45VyN8HIqHRk2yzaBmq7zHa055DBLiHRyzqhjxec9oYmlKMgrk5UghNYjHINkqguad41DR5J6teH2OjW3T8cEfRC2xdOWDL-fiV5w79qd08fuHonAAH2LtLnWrob89KhVI6kJZ72IGd95e2EO-W_lcMNUGvDx7Bs14HAcs5/s320/Communications%203.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who Influences which Neutral Fact- or Neutral Legal-Experts Participate in the Process?</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 11 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law governs the use of experts to </span>assist<span style="font-family: inherit;"> the parties in gathering needed information or doing some reality testing on legal liability. It provides that the </span>mediator may "engage the experts whose names are recorded in the expert rosters of the Ministry or local judicial authorities, as the case may be, or any other experts to be agreed upon by the parties, for the purpose of providing technical and technological expertise with the aim of resolving the disputes brought to them." Hmmm. This provision raises two issues.</div><div><br /></div><div>First, the article suggests only the mediator may ask a neutral expert to participate in the process. However, any well-trained mediator will solicit input into whether the parties need an expert, the selection of the expert, compensation for the expert, and how the parties will handle the expert opinion.</div><div><br /></div><div>Second, the article limits experts to those offering "technical and technological expertise." Would the word "technical" include the neutral legal evaluation of a lawyer or retired judge? While Article 10 of the law allows the mediator to "give an opinion if requested by the parties, evaluate the documents and evidence furnished by the parties, and introduce the judicial principles relating to the dispute and others [?] for facilitating the mediation process, this evaluative role, especially if it borders on legal advice, blurs the professional roles of the mediator. Moreover, the mediator may not have the substantive expertise to provide the needed evaluation. For instance, a highly competent mediator who may have expertise in trademark law will not be competent to provide a legal evaluation in a construction law case. Thus, parties may need a construction law lawyer to provide that expert opinion.</div><div><br /></div><div>The drafters should amend the law to make clear that the expert can include legal experts offering legal-neutral evaluation.</div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4tTsKPyvE6Zrme-WpxGHIXcEwf3BgwHln-xsHSxbiQpjTmp0Fo6A8xNgHGWTEFHkKHCW608yvAcQNzmzuzAlvuXcuWy7qdLs1Plxw-PK1UCdwGGouoYXYSml34L_mA-6InSjZaeV_60VpjRlHim3OOsmoyH42F8indswZJyakaHx98U6xRxr_quBKUI6O/s507/Communications%2026.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="507" data-original-width="338" height="206" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4tTsKPyvE6Zrme-WpxGHIXcEwf3BgwHln-xsHSxbiQpjTmp0Fo6A8xNgHGWTEFHkKHCW608yvAcQNzmzuzAlvuXcuWy7qdLs1Plxw-PK1UCdwGGouoYXYSml34L_mA-6InSjZaeV_60VpjRlHim3OOsmoyH42F8indswZJyakaHx98U6xRxr_quBKUI6O/w137-h206/Communications%2026.jpg" width="137" /></a></div><h4>How will the Disclosure of Information in the Process be Treated Under Rules of Confidentiality?</h4></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">I plan to discuss in a later post the articles of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law governing </span>confidentiality<span style="font-family: inherit;"> in the process. This topic has </span>confounded many organizations trying to set guidelines for confidentiality in mediation. In 2001, the National Conference on Uniform State Laws in the U.S. produced the <a href="https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1427&context=jdr">Uniform Mediation Act</a> after many drafting sessions occurring over several years. A large part of the draft law applies to confidentiality. After a lapse of 22 years, only <a href="https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=45565a5f-0c57-4bba-bbab-fc7de9a59110">twelve</a> states have adopted it. Instead, other states rely on their own laws governing mediator confidentiality.</div><div><br /></div><div>Articles 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law govern confidentiality in mediation. This discussion will focus on party control over disclosures of any mediation communications, including documents created during the process itself. Unfortunately, the law does not give a specific list of the types of communications deemed confidential. Instead, it provides a very general definition of confidential "information" in Article 14.</div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>- Confidentiality of Caucus Communications</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Article 10 permits the mediator to hold "private sessions with each party . . . but may not disclose to the other party any information that comes to his knowledge within such sessions, <u>without the prior approval</u> of the disclosing party." (Emphasis added.) This limitation is a big deal! Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, the mediator may not make disclosures without prior party consent. The law shifts the burden to the mediator to maintain confidentiality. A well-trained mediator will confirm what he may disclose before returning to the joint session or before entering a private "caucus" session with the other party. This approach reflects the laws in other jurisdictions that make caucus communications confidential, <u>unless</u> the party specifically agrees to the disclosure of a particular communication. </div><div><br /></div><div>In contrast, the Qatar Mediation Law indicates that the mediator may disclose these communications to the other party <u>unless</u> "the disclosing party requires the mediator to keep such information confidential." This puts a burden on the disclosing party to raise confidentiality after every interaction with the mediator. Thus, the Qatari approach can be a trap for unsuspecting parties or their lawyers. </div><h4 style="text-align: left;"><b>- Confidentiality of Information that Comes into Existence During the Mediation</b></h4><div>Article 14 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law is a very short clause when compared to the confidentiality scheme set out in the Qatar Mediation Law. It limits the disclosure of "any information that comes into existence during the mediation procedures, without the approval of the parties . . . ." </div><div><br /></div><div>It lists only three exceptions:</div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>unless the information relates to a criminal act,</li><li>the final settlement agreement, and</li><li>"the documents and papers required for [the settlement agreement's] enforcement."</li></ul><div>Parties bound by this rule are the Center, mediator, parties, and "everyone involved in the mediation process." Thus, the law would also bind third-party witnesses and experts. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thoughtfully, the drafters explicitly recognized that only a communication that "comes into existence during the mediation procedures" is confidential. That distinction was not clear in the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">Qatar Mediation Law.</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div>Accordingly, a party or the mediator may disclose:</div><div><ul><li>Communications made prior to the start of the mediation. This limitation prevents someone from bringing a pre-existing document into mediation and trying to vest it with confidentiality it did not have previously, like a set of tax documents.</li><li>Communications related to a criminal act. Many jurisdictions grapple with this sort of potentially broad public policy exception, but most mediators would agree that mediation should not be used to further or plan a crime. </li><li>A party's failure to attend two consecutive sessions of mediation under Article 16.</li><li>The mediator's report to the court about "the outcome of the judicial mediation" under Articles 16 and 18, so long as the report does not disclose confidential information. This report could disclose the fact that the parties reached agreement in whole or in part; or the fact that the parties failed to reach agreement and, under Article 17, describe "how far the parties and their attorneys are committed to attending scheduled sessions." I am not sure what the law intends with this part of any mediator report, but it suggests the mediator need only disclose that further sessions would not be beneficial. </li><li>The settlement agreement under Article 18 and any related enforcement documents.</li></ul></div></div></div><div>Nonetheless, the drafters may want to amend the law to make clear that the disclosing party controls any breach of confidentiality. The current language suggests that both parties must agree to the disclosure. This designation goes to the issue of who owns the privilege. I discuss that issue in much greater detail in my later post on confidentiality. </div><div><br /></div><div>A well-trained mediator -- no matter the nature of the applicable law -- will always check with the disclosing party before releasing any confidential information to the other party. In some U.S. states, a mediator's mishandling of confidential communications can generate a successful grievance by a party and subject the mediator to <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445" target="_blank">discipline</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div><b>- Disclosure of the Settlement Agreement</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Articles 18 (for judicial mediation) and 23 (for extrajudicial mediation) of the UAE Commerical Mediation Law require the mediator to provide the Center or court with the signed settlement agreement and a report, presumably the report required by either Articles 16 or 17. </div><div><br /></div><div>Thankfully, it does not require the inclusion of any expert's opinion, as does Article 24 of the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">Qatar Mediation Law</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div><div>Taken together, parties have a lot of control over confidentiality in the process. The exceptions to confidentiality are quite limited and reflect more conservative standards for disclosures.</div><h4><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDIFmSPGy3PTvdpct9FTT8OxPFylhOSpE38r3rzAxEzQsylLYN1Ed74yRQ7wzzzBKUdu0a3SgLrJQPjUyu7dwsTEx1EYUNprtmCCR2t1x9nY2rXOftT7J0X3P985tYpre3dFnirOorI2LC_J_YSHA4hNiV70y97yCn4lP5BRddWCvUkoPhefi7SReTzwA-/s507/Group%201.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDIFmSPGy3PTvdpct9FTT8OxPFylhOSpE38r3rzAxEzQsylLYN1Ed74yRQ7wzzzBKUdu0a3SgLrJQPjUyu7dwsTEx1EYUNprtmCCR2t1x9nY2rXOftT7J0X3P985tYpre3dFnirOorI2LC_J_YSHA4hNiV70y97yCn4lP5BRddWCvUkoPhefi7SReTzwA-/s320/Group%201.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>How will the Option Generation Process Proceed? Can the Mediator Suggest Options or Make Proposals?</h4></div><div>Article 10 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law provides: "In the course of mediation sessions, the mediator may hold discussions with all parties involved on the matter of dispute and their claims and pleas and <u>take whatever actions deemed appropriate</u> to bring their points of view closer to each other, with the aim of reaching an amicable resolution." (Emphasis added.) Hmmmm. May take any actions deemed appropriate?</div><div><br /></div><div>Clearly, this provision raises issues touching on the core values of mediation. First, as I discuss in my later post on mediator neutrality towards the parties and the outcome, some interventions by a mediator can undermine his or her neutrality. Second, some interventions, as I discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/5n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>, <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/6n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and here can undermine party self-determination over the outcome. A well-trained mediator will know the professional limits to any intervention, but clearly a mediator must use only interventions that respect the core values of mediation. No room exists for coercion, deception, fraud, misinformation, or threats of any kind. This list only outlines the outside limits on inappropriate actions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Article 10 specifically grants the mediator the power to: "give [an] opinion if requested by the parties, evaluate the documents and evidence furnished by the parties and introduce the judicial principles relating to the dispute and others [?] for facilitating the mediation process." Thus, this provision contemplates a legal neutral evaluative role of the mediator. </div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Interestingly, the UAE Commercial Law does not explicitly envision the use of a mediator proposal. However, it could be deemed an "appropriate action" by a mediator. In an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_23.html">post</a>, I wrote about my concern in connection with Articles 4 and 30 of the Qatar Mediation Law, which contemplate mediator proposals to resolve the dispute. While a </span>well-trained<span style="font-family: inherit;"> mediator will develop a long list of options for settlement based on the active participation of the parties, the use of a </span>mediator<span style="font-family: inherit;"> proposal can undermine party self-determination over the process and the substance of the dispute. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>In that post, I said:<br /><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">At first, I was very concerned that the [Qatari] law gave mediators the opportunity to propose solutions to resolving the dispute. As I'll explain more when I analyze the provisions governing mediator neutrality in later posts, this opportunity can be abused, especially by unskillful mediators.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><br /></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">In the U.S., many mediation statutes or ethics codes preclude mediator interventions involving option proposals. The concern is that the mediator proposal can have too much "gravitation weight" pulling parties in a direction they might not otherwise want to take. My concern is that it substitutes the judgement and life experience of the mediator for the unique experiences of the parties. I have been in too many mediations where the parties propose options I would never in my life have conceived. But, they worked for them. I have come to trust the "wisdom of the parties."</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><br /></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;">The U.S. statutes and ethics rules that permit mediator proposals typically encourage or require that the mediator get explicit party consent before making any proposals.</blockquote></blockquote><div><br />Note, in this regard, that Article 10 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law allows the mediator's opinion "if requested by the parties," thus reserving control over this intervention in the parties. </div><div><br /></div><div>Lawyers representing parties in mediation in the UAE will need to develop strategies for handling mediator opinions and proposals. They will need to consider the timing. Are they a last ditch effort to resolve the dispute after all other efforts have clearly failed? Or, are they given too early in the process by an unskillful, arrogant, or impatient mediator? Lawyers should consider delivery? I would never want a mediator opinion or proposal delivered outside of a caucus. What type of opinion or proposal is planned? What technique will the mediator use to create the opinion or proposal? These are all process choices.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjquIUTaEysXf6uyGsitGJYDZs4hLQQOaF5RtuAbtlag-PtCoVuJPgQl3dtKw6qoRyZqU67Y5YCl324HB5H48tb16pO3FA80i5VtxxEGcdXQE-zR_-xAFq9sWfUgmzZecZkmOfz585yp8m1sNK6G4sm3EVHtS3vBskJb1ifP0NOcKSzSj3PXN5UbX5uOlh8/s465/Communication%203.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="368" data-original-width="465" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjquIUTaEysXf6uyGsitGJYDZs4hLQQOaF5RtuAbtlag-PtCoVuJPgQl3dtKw6qoRyZqU67Y5YCl324HB5H48tb16pO3FA80i5VtxxEGcdXQE-zR_-xAFq9sWfUgmzZecZkmOfz585yp8m1sNK6G4sm3EVHtS3vBskJb1ifP0NOcKSzSj3PXN5UbX5uOlh8/s320/Communication%203.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><h4>Who Decides Whether and When to Caucus and which Party Participates in the Caucus First?</h4><div>Article 10 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law governs caucus, or "private sessions." No further guidance exists on the caucus process except the rule governing confidentiality discussed above. </div><div><br /></div><div>A well-trained mediator will develop an approach to caucus and will likely make decisions about whether and when to hold a caucus and with whom to caucus first. Lawyers representing parties in mediation should be familiar with the different options involving caucus. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYhLktW3qRx_ta22fKeN3DLZT8qMofcPZMI1VSqybnczUjiC2uKbOsUfd98LezA6zTPRtopR49t3osaxvExKQBgQa2XOsOAdyRlGobbcdlDcjfrl3TV2YKe2sx9_xu0sKhsXb8jEndwIz2am20QKWrj8dmQ9C42kabqtFPXghBcjFnyBiX_MNZ2TgHBaZU/s508/Writing%202.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="508" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYhLktW3qRx_ta22fKeN3DLZT8qMofcPZMI1VSqybnczUjiC2uKbOsUfd98LezA6zTPRtopR49t3osaxvExKQBgQa2XOsOAdyRlGobbcdlDcjfrl3TV2YKe2sx9_xu0sKhsXb8jEndwIz2am20QKWrj8dmQ9C42kabqtFPXghBcjFnyBiX_MNZ2TgHBaZU/s320/Writing%202.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who Drafts the Final Settlement Agreement?</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the U.S., you will see a number of approaches to drafting the final settlement agreement. Before the parties terminate the session, the mediator will help draft a list of agreed terms. Based on that list, either the </span>mediator or the lawyer for one of the parties will create the first draft of the agreement. Like any contract drafting process, the drafts will go back and forth between the parties until the language satisfies both lawyers. In some states, if the mediator is not licensed to practice law in that state, he or she cannot draft the settlement agreement. That act could be punished under laws governing the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831491">unauthorized practice of law</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>In less complicated matters, where the parties appear <i>pro se</i>, the mediator will draft the settlement agreement, but he or she will advise the parties to have a lawyer look over it before they sign it. Parties can ignore that advice and sign it without a lawyer's input. </div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The UAE Commercial Mediation Law defines the settlement agreement in Article 1 as: "A document <u>created by the mediator</u>, signed by the parties, and setting out the settlement details eventually reached by the parties for amicable resolution of their dispute, in whole or in part." (Emphasis added.) The word "create" indicates <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create">bringing something into existence</a>, which could connote a direct drafting role or a more supervisory role for the mediator. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Compare the language of the Qatar Mediation Law h<a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">ere</a> that may impose a more active drafting role on the mediator. </span>In any event, a well-trained mediator will handle the drafting process in a way consistent with the nature of the dispute and the needs of the parties. I discuss the settlement agreement drafting process in more detail in a later post. </div><div><br /></div><div>As noted above, the mediator must file reports with the Center or court in the event of settlement or the failure to settle under Articles 16, 17, and 25 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law.</div><h4>Provisional or Precautionary Measures.</h4><div>One article addresses what the court may do while the parties pursue mediation to prevent any prejudice to the litigated case. Article 5 tolls any legal or judicial time limits. Perhaps, by example, in a complex reinsurance dispute in the U.S., my client successfully petitioned the court to toll the statute of limitations during the mediation process. </div><div><br /></div><div>This article also allows the court "to take necessary measures and actions to safeguard the rights of the parties and issue urgent or interim decisions deemed necessary." I assume those actions will come only after a petition or motion of one or both parties for a protective measure. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8v_OAoBzK0X8KDQl9YlpW0KZgNOLb5KYN7H5Ca6mJW39nuwV7qjnjI_eg8IuyOOViZlKoo2G-R60yqdKgBhsBX0_80bbCaPOXmQE5ISyelUHFKPbgZUmUx_dUYEWDNGbh6UpmsrakvTHnwZiUAMj0EWA4lD-vzYdK4ONiKrJp-8aS3xKmxRwD1Ue3L86d/s431/Symbols%206.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="431" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8v_OAoBzK0X8KDQl9YlpW0KZgNOLb5KYN7H5Ca6mJW39nuwV7qjnjI_eg8IuyOOViZlKoo2G-R60yqdKgBhsBX0_80bbCaPOXmQE5ISyelUHFKPbgZUmUx_dUYEWDNGbh6UpmsrakvTHnwZiUAMj0EWA4lD-vzYdK4ONiKrJp-8aS3xKmxRwD1Ue3L86d/s320/Symbols%206.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4>Other Procedural Choices by the Parties</h4><div>The parties must agree to the financial compensation paid to the mediator under Article 1's definition of "Mediator's Fees" and Article 6's fee setting provision for private mediators. Article 21 allows court intervention in the fee payment process for any "non-agreed final mediation costs." </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 3 provides that parties may designate in the Mediation Agreement whether the parties will conduct the mediation in a non-Arabic language (thus suggesting Arabic is the default language). If the parties choose this option, "the documents and statements submitted shall be translated into Arabic, in accordance with the provisions of the above-referenced law [Federal Law No. [6] of 2012] regulating the translation profession." While this clause is not clear, it seems the parties must make translated documents available if they plan to use them in the mediation. Interestingly, the law is not specific about the language of any documents filed with the Center or the court, including the final settlement agreement and any mediator's reports. Again, the assumption seems to be that these documents will all be in Arabic.</div><div><br /></div><div>Article 9 requires each party to submit a confidential pre-mediation submission to the mediator. It should be a brief statement of the "claims and pleas, accompanied by the supporting documents and evidence." In some cases, a party may want to limit the disclosures made in this document. Accordingly, a party could lose some self-determination if the mediator demands extensive disclosures in this document, including the party's bottom line.</div><div><br /></div><div>Article 10, governing multiparty disputes, allows the parties to agree to proceed in mediation, subject to the court's approval, even if another party fails to join the mediation process. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 11 allows the mediator to hear testimony of third parties, if all parties agree. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 15 prohibits a mediator from giving testimony against any of the parties to mediation "unless otherwise permitted by the party concerned or agreed by the parties . . . ." This clause sets up a very vague exception to mediation confidentiality, which I will discuss in a later post. Most often a party, or both parties, will seek mediator testimony when attempting to void or clarify the language of a settlement agreement. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 19 states: "Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the mediation agreement shall remain valid in accordance with the provisions of this law" even if a court later finds the affirmed settlement agreement invalid, unless the affirming court found the agreement to mediate invalid or voidable. I am not sure when this situation would arise. It makes the settlement agreement binding no matter what the court does after the close of the mediation, so long as they parties entered a valid agreement to mediate. </div><div> </div><div>The UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not mention a number of the process choices I listed in the first part of this post, including specific control of the venue for in-person mediations, the room arrangement, the amenities available, the food and beverages offered, the need for frequent breaks, the emotional expression allowed, the conveyance of offers and counter-offers, and the choice of objective criteria. In practicality, a well-trained mediator will resolve these issues in pre-mediation contacts with the parties or as the mediation evolves. Parties should have a lot of input. In less complicated cases, the mediator may end up making more process choices for the parties given the nature of the dispute and the resources of the parties. </div><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>Conclusion</b></div><div><b><br /></b></div><div>While the UAE Commercial Mediation Law gives the parties control over the process in many ways, the extent of that control will begin and end with the choice of mediator. If parties want more process control, they should pick a mediator with a more "elicitive" orientation. They will lose a lot of process control if the mediator has a more "directive" orientation. </div><div> </div><div>My next post will start the discussion of mediator neutrality under the UAE Commercial Mediation Law. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </div><div><br /></div></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-68425049193196557372023-09-09T17:40:00.004-04:002023-12-24T16:31:46.050-05:00<p> </p><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt9_I1rHZlQ22jilbKiO4q0gbZygJzunDQZ92k_jDRm4TxvDU2tTDnB2vS4ocVBREGtzKZ4LHRYgso9ahx8H7-0uVf6w1d1GshXf1lkjGxjx3eWI3ArCJrZKlqaNuQG_biuPX2s8fzD2rMoVlA36_MjliKXbHcrpElxKDDBFZyDhDshm4FiA03OO_jjV_Y/s2309/Mediation%2012.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1299" data-original-width="2309" height="225" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjt9_I1rHZlQ22jilbKiO4q0gbZygJzunDQZ92k_jDRm4TxvDU2tTDnB2vS4ocVBREGtzKZ4LHRYgso9ahx8H7-0uVf6w1d1GshXf1lkjGxjx3eWI3ArCJrZKlqaNuQG_biuPX2s8fzD2rMoVlA36_MjliKXbHcrpElxKDDBFZyDhDshm4FiA03OO_jjV_Y/w400-h225/Mediation%2012.jpg" width="400" /></a></div></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><u>7/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Party Self-Determination, Part 3: Mediator Influence, Process Design, and Process Choices</u></span></h1><div>Party self-determination in mediation has both substantive and procedural aspects. In my last <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/6n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">post</a>, I discussed how the Qatar Mediation Law potentially impacted the parties' substantive self-determination and high-quality decision-making about the outcome.</div><h3>Procedural Self-determination and Party Control of the Process</h3><div>In this post, I look at party self-determination over the process design and process choices during the mediation. To structure this discussion, I first describe another framework for analyzing the UAE Commercial Mediation Law. </div><div><br /></div><div>Many steps in the mediation process invite input from the parties or their lawyers. But, the program design or the interventions of a mediator can undermine that procedural self-determination.</div><div><br /></div><div>The following list provides some of the process decisions in which parties or their lawyers could exercise more decision-making authority and, thus, more control:</div><div><ul><li>Who may participate in the process and how many representatives may attend for each party?</li><li>Who will be the mediator or mediators?</li><li>How many mediators will participate?</li><li>What will be the orientation of the mediator?</li><li>Who decides whether to file pre-mediation submissions with the mediator? </li><li>How will the participants handle language differences?</li><li>Should the mediation be in-person or online?</li><li>If in-person, where should the parties hold the mediation? What country, city, or venue? </li><li>How should the room be arranged? Consider table selection and orientation, seating arrangements, and amenities available.</li><li>What options for food and beverage should exist?</li><li>How long should each session last? Will some parties need more frequent breaks? Will the mediation require multiple sessions over several days?</li><li>How will the issues and interests be framed?</li><li>Will the parties have freedom to express emotion, especially anger, anxiety, sadness, or aggression?</li><li>How will the disclosure of information in the process be treated under rules of confidentiality?</li><li>How will the option generation process proceed? Can the mediator suggest options or make proposals?</li><li>How will offers and counteroffers be conveyed? </li><li>Who influences the choice of objective criteria?</li><li>Who influences which neutral fact- or neutral legal-evaluators participate in the process?</li><li>Who decides whether and when to caucus and which party participates in the caucus first? </li><li>Who drafts the final settlement agreement?</li></ul></div><div>As explained below, some mediators would cede a lot of control to the parties over many of these decisions as a matter of an elicitive orientation. On the other extreme, a highly directive mediator would make most of these process decisions for the parties.</div><h3><b>Mediator "Styles": Riskin's First Grid</b></h3><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY8bJZsQpU9zKGyP4VDn0LECv9T9PiyO2tQRrRJZKbcEQKOuJVpgR2kRrx72pGwgsNkZF6qPEUWkbcK8-4ttky8Qh5et5X0LmJQjYgZN2k4gfVX-J-OrLiUjDx8WwfvqAXXxRYH6Ib4gV8AOHHAnTse4qys2gzhLqTokUNKZ4gM25dfR6-ihb1i8HxBqSV/s180/Mediators%201.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="180" data-original-width="180" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY8bJZsQpU9zKGyP4VDn0LECv9T9PiyO2tQRrRJZKbcEQKOuJVpgR2kRrx72pGwgsNkZF6qPEUWkbcK8-4ttky8Qh5et5X0LmJQjYgZN2k4gfVX-J-OrLiUjDx8WwfvqAXXxRYH6Ib4gV8AOHHAnTse4qys2gzhLqTokUNKZ4gM25dfR6-ihb1i8HxBqSV/s1600/Mediators%201.jpg" width="180" /></a></div><br /></div>In 1994, Len Riskin, then the C.A. Leedy Professor of Law at the University of Missouri-Columbia and Director of its Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution, inadvertently started a great debate about what “style” of mediation was “best.” When he published the article entitled, <i>Mediator Orientations, Strategies and Techniques</i>, 12 Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation 111 (1994), he described four styles of mediation based on how broadly the mediator defined the problem presented by the parties (and thus the depth of intervention the mediator was likely to take) and the role of the mediator -- either facilitative or evaluative. According to this <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jdsupra.com%2Flegalnews%2Friskin-s-grid-do-you-need-a-facilitator-4319757%2F&psig=AOvVaw0scivPYvkWoakShVhw4tax&ust=1683683191478000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCIjGq-aO5_4CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE">analytical scheme</a>, a mediator could be: <div><div><ul><li>narrow/facilitative, </li><li>narrow/evaluative, </li><li>broad/facilitative, or </li><li>broad/evaluative. </li></ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMPsoCdBoqAW1kOp4SFxdC3QaWOlVhUJ_pN8ba73unziQjPOaXM2CIRGUdr8CjuxfREAiZHT1nCMTUGfcAmkMdwcdi21NBB2-EuX7CR8hHZNsvRd6J7ugbRPffJR_AN2Ux9pJuDeVqubRVwHvJXqqDnTrAFoDy4dFHZgtgc_c7SIDBjBEeN2QaTrPItkmM/s789/Risking%20Grid%201A.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="789" data-original-width="720" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMPsoCdBoqAW1kOp4SFxdC3QaWOlVhUJ_pN8ba73unziQjPOaXM2CIRGUdr8CjuxfREAiZHT1nCMTUGfcAmkMdwcdi21NBB2-EuX7CR8hHZNsvRd6J7ugbRPffJR_AN2Ux9pJuDeVqubRVwHvJXqqDnTrAFoDy4dFHZgtgc_c7SIDBjBEeN2QaTrPItkmM/s320/Risking%20Grid%201A.png" width="292" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>The two-dimensional grid based on this analysis supposedly predicts the strategies each type of mediator is likely to use, and, Riskin thought at the time, the amount of self-determination the parties would have in the process.<i> See</i> Leonard L. Riskin, <i>Who Decides What? Rethinking the Grid of Mediator Orientations</i>, 9 No. 2 Disp. Resol. Mag. 22 (2003). This analytical scheme came out of an invitation from a Kansas City, Missouri law firm whose partners hoped its lawyers would participate more effectively in mediations by, among other things, making more skillful choices about which mediator to use. <i>Id</i>. at 22. Unexpectedly, the Riskin grid -- as it quickly became known – began to polarize the mediation community. It led to the labeling of mediators. </div><div><h4>Problem Definition</h4>On the problem definition dimension of the original grid, a mediator who defined the problem narrowly would consider and help the parties resolve only the litigation-related issues. If the mediator defined the problem increasingly more broadly, he or she might next consider business interests, then personal, professional or relationship interests, and finally community interests involved in the dispute.<br /><h4>Facilitative Style</h4>The other dimension of the grid focused on the role of the mediator and identified two roles or styles of mediation: evaluative and facilitative. One can look at these two styles from several perspectives: their focus, goals, processes used, and outcome orientation. </div><div><br /></div><div>According to several authors, facilitative mediation -- the style of mediation most frequently taught to new mediators in the U.S. -- focuses on providing the parties consensus building process-skills. Mediators using this style assume that the parties are intelligent and capable and that they understand better than any mediator ever could the dispute and possible resolutions of it. Mediators using this style intend to enhance the participation of all parties involved in the mediation, generate party-to-party discussions, and reopen and improve channels of communication. They also use techniques designed to identify each party’s interest and needs underlying their hardened positions, help the parties evaluate unreasonable expectations, and help the parties identify solutions to the dispute through brainstorming and option generation techniques. </div><div><br /></div><div>Facilitative mediators generally show a preference for joint sessions rather than caucus and reserve caucus for times when the parties can not talk to each other face-to-face. The mediator remains responsible for the process, but not for the outcome.<br /><h4><b>Evaluative Style</b></h4>Evaluative mediators are often defined as focusing on the substance of the dispute. They assume the parties need more help in assessing or predicting litigation outcomes and formulating solutions to the dispute. </div><div><br /></div><div>The techniques of evaluative mediators often include review of the underlying legal documents, assessment of the law or facts underlying the dispute, and active participation in the resolution of the dispute through case evaluation, the prediction of outcomes at trial, or other substance-oriented assistance. </div><div><br /></div><div>Often, these mediators use more caucuses, in which the mediator attempts to convince the parties to accept a recommended solution. They often apply pressure to settle. They typically control the expression of emotion as not being helpful or as actually hindering the process. </div><div><br /></div><div>The style looks a lot like shuttle diplomacy and makes the mediator more responsible for correctly translating for the other party the verbal, non-verbal, emotional, and psychological communication of the other side expressed during caucus. These mediators see themselves as “dealmakers” willingly deciding what is best or “fair” for the parties. </div><div><br /></div><div>One author suggests that most evaluative mediators are lawyers or retired judges who tend to “revert to their default adversarial mode, analyzing the legal merits of the case to move towards settlement.” He suggests this “legalized” style is more akin to early neutral evaluation or non-binding arbitration. Douglas Noll, Peacemaking: Practicing at the Intersection of Law and Human Conflict 91-92 (Cascadia 2003). </div><div><br />Even these short descriptions show how quickly this debate becomes one of stereotypes. Less skillful mediators, some argue, used the more heavy-handed evaluative style. On the other hand, only touchy-feely people wearing Birkenstocks are truly facilitative. </div><div><br /></div><div>For a more comprehensive discussion of these styles <i>see </i>Leonard L. Riskin, <i>Understanding Mediator Orientations, Strategies and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed</i>, 1 Harv. L. Rev. 7 (1996); Kimberlee Kovach & Lela Love, <i>“Evaluative” Mediation is an Oxymoron</i>, 14 Alternatives to High Cost of Litigation 31 (1996). Noll, <i>supra</i> at 86-89, 91-99; Charles Craver, <i>Mediation: A Trial Lawyer’s Guide</i>, 35 Trial 37 (June 1999). For a discussion other mediator styles, see <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-who-of-mediation-part-i-new-look-at.html">here</a> in my post called <i>The Who of Mediation, Part 1: A New Look at Mediator "Styles."</i></div><div><h3>The Evolved Riskin Grid of Mediator Orientation and Interventions</h3><div>A decade after his first “grid” article, Professor Len Riskin looked again at the question of mediator style, orientation, or strategies. Perhaps influenced by his 20-year experience in mediation, or by his understanding of “living in the moment” derived from his mindfulness meditation practice, or perhaps because of the increasingly shriller debate about which style was “best,” he took a more nuanced and fresh look at the original grid. <i>See</i> Leonard Riskin, <i>Who Decides What? Rethinking the</i> <i>Grid of Mediator Orientations</i>, 9 No.2 Disp. Resol. J. 22 (2003).</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCXU7AE75BTxvFxAmbbYS1n4yK2WpjSSOKPkUvn7vSlvcq15cCcWT8CKHrYwmMWKi5zm7vILTschMCdCWANokDIWffffeU49p8NShhwS2HQLkoTzoNHXfOllhyo17RkCaF7-TvMZzTR7Xv0pz4-zXLElG1sVYuFYhYf1882dLCh749uuuQT0EoOW7AHjbN/s320/Risking%20Grid%202.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="320" data-original-width="320" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCXU7AE75BTxvFxAmbbYS1n4yK2WpjSSOKPkUvn7vSlvcq15cCcWT8CKHrYwmMWKi5zm7vILTschMCdCWANokDIWffffeU49p8NShhwS2HQLkoTzoNHXfOllhyo17RkCaF7-TvMZzTR7Xv0pz4-zXLElG1sVYuFYhYf1882dLCh749uuuQT0EoOW7AHjbN/s1600/Risking%20Grid%202.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />He now suggests, I think, that we mediators should be gentler with each other. Instead of labeling ourselves and each other (bad, bad evaluator or flakey, inefficient facilitator, or weird transformative mediator), mediators can ask instead what the parties need in the moment. Mediators can also listen better when the parties ask us for what they need in the moment. He suggests that we consider the interventions or actions that mediators take during a mediation as if they were a series of frames in a motion picture. In each frame, what is the mediator doing and why? In that moment, what approach is the mediator taking? What strategy or technique is the mediator employing? What orientation is the mediator exhibiting? In the moment, is that choice effective? If not, what happens in the next moment? If effective, what opportunities did the intervention create in the next moment? The mediation process gains through this analysis a dynamism both in practice and theory that we may have missed before.<br /><br />The new Riskin grid system asks whether the mediator is using a strategy, style, technique, approach, or orientation – in that moment – at her own direction (mediator influence) or at the invitation of the parties (party or lawyer influence). During any mediation, the answer to that question will depend on the needs of the moment. Even the most evaluative mediator will have moments of highly facilitative interventions. Even that mediator will have moments when he or she will focus on emotion or the need for the parties to empathize with each other, or truly understand each other’s perspectives.</div><div><br /></div><div>Riskin further developed his new grid system over a series of articles. The field now identifies the two approaches as "directive" (mediator influence) and "elicitive" (party or lawyer influence). </div><h3>Applying the Theory to Practice</h3><div>As Riskin explains, by example: “At [point M], the mediation is focused on a narrow problem and nearly all of the influence to develop the problem definition has come from the mediator. At [point PBL], the mediation has a broader scope, and although the mediator’s influence in determining that problem definition still predominates, the other participants also have experienced some influence. At [point PB], the participants have influenced the development of a broader problem definition.” <i>Id</i>. at 25.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgoXOHJejo0YlzR2i8lrZDDaq-Lq51Nw5UE2OibdSJwuXlPBLE92HbGvs5L8VLs7n_PzUCLokebPvU5u1iwQN33EU8dB3rPYgc0ljze-uBhVmboESsxz-YNojCGXhYYCl0BrVJtC3ZwazAox30R654eAyf7yhr6DviC_g-2kJ_iEW9C68x81AS-GNcZian/s720/Risking%20Grid%203.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="599" data-original-width="720" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgoXOHJejo0YlzR2i8lrZDDaq-Lq51Nw5UE2OibdSJwuXlPBLE92HbGvs5L8VLs7n_PzUCLokebPvU5u1iwQN33EU8dB3rPYgc0ljze-uBhVmboESsxz-YNojCGXhYYCl0BrVJtC3ZwazAox30R654eAyf7yhr6DviC_g-2kJ_iEW9C68x81AS-GNcZian/s320/Risking%20Grid%203.png" width="320" /></a></div><div><br />Thus, the grid allows a way to asses influence during the mediation process. For example:<br /></div><div><ul><li>Will the mediator request pre-mediation submissions (yes, because she finds them useful, therefore disclosing a directive mediator influence); </li><li>Will she focus only on the legal positions of the parties and not consider underlying interests (no, unless the lawyers explain that they want something more akin to early neutral evaluation, therefore disclosing lawyer influence elicited by the mediator); </li><li>Will she use caucus (no, because she has decided that the best work occurs when the parties are together, therefore disclosing directive mediator influence); </li><li>Will she make a mediator’s proposal when the parties cannot close the gap (yes, but only as a last resort and only if the parties request it, therefore disclosing shared mediator and party influence)?</li></ul>Lawyers and clients could also use these grids, Riskin suggests, to determine pre-dispositions toward influence – theirs and the potential mediator. This knowledge would help lawyers choose the best mediator for the particular dispute involving particular parties. They would know in advance, for instance, that they wanted an evaluation of the legal case. They could then choose a mediator willing to provide that evaluation.<br /><br />Riskin’s new grids (one no longer suffices) focus on behaviors in the moment and over time rather than on labels that apply to the mediator throughout the mediation interaction. Yet, again, Riskin has enlivened the debate over mediator styles by providing these new analytical tools. Lawyers and clients can use them to participate in mediation at a much more sophisticated level and with more control over the process -- if they wish.</div><div><br /></div><div>In my next post, I will analyze how the UAE Commercial Mediation Law affects party self-determination over process choices, keeping the Riskin revised grid in mind.</div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-89240658860434523742023-09-05T12:33:00.006-04:002023-12-24T16:31:25.930-05:00<p> </p><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u></u></span></b></h1><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzy0fAlUZMUL8WbuigwbfQrrZ99ky2wR4xpZlUufU0UcB7Yl9Y_cMGI-8j8OhD_xvdZPXVHoUFC_9aTFF4HmB6H7I8iRcsyD9LLm6uhcNXIB0pHhYrXWPlSPICU6K20-Zz3ubz_MydIT2rfSW1V_gBhNCpjtI_7P0ZW5ztik1hT7IwnTnMztPRifFJFmVK/s1878/Mediation%208.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1596" data-original-width="1878" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzy0fAlUZMUL8WbuigwbfQrrZ99ky2wR4xpZlUufU0UcB7Yl9Y_cMGI-8j8OhD_xvdZPXVHoUFC_9aTFF4HmB6H7I8iRcsyD9LLm6uhcNXIB0pHhYrXWPlSPICU6K20-Zz3ubz_MydIT2rfSW1V_gBhNCpjtI_7P0ZW5ztik1hT7IwnTnMztPRifFJFmVK/s320/Mediation%208.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></b></h1><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>6/n An Analysis of UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Party Self-Determination, Part 2: Substantive Decision-Making</u></span></b></h1><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In my last post <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/09/5n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a>, I set out a framework for </span>analyzing<span style="font-family: inherit;"> the provisions of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law </span>impacting party self-determination, high-quality decision making, and the quality of the process. I used a framework developed by Prof. John Lande in his law review article, <i>How Will Lawyering and Mediation Practices Transform Each Other?</i>, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 839 (1997), available <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2560514" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3zWZROpfUAYYgJH7F7U7niTW12yujnzIFD2VDqkvU3houNX5UeevQGkzJhPMOP8YiIF0P5In21mRw-qhu5i6Zf79feJyt7CPeGzDWsaqPhS3yQ5xXWBPNLXr3UBHWFfb-CbZxfFn5HthcvXdpZgjhrvWIDg9potJ5AARaMF2wHtwDGaFIVHbp8aNmAMZz/s1800/Mediators.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1800" data-original-width="1200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3zWZROpfUAYYgJH7F7U7niTW12yujnzIFD2VDqkvU3houNX5UeevQGkzJhPMOP8YiIF0P5In21mRw-qhu5i6Zf79feJyt7CPeGzDWsaqPhS3yQ5xXWBPNLXr3UBHWFfb-CbZxfFn5HthcvXdpZgjhrvWIDg9potJ5AARaMF2wHtwDGaFIVHbp8aNmAMZz/w133-h200/Mediators.jpg" width="133" /></a></div><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>The Lande Framework</b></span></h3><span>Lande identifies seven factors affecting the quality of party decision making:</span><p></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">"The factors include: (1) explicit identification of the principal's goals and interests, (2) explicit identification of plausible options for satisfying these interests, (3) the principal's explicit selection of options for evaluation, (4) careful consideration of these options, (5) mediators' restraint in pressuring principals to accept particular substantive options, (6) limitation on the use of time pressure, and (7) confirmation of principals' consent to selected options."</span></p><h3><span style="font-family: inherit;">Relevant Articles of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law Governing Party Self-Determination over the Substance of the Mediation</span></h3><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The following Articles of the Qatar Mediation Law raise issues of party self-determination:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Article 1</b> defining "Mediation" and "Settlement Agreement," which I discuss <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/3n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html">here</a> and in a later post here. </span></p><p><b>Article 10</b> governing the mediation sessions, including the evaluative role of the mediator. </p><p><b>Article 18</b> governing the affirmation of the settlement agreement by the court.</p><p><b>Article 19</b> governing objections to the settlement agreement and giving the court the right to refuse to authenticate the settlement agreement for several reasons, including a party's lack of capacity or that the agreement is invalid or voidable.</p><p><b>Article 20</b> governing the probative force of the court-affirmed settlement agreement. </p><h3>Theory to Practice: Application of the Lande Framework to the UAE Commercial Mediation Law</h3><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_PQxjaSur2QcYkAKrx7cTckOqFkMK_aIYNHhk_ymD8w9PA_AQuLxgkiI_0poqC_rZK1EHNiLV8SC_thPvHuNTEt516lRXC2b40Relz8k8G1Mkv6kpkihACSKU0Dw_ynYymCPxsGSs6OEHEV2c5OAbGeUYWy708a79HwFCAXBl0W5ShblNiqtJILtxsld-/s2121/Communication%201.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_PQxjaSur2QcYkAKrx7cTckOqFkMK_aIYNHhk_ymD8w9PA_AQuLxgkiI_0poqC_rZK1EHNiLV8SC_thPvHuNTEt516lRXC2b40Relz8k8G1Mkv6kpkihACSKU0Dw_ynYymCPxsGSs6OEHEV2c5OAbGeUYWy708a79HwFCAXBl0W5ShblNiqtJILtxsld-/s320/Communication%201.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4>Explicit Identification of Goals, Interests, and Plausible Options</h4><p>After reviewing the law in the context of the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_22.html">Lande framework</a>, I was surprised that it was not explicit in protecting party self-determination in connection with the careful identification of goals and issues and a robust process for identifying plausible options. In this regard, the Qatar Mediation Law provided more explicit protections, as I discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_23.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </p><p>The <b>Article 1</b> definition of "Mediation" describes the process as "an alternative method for amicable settlement of civil and commercials disputes . . . ." Surprisingly, the definition fails to mention the three core-values of mediation, including party self-determination. In contrast, the definition of mediation found in the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia provides: </p><ul><li>“Mediation’ means a process in which a neutral facilitates communication between the parties and, without deciding the issues or imposing a solution on the parties, enables them to understand and resolve their dispute.” VA. Code. §8.01-576.4.</li></ul><div><p>This definition emphasizes communication, understanding, and restraint on the part of the mediator in crafting or selecting options for the parties.</p><p><b>Article 10</b> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law governs the mediation sessions. It provides:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"In the course of mediation sessions, the mediator may hold discussions with all parties involved on the matter of dispute and their claims and pleas and take whatever actions deemed appropriate to bring their points of view closer to each other, with the aim of reaching an amicable resolution. To that end, the mediator may give opinion if requested by the parties, evaluate the documents and evidence furnished by the parties and introduce the judicial principles relating to the dispute and others for facilitating the mediation process." </li></ul><p></p><p>This section of the law certainly contemplates a process designed to identify the parties' goals, interest and plausible options. A well-trained mediator will have the skills to explicitly identify them, as Lande recommends. </p><p>In addition, the law contemplates a very active evaluative role of the mediator. The law allows a mediator's opinion, evaluation of any relevant documents, and what appears to be a legal evaluation of guiding judicial principles. But, unlike the Qatar Mediation Law it does not explicitly give mediators the power to propose solutions. However, the language allowing mediators "to take whatever actions deemed appropriate" could be interpreted broadly to allow mediator's to propose solutions. I discussed the risk of this type of intervention <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_23.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </p><p>Nonetheless, this more active evaluative role can affect the parties' perceptions of mediator bias in favor of one party, if the mediator does not handle the evaluation skillfully. As I'll explain more when I analyze the provisions governing mediator neutrality in later posts, a mediator can abuse this opportunity, especially unskillful mediators. </p><p>I note that the mediator may not give an opinion about the dispute without party consent. However, the law is unclear about whether parties must give prior consent to an evaluation of relevant documents or the introduction of a judicial principles. Explicit party consent to a more evaluative role of the mediator can go a long way in preserving the parties control over the substance of the mediation and its outcome. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2ZEyvg4dKRKXSkfEZpwMVRVU0BLqlyKqAB1kmvvSM3LHRHoxhWwxINoXBGB6Yt15R1vyTyERYu_8XGkPhlUotU9UtOAzrCY4fBvgY9Jg7EN4kK2tLt2ZzlXouzfwDis0PqMFZf40bOq_mW2a301C4LIGH0syOAp9rHGRETwXsTtQPtO4P70HrIyLF8UN5/s2121/Mediation%2010.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2ZEyvg4dKRKXSkfEZpwMVRVU0BLqlyKqAB1kmvvSM3LHRHoxhWwxINoXBGB6Yt15R1vyTyERYu_8XGkPhlUotU9UtOAzrCY4fBvgY9Jg7EN4kK2tLt2ZzlXouzfwDis0PqMFZf40bOq_mW2a301C4LIGH0syOAp9rHGRETwXsTtQPtO4P70HrIyLF8UN5/s320/Mediation%2010.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Selection of Options for Evaluation, Careful Consideration of These Options, and the Mediator's Restraint in Pressuring the Principals to Accept Particular Substantive Options </h3><p>Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law is essentially silent on these aspects of party self-determination over substantive issues. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW4W-hnxDcRs58b3d4Wr_ayGfMVRTm8A7WmR-5gtNe_UH_xU1eZEkZGNnO9XGNcBxkfIg17in7uh1Nczi5I7REqoV7AZ31cPGMda1JjoheP2SW-FfPWPhXeMahoh-YuwPkGtZ9O2j9Rk_Rr8HwjfTN5bul_HZSV2dXcEh9axW6BPb68qXp4isWHuDpWndG/s1732/Mediation%207.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1732" data-original-width="1732" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjW4W-hnxDcRs58b3d4Wr_ayGfMVRTm8A7WmR-5gtNe_UH_xU1eZEkZGNnO9XGNcBxkfIg17in7uh1Nczi5I7REqoV7AZ31cPGMda1JjoheP2SW-FfPWPhXeMahoh-YuwPkGtZ9O2j9Rk_Rr8HwjfTN5bul_HZSV2dXcEh9axW6BPb68qXp4isWHuDpWndG/s320/Mediation%207.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;">Confirmation of Principals' Consent to Selected Options</h3><p>The <b>Article 1</b> definition of "Settlement Agreement" describes it as "setting out the settlement details eventually reached by the parites. . . ."</p><p>Accordingly, this Article should ensure that the parties confirm their consent to the selected options for settlement, assuming they have sufficient opportunity to review the draft settlement agreement, and, ideally, they have the opportunity to seek legal advice before they sign the agreement. </p><p>Unlike the Qatar Mediation Law, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not require the mediator to draft or "execute" the Settlement Agreement. Instead, <b>Article 18</b> states: "If, at the end of the mediation process, the parties reach a settlement for the dispute, in whole or in part, the mediator shall furnish a report to the Center accompanied by the settlement agreement signed by the parties for affirmation." Article 16 indicates that the report describes "the outcome of the judicial mediation," but does not further describe the nature or specificity of the report. </p><p>In any event, Article 18 gives the parties one more venue to confirm their consent to the selected settlement options.</p><p>In the U.S., many mediator ethics codes are cautious about imposing a duty on the mediator to draft the Settlement Agreement. For one thing, if the mediator is not a lawyer, some states would consider this drafting activity the unauthorized practice of law. I disagree and wrote a long article about this topic. <i>See</i> Paula M. Young, <i>A Connecticut Mediator in a Kangaroo Court?: Successfully Communicating the “Authorized Practice of Mediation” Paradigm to “Unauthorized Practice of Law” Disciplinary Bodies</i>, 49 S. Tex. L. Rev. 1047 (2008), reprinted at Mediate.com <a href="https://mediate.com/a-connecticut-mediator-in-a-kangaroo-court-successfully-communicating-the-authorized-practice-of-mediation-paradigm-to-unauthorized-practice-of-law-disciplinary-b/" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><p>At the same time, the mediator will often prepare a bullet point list of the agreed terms for use by the parties' lawyers in drafting the settlement agreement. I have to believe that given the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_21.html" target="_blank">scope</a> of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law, the parties will use lawyers in the mediation process, and they should play an active role in drafting the Settlement Agreement.</p><p>Finally, if the mediator plays an active drafting role, he or she should resist the temptation to add contractual boiler plate clauses if the parties have not expressly agreed to them. </p><p><b>Article 19</b> governs objection to the Settlement Agreement. It allows the court to consider a claim that the agreement is invalid for the following reasons:</p><p></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>"Either party to the settlement agreement either has been lacking mental capacity or has had diminished capacity at the time of concluding the agreement;"</li><li>"If there is no settlement agreement,"</li><li>"[T]he agreement is invalid or voidable,"</li><li>"[T]he agreement has taken place after the expiration of the mediation timeframe," or</li><li>"If either party fails to provide defense due to invalid notification . . . of the mediation procedures or being unaware of the same for any other reason beyond its reasonable control."</li></ul><p></p><p></p><p>This Article raises a number of issues about contract enforcement that I will discuss in a later post. For now, I simply want to point out that it provides one more procedure to better ensure that the parties have confirmed their consent to the selected settlement options. </p><p><b>Article 20</b> makes the court-affirmed Settlement Agreement binding on the parties and gives it the probative force of a court judgment. Accordingly, lawyers representing parties in litigation, along with the mediator, have clear incentives to ensure that the parties have explicitly consented to the options settling the dispute, as Lande advises. </p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHG3AkfcHPIXcx-8hDIyABUk0w3Vhpn_98meqcHvuQeVw2OSkH71HVirpAJhf7z3-ZBRI5zJAtBMJE0WU_lenZYv9iQkvtNyj1qOJpexQ1Hjvs0A8eU8YdGgqEM8cB_A5mLMR1BiEy1t4PWinC9JIECJcoaj2d8F6uRwydn5faLvAMrVUIfHEzoTyRmB8F/s2001/Mediation%209.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1498" data-original-width="2001" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHG3AkfcHPIXcx-8hDIyABUk0w3Vhpn_98meqcHvuQeVw2OSkH71HVirpAJhf7z3-ZBRI5zJAtBMJE0WU_lenZYv9iQkvtNyj1qOJpexQ1Hjvs0A8eU8YdGgqEM8cB_A5mLMR1BiEy1t4PWinC9JIECJcoaj2d8F6uRwydn5faLvAMrVUIfHEzoTyRmB8F/s320/Mediation%209.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p></p><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b>Inappropriate Time Pressure</b></h3><p>Finally, Lande expresses concern that the mediator can use time pressure to undermine party self-determination. This pressure takes at least two forms: attempts to hasten unnecessarily the decision making process or attempts to exhaust parties by holding marathon sessions. Both types of pressures may keep parties from seeking further advice, consulting other professionals, having time to reflect on the information obtained in the mediation, or engaging in further negotiation.</p><p>The UAE Commercial Mediation Law does not expressly address the time pressure issue.</p><p>The law contemplates "judicial mediation" for cases already in litigation and "extrajudicial mediation" for cases not yet in litigation. <i>See</i> definitions in Article 1. Provisions governing "judicial mediation" set no time limits on the length of the mediation. <i>See</i> Articles 5, 9, and 10. </p><p>However, <b>Article 23 </b>states: "The agreed mediation timeframe . . . may not exceed three months of the date of the mediator's acceptance of [the] mediation mission. Such a timeframe shall be renewable only once for a similar duration under a decision of the supervising judge," based on the parties' agreement and consistent with their Agreement to Mediate.</p><p>Thus, the UAE law allows a much longer timeframe to complete the "extrajudicial mediation" than does the Qatari law, which limits mediations to 30 days, plus one extension. And, the UAE law seemingly applies no limitation on the length of the "judicial mediation," unless perhaps specified in the court's referral of the case to mediation. These timeframes do not necessarily prevent time pressures imposed by the mediator that can undermine party self-determination.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In summary, given the lack of explicit protection of party self-determination over high-quality decision making in the mediation process under the UAE Commercial Mediation Law, program administrators should supplement it with a robust mediation ethics code that serves as a gap-filler.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGdyRFTm7TCyZvbhUsZT0iNQDCpb_PIn1QhFn6_BBGQBL51sJjPrfQ8qvn9x9yYmlb12DCPX_xNgwJuqv-ezWfxL6fnVZJyH-ReOKhZjAAZ6U49GE-RiZviIuGFZuLR4lOX3qoWZLWfVNuuQaXzE40-iLzsNOoxoGZy9YmWlIWYe6AKajpu2TXT1WHHfaj/s2392/Mediation%2011.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1252" data-original-width="2392" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGdyRFTm7TCyZvbhUsZT0iNQDCpb_PIn1QhFn6_BBGQBL51sJjPrfQ8qvn9x9yYmlb12DCPX_xNgwJuqv-ezWfxL6fnVZJyH-ReOKhZjAAZ6U49GE-RiZviIuGFZuLR4lOX3qoWZLWfVNuuQaXzE40-iLzsNOoxoGZy9YmWlIWYe6AKajpu2TXT1WHHfaj/s320/Mediation%2011.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3>Party Self-Determination over the Design of the Mediation Process</h3><p>Other articles of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law govern process or program design. They nonetheless impact party self-determination. I'll address those issues in my next two posts here and here. </p><p>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </p></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-80004772740439195172023-09-01T17:26:00.005-04:002023-12-24T16:31:01.289-05:00<p> </p><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2s8LnGCAowALNnPITjFAnXBiaBkeqzIEJXzEHotCKzJ4xTiEOP-x1-GIZFRdnSMAQxEq_iqRwj7OSvhhXd5B2heZdS_SmdNUe2qgzvuXzIHnvG8_nMiNu-evL1J9WwPi-zdk2xEAsKFf9ezD47RLykQ5Pro0Yu9jlfjGMKH-BVNDgiUikbZfYcc3lfwza/s2199/Mediation.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1859" data-original-width="2199" height="271" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2s8LnGCAowALNnPITjFAnXBiaBkeqzIEJXzEHotCKzJ4xTiEOP-x1-GIZFRdnSMAQxEq_iqRwj7OSvhhXd5B2heZdS_SmdNUe2qgzvuXzIHnvG8_nMiNu-evL1J9WwPi-zdk2xEAsKFf9ezD47RLykQ5Pro0Yu9jlfjGMKH-BVNDgiUikbZfYcc3lfwza/s320/Mediation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></b></h1><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>5/n An Analysis of the UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Party Self-Determination, Part 1</u></span></b></h1><p>So far, in analyzing the UAE's Commercial Mediation Law, I have provided posts covering:</p><p></p><ul><li>An introduction to the law and my analytical focus <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/1n-analysis-of-uaes-fed-law-no.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/2n-analysis-of-uaes-federal-law-no.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>My interest and expertise in the subject matter <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_16.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</li><li>A cultural disclaimer <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_18.html" target="_blank">here</a><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/2365527641763427790/552737546741061377" target="_blank">.</a></li><li>The definition of mediation <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/3n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and </li><li>The scope of the law <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/4n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</li></ul><div>I will now turn to how the law supports or undermines the core values of mediation recognized in the U.S. and other countries. Those core values are:</div><div></div><p></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">Party self-determination</span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">Mediator neutrality, and</span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;">Confidentiality of communications made during the process.</span></li></ul><div>For each of these discussions, I will provide one or more posts to describe the analytical framework I am using. In the next posts, I'll apply that framework to the UAE's Commercial Mediation Law.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0WW7SInAqORxb6gQ60l-6YJg1hVa5xRKMlr4jds3a1CyW8hZUbvUApORye104YmCKKX-XVzyQ5i7XVdTyc49UiKz3CyZgm-pub_BYGzGagZwdmGjJ8U2AQTiPRugcGqdftGZx88uzz-YbXTngV--_IHrPCP1tvf5YGqwXwfg-s8nLL6WSApk3kdyPDxNV/s1800/Mediators.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1800" data-original-width="1200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0WW7SInAqORxb6gQ60l-6YJg1hVa5xRKMlr4jds3a1CyW8hZUbvUApORye104YmCKKX-XVzyQ5i7XVdTyc49UiKz3CyZgm-pub_BYGzGagZwdmGjJ8U2AQTiPRugcGqdftGZx88uzz-YbXTngV--_IHrPCP1tvf5YGqwXwfg-s8nLL6WSApk3kdyPDxNV/w133-h200/Mediators.jpg" width="133" /></a></div><h3>Lande Analytical Framework for Party Self-Determination</h3><p>In 2006, I wrote the first law review article analyzing the Revised Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators created in collaboration between the American Bar Association, the Association for Conflict Resolution, and the American Arbitration Association. <i>See</i> Paula M. Young, <i>Rejoice! Rejoice! Rejoice, Give Thanks, and Sing: ABA, ACR and AAA Adopt Revised Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators</i>, 5 Appalachian J. of L. 195 (2006), available <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831495" target="_blank">here</a>. I reproduce the discussion from that article without specific quotation of the text. </p><p>In analyzing the provisions impacting party self-determination, high-quality decision making, and the quality of the process, I used a framework developed by Prof. John Lande in his law review article, <i>How Will Lawyering and Mediation Practices Transform Each Other?</i>, 24 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 839 (1997), available <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2560514" target="_blank">here</a>. In the following discussion, I have omitted footnote references to his article.<br /></p><p>Professor John Lande invites us to think about party self-determination and mediator interventions that may undermine it, by thinking of the parties’ opportunity to exercise “high-quality decision making.” The idea captures the concepts of individual-level party empowerment and party decision making responsibility. He defines high-quality decision making “as a condition in which a principal has exercised his or her responsibility for making decisions in a dispute by considering the situation sufficiently and without excessive pressure.” </p><p>He identifies seven factors affecting the quality of party decision making:</p><p>"The factors include: (1) explicit identification of the principal's goals and interests, (2) explicit identification of plausible options for satisfying these interests, (3) the principal's explicit selection of options for evaluation, (4) careful consideration of these options, (5) mediators' restraint in pressuring principals to accept particular substantive options, (6) limitation on the use of time pressure, and (7) confirmation of principals' consent to selected options."</p><p>Parties need these protections. Interference with a party’s self-determination, by offering legal advice; by giving legal opinions; by recommending settlement; or by engaging in more overt acts of coercion, formed the most frequent allegation against mediators in grievance complaints filed by unhappy mediation parties in Florida and Georgia, U.S.A. Interference with party self-determination was the second most frequent allegation in complaints filed against Virginia mediators. <i>See</i> Paula M. Young, T<i>ake it or Leave it. Lump it or Grieve it: Designing Mediator Complaint Systems that Protect Mediators, Unhappy Parties, Attorneys, Courts, the Process, and the Field</i>, 21 Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol. 721 (2006), available <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445" target="_blank">here</a>.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUDgGnmyYkpMtAmYAGBH5EV3nn7BnhfULjUcs3-TaY5Rrpt2yrnh-6CLM6Jm94xTXHPKkN7DcqlhEm0J1WS7cKUQUnFBSYU0Rg61lQxVapCAUNpBbXBmJSaggbOeD4nV3ROHJ_SMv7aiECo7Pwo0O4fhHi9xRry5Z-OwPru83H-TZJFKwipOnLvLywoFyh/s2121/Mediation%202.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUDgGnmyYkpMtAmYAGBH5EV3nn7BnhfULjUcs3-TaY5Rrpt2yrnh-6CLM6Jm94xTXHPKkN7DcqlhEm0J1WS7cKUQUnFBSYU0Rg61lQxVapCAUNpBbXBmJSaggbOeD4nV3ROHJ_SMv7aiECo7Pwo0O4fhHi9xRry5Z-OwPru83H-TZJFKwipOnLvLywoFyh/s320/Mediation%202.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p></p><h3>Explicit Identification of the Principal’s Goals and Interests</h3>Lande notes that mediators enhance the quality of decision making by exploring the parties’ goals and interests to “an appropriate extent under the circumstances."<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFfm0nE3zX9ijQagkN__d9qsSsepJrDOmmGwMvxVm8DW6DXNM3m342Xyr6_h0gd7cjv1TX2qU8C9m5dl3SpAuzVdWheKfkdQ38CYp6U0V9SNoacCtnI6W3ZJ2bXIIQNXLBTWDJr_jT_xQeH_RGawvv-2KPSDb4U92G7j7xByAz5goJo64JTFs1e_R_rwMk/s1732/Mediation%203.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1732" data-original-width="1732" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFfm0nE3zX9ijQagkN__d9qsSsepJrDOmmGwMvxVm8DW6DXNM3m342Xyr6_h0gd7cjv1TX2qU8C9m5dl3SpAuzVdWheKfkdQ38CYp6U0V9SNoacCtnI6W3ZJ2bXIIQNXLBTWDJr_jT_xQeH_RGawvv-2KPSDb4U92G7j7xByAz5goJo64JTFs1e_R_rwMk/s320/Mediation%203.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><h3>Explicit Identification of Plausible Options for Satisfying these Interests and the Principal’s Explicit Selection of Options for Evaluation</h3><p>Lande next asserts that the quality of a party’s decision making can be undermined when he or she fails to identify plausible options. He believes that a mediator can play a very active role in suggesting options, “if done properly.” He recognizes that parties may only have the time and resources to focus on the plausible options for the most important issues or interests they seek to resolve or satisfy. </p><p>Similarly, the quality of a party’s decision making may depend on the options they choose to consider. Here, he expresses concern about mediators who may “implicitly or explicitly steer the principals to focus on one option over another without their consent.” But, he also suggests that in some situations a mediator may ask the parties to focus on a certain option so long as they “do so explicitly and with limited pressure on the principals to accept the mediators’ suggestions.”</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj29h-9Fxe975t11OZ_Gt1_CjIaIG_Vh2MARsKLG9xC47H5tYUDgx7F1qquLpoVnWI2s4gPiSXDD6hKpHG4qENkC-DJ54C-K-NIce5FqVEW191Px7CrF0GcAOSQm-doEr23D3RIHun4RFTKsm8SPMgGSnEODdeKndwgHKF-fDd7KecHfx7LotnibFce3TBc/s2448/Mediation%204.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1224" data-original-width="2448" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj29h-9Fxe975t11OZ_Gt1_CjIaIG_Vh2MARsKLG9xC47H5tYUDgx7F1qquLpoVnWI2s4gPiSXDD6hKpHG4qENkC-DJ54C-K-NIce5FqVEW191Px7CrF0GcAOSQm-doEr23D3RIHun4RFTKsm8SPMgGSnEODdeKndwgHKF-fDd7KecHfx7LotnibFce3TBc/s320/Mediation%204.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Careful Consideration of the Options</span></b></p><div><p>Lande next suggests that parties must be able to evaluate the options using appropriate information. They must also be able to measure the pros and cons of any option. Lande suggests that mediators can assist parties in this process by eliciting “realistic . . . estimates of the likely costs and consequences of trial.” </p><p>But, he asserts that mediators compromise high-quality decision making when they portray the litigation process as entirely negative or when they exaggerate the risks of litigation. </p><p>However, Lande suggests that a mediator could increase the quality of decision making if he gave an opinion about the likely outcome in the pending case or in similar cases, but only after the parties explicitly invite the evaluation. The mediator would nonetheless need to present the information without putting pressure on the parties to accept a specific option.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYkRmaRqgH3TO0pPQynlUCOkUwVW7tGVM6ClUSnihQZwHWUQ2hMdsm98bSPm_4ABWwFEF5IlEtCCGdSQbi2guTWU3G7TP0XxiKh06IhDes5V68c6EkG_fuv9soJVdkdiARbGhTgQnsqwZPX7ZrMVM4Pn2ROa3RzqBIpHgSqpU9B1t1lI_jUI7odgDl_fd9/s2121/Mediation%206.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYkRmaRqgH3TO0pPQynlUCOkUwVW7tGVM6ClUSnihQZwHWUQ2hMdsm98bSPm_4ABWwFEF5IlEtCCGdSQbi2guTWU3G7TP0XxiKh06IhDes5V68c6EkG_fuv9soJVdkdiARbGhTgQnsqwZPX7ZrMVM4Pn2ROa3RzqBIpHgSqpU9B1t1lI_jUI7odgDl_fd9/s320/Mediation%206.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><h3 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Mediators’ Restraint in Pressuring Principals to Accept Particular Substantive Options</span></b></h3>Lande expresses increased concern when a mediator pressures parties to substitute the mediator’s judgment for their own about a preferred option as it affects the ultimate outcome of the mediation. The pressure may take the form of a threat to report a party’s recalcitrance to a judge. A mediator can apply more subtle pressure, Lande suggests, by threatening to withdraw his or her respect for the party. He also fears that mediators may assume that settling, per se, has greater value than not settling. As a result of this outcome bias, they may hinder a party’s decision to withdraw from the mediation and pursue his or her constitutional right to trial.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha7F_S1JeTYxQHr3ZFYUZBq4zL5dDccOslSCg_tYjAkH8xbhXjbgTiIN_kn7epdJr72uK9kEKqV_P4pDIAbO8VsIozVt40oTGGXmrIr71CaMC2I38fqk1ixePvnEVG3zoUYTlPYgB62cJGdi4qtFn2glSNVdH2998s-mCtlze_-HtCHiJHueYn0EgGQoXh/s2120/Mediation%205.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2120" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha7F_S1JeTYxQHr3ZFYUZBq4zL5dDccOslSCg_tYjAkH8xbhXjbgTiIN_kn7epdJr72uK9kEKqV_P4pDIAbO8VsIozVt40oTGGXmrIr71CaMC2I38fqk1ixePvnEVG3zoUYTlPYgB62cJGdi4qtFn2glSNVdH2998s-mCtlze_-HtCHiJHueYn0EgGQoXh/s320/Mediation%205.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3>Limitation on the use of Time Pressure</h3><div><p>Lande also considers the role time pressure can play in undermining high-quality decision making. Time pressures can impair a person’s judgment. They may arise externally if, for instance, a case is set soon for trial. A mediator’s effort to remind people of the external time pressure, in this context, may enhance the quality of decision making in the mediation process. </p><p>Lande fears, however, that mediators will create time constraints to pressure parties. This pressure takes at least two forms: attempts to hasten unnecessarily the decision making process or attempts to exhaust parties by holding marathon sessions. Both types of pressures may keep parties from seeking further advice, consulting other professionals, having time to reflect on the information obtained in the mediation, or engaging in further negotiation.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3N5h9L8IdabEYsQNpxfy9mn7Z3-iWFGpU-6ZLXjBwbdq8kypFN3D64Y3MNGve9sFqO3JRxt34huF2KsRQ9DKPrse-iWzGofJboCqxuZU6hob6vjM3op599SmJo-3uTJgLsWzJqCudKT5vSKODUqxi_LLyklbwfS-xF_6uvmzSaKL9U4fgQZQP352KkioQ/s1732/Mediation%207.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1732" data-original-width="1732" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3N5h9L8IdabEYsQNpxfy9mn7Z3-iWFGpU-6ZLXjBwbdq8kypFN3D64Y3MNGve9sFqO3JRxt34huF2KsRQ9DKPrse-iWzGofJboCqxuZU6hob6vjM3op599SmJo-3uTJgLsWzJqCudKT5vSKODUqxi_LLyklbwfS-xF_6uvmzSaKL9U4fgQZQP352KkioQ/s320/Mediation%207.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3>Confirmation Of Principals’ Consent to Selected Options</h3>Finally, Lande says mediators can enhance the quality of a party’s decision making by taking time to learn whether a party understands the proposed agreement, needs additional information, or needs to consult with another professional. A mediator needs to take special care, at this stage of the process, when a party seems ambivalent, cautious, or uncertain.</div><div><br /></div><div>As noted above, in my next post, I'll apply this framework to the UAE's Commercial Mediation Law. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. <br /><div><br /></div></div></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-75858602749052374082023-08-21T17:49:00.006-04:002023-12-24T16:30:42.526-05:00<p> </p><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrdPM16SFOAHs0vH1Drlfdw1d-8qYofKCf2Xy9WngP13Tvwasy5XEnYDO6kriirLxKkZuomoAZIjTgnB8GymRrJCdP5R7piA1iQgbOvZ3ts8HdMTosU8u8Tq9b5jEDNSDQFMHn-WoWp4NbJOHrVpumnF2cjAq22dC1aiChAxkju0woY592B7NtULbFo-4-/s1732/Symbol%201.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1732" data-original-width="1732" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgrdPM16SFOAHs0vH1Drlfdw1d-8qYofKCf2Xy9WngP13Tvwasy5XEnYDO6kriirLxKkZuomoAZIjTgnB8GymRrJCdP5R7piA1iQgbOvZ3ts8HdMTosU8u8Tq9b5jEDNSDQFMHn-WoWp4NbJOHrVpumnF2cjAq22dC1aiChAxkju0woY592B7NtULbFo-4-/s320/Symbol%201.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></b></h1><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>4/n An Analysis of UAE’s Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Its Scope</u></span></b></h1><p>As one law firm <a href="https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2021/09/uaes-landmark-mediation-law" target="_blank">explains</a>: </p><div><blockquote>Formal mediation options for commercial disputes have . . . existed for some time in the UAE. Both the <a href="https://www.abudhabichamber.ae/The-Legal-Services">Abu Dhabi</a> and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210624085204/https://www.dubaichamber.com/what-we-do/legal-and-policy-support/legal-services/">Dubai</a> chambers of commerce offer mediation services to members, the Centre for Amicable Resolution of Disputes in Dubai provides compulsory mediation services for smaller claims and optional mediation for larger ones (Dubai Law No. 16 of 2009, as amended by Administrative Resolution No. 1 of 2017 and Administrative Resolution No. (51) of 2020), and mediation is available under rules applicable in the <a href="https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/practice-directions/practice-note-no-1-of-2021-referral-of-cases-to-mediation">Dubai International Financial Centre Court</a> and <a href="https://www.adgm.com/adgm-courts/alternative-dispute-resolution">Abu Dhabi Global Market Court</a>.</blockquote><blockquote>The UAE [Commercial] Mediation Law [No. 6 of 2021] is landmark legislation. It creates a comprehensive regulatory structure for mediation throughout the UAE for the first time, ensuring that a consistent framework applies in all emirates.</blockquote><p>UAE Federal Law No. 26 of 1999, on the Establishment of Conciliation and Reconciliation Committees at the Federal Courts, also played a role in building the infrastructure for mediation in UAE. A copy of this law is available <a href="https://seafarersrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ARE_LEGISLATION_FEDERAL-LAW-NO-26-OF-1999_ENG.pdf">here</a>. The law established three-member committees, associated with courts of First Instance (the trial courts), charged with the power to "settle civil, commercial and labor disputes of whatever value in addition to disputes of undetermined value. . . ." (Articles 1&2.)</p></div><p><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Scope, Venue, and Public Policy </span></b><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Limitations of Federal Law No. 6 of 2021</b></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: medium;">I would call the UAE Commercial Mediation Law "authorizing" legislation. It allows courts to enforce agreements to mediate, refer parties to mediation, and enforce any settlement agreements arising from mediation. It generally covers mediator qualifications, selection of a mediator, the mediator's role, the maximum length of sessions to ensure that if the process fails, the litigation can proceed on a timely basis, and confidentiality of mediation communications.</span></span></p><p><span>Article 2 of the new law sets out its scope. It provides:</span></p><p><span></span></p><blockquote><p><span>Mediation may take place in respect of all disputes on which conciliation is possible, in such a manner that does not go against the applicable legislation, public order or public morals in the State, subject to the local laws that regulate mediation provisions.</span></p><p><span>Mediation may involve the matter of dispute in whole or in part.</span></p><p><span>The provisions of this Law shall apply if the mediation is administered within the State or where the dispute is subject to an international commercial mediation or conciliation execute abroad yet the parties agree to render it subject to this Law.</span></p><p><span>The provisions of this Law shall not apply in case of prior recourse to the procedures described in the above-referenced Federal Law No. [17] of 2016 as amended.</span></p></blockquote><p><span></span></p><h3><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Oddly left out of this article is a discussion of the substantive scope of the law. The title of the law and the definition of "Mediation" provide this information. The definition, discussed in detail <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/3n-analysis-of-uaes-commercial.html" target="_blank">here</a>, limits its scope to "civil and </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">commercial</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> disputes that arise or might arise between the parties to a contractual or non-contractual legal relationship . . . ." (Article 1). This language is far more general than the language found in the Qatari </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">mediation</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> law, discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_21.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></span></h3><p><span>The Mediation Law clearly omits application to family law disputes. I'd like readers to comment on whether other UAE laws govern mediation in this context. In the U.S., family mediation is a separate area of practice that requires specific training for mediators. Many family courts in the U.S. routinely refer divorcing parties to mediation to resolve asset distributions and co-parenting responsibilities.</span></p><h3>More on Scope</h3><div><b>Additional Flexibility for Parties</b></div><p><span>Article 2 of the UAE Commercial Mediation Law provides two provisions that offer parties more options to use it.</span></p><p><span>First, parties can mediate just a part of the dispute. Often a gateway issue exists that, once resolved, will allow a negotiated settlement of the entire dispute. Thus, parties can save time and expense by agreeing to limit the scope of the mediation to one or more issues.</span></p><p>Second, the UAE Commercial Mediation Law, like the Qatari law, applies if the parties agree to mediate in the UAE (even if the dispute arises abroad) or if they mediate abroad but agree that the UAE Mediation Law will apply. This provision supports party control over the law governing the mediation. Accordingly, the original contract between the parties may designate that the UAE Mediation Law apply, usually pursuant to a general statement of applicable law or by way of a more specific ADR clause. But, a separate mediation agreement, negotiated before or after the dispute arises, could also specify that the UAE Mediation Law would apply. Article 3 specifically contemplates this situation. </p><p>As a side note, international mediated settlement agreements not made expressly subject to this law would not be enforced under it. (<i>see</i> Article 18). However, UAE officials promised in 2022 that the country would become a signatory to the <a href="https://www.singaporeconvention.org" target="_blank">Singapore Convention on Mediation</a>. However, as of August 2023, it has not become a signatory. </p><h4>Exemptions</h4><p>Unlike the Qatari law, which had a long list of exemptions from mediation under Article 3, the UAE Mediation law has only two exemptions. </p><p>First, it excludes the mediation of disputes that "go against applicable legislation, public order or public morals in the State . . . ." While this language is vague, it expresses a value found in other jurisdictions. For example, in the U.S., most, if not all, state statutes preclude mediation of disputes arising from unlawful contracts. Accordingly, the parties could not mediate a dispute involving the sale of illegal drugs or prostitution. But, this subpart seems to limit mediation in other contexts, as well. Courts will need to flesh out the scope of this exception. I suggest courts interpret it narrowly.</p><p>The next exemption provides: "The provisions of this Law shall not apply in case of prior recourse to the procedures described in the above-referenced Federal Law No. [17] of 2016 as amended." A copy of this law, entitled "On the Establishment of Mediation and Conciliation Centres in Civil and Commercial Disputes," appears <a href="https://lexmena.com/law/en_fed~2016-10-16_00017_2020-01-27/" target="_blank">here</a>. That law permits mediation of civil and commercial disputes valued at less that AED 500,000 (about $ 136,000) or of non-estimated value. The mediation centres law exempts: </p><p></p><blockquote>"(1) Urgent and temporary orders and lawsuits; (2) Lawsuits in which the Government is a party; (3) Rent lawsuits settled by committees specialized in rental disputes; (4) Labour disputes; (5) Personal status lawsuits, and (6) Any other lawsuits decided to be settled before another Centre, committee, or entity of similar competence."</blockquote><p></p><div><p>Given the limitation of my familiarity with UAE laws, I invite lawyers practicing in UAE to post comments providing additional information about these exemptions. For example, how many of the disputes exempted from the scope of Federal Law No. 17 of 2016 could be mediated under Federal Law No. 6 of 2021 given its broad applicability to civil and commercial disputes that arise by contract or through another legal relationship? Are commercial lawsuits with the Government subject to mediation now? </p><h3>Why this Matters</h3><p>One law firm has <a href="https://www.tamimi.com/law-update-articles/mediation-in-the-middle-east-before-and-after-the-singapore-convention/">suggested</a> that the Singapore Convention alerted officials to the need to "bring their national laws in line with their obligations under the . . . Convention . . . ." Accordingly, "signatories in the [Arab Gulf] region will have to amend or, as in most cases, introduce dedicated standalone national laws on mediation." </p><p>As the UAE builds the infrastructure to support modern mediation, it makes sense that laws would focus early on civil and commercial dispute mediation. People bringing these claims will often have experienced counsel who are familiar with mediation. Parties may wish to resolve the case quickly using a facilitated negotiation process. Mediation can resolve disputes more efficiently and more cheaply than litigation or arbitration. In addition, mediation is better at preserving business relationships. In the hands of a skillful mediator, the parties can repair the existing relationship and enhance future business opportunities. Or, they can terminate the relationship with fewer regrets, less blame, and less resentment. </p><p> Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </p></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-62423393398222476202023-08-20T19:04:00.004-04:002023-12-24T16:30:24.238-05:00<p> </p><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4kGmwSY7HWuRtnettA9aRoibIUpMR31eAnKuMa2rrmGwognMb4UvhaJUZ9rl770OMq5YTqYh_b-TQN2dZ6PWXfmCDgQHjwbkmXjutcO33N87h900kXNRHbfNhLDI552fwuo7HKr3C8Ajt6j3WlnXQuRDQq1iGrmr4QeaD_LvtFavRqnI95vrPm-Y6SQdZ/s1999/Reading%201.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1999" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4kGmwSY7HWuRtnettA9aRoibIUpMR31eAnKuMa2rrmGwognMb4UvhaJUZ9rl770OMq5YTqYh_b-TQN2dZ6PWXfmCDgQHjwbkmXjutcO33N87h900kXNRHbfNhLDI552fwuo7HKr3C8Ajt6j3WlnXQuRDQq1iGrmr4QeaD_LvtFavRqnI95vrPm-Y6SQdZ/s320/Reading%201.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></b></h1><h1><b><span style="font-size: large;"><u>3/n An Analysis of UAE’s Commercial Mediation Law, Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, The Definition of Mediation</u></span></b></h1><p><span>UAE's new mediation law defines "Mediation" in Article 1 as: "An optional and alternative method for amicable settlement of civil and commercial disputes that arise or might arise between the parties to a contractual or non-contractual legal relationship, through engaging a neutral Third Party [Mediator]. Mediation may be a judicial or extrajudicial nature."</span></p><p>Ok, this definition is somewhat better than the definition of mediation found in the Qatari mediation law, discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_19.html">here</a>. </p><p>First, what are the two terms used in the last clause?</p><p>"Judicial mediation: A form of mediation sought by the parties to have their dispute resolved after having first resorted to litigation, and at any stage of the case." My guess? This term will become frequently used when later provisions discuss court management of the dispute while it enters, proceeds through, and exits the mediation process. </p><p>"Extrajudicial mediation: A form of mediation directly sought by the parties to have their dispute resolved before they resort to litigation, in enforcement of the Mediation Agreement." I'll talk about the Mediation Agreement in a later post. But, interestingly, unlike the Qatari law, this law contemplates pre-litigation mediation. Thus, it's scope is necessarily broader. And, its purpose exceeds legitimizing the power of courts to refer parties to mediation. Instead, the focus for extrajudicial mediation is upon the language of the Mediation Agreement. </p><p>Moreover, the definition contemplates pre-dispute mediation. Thus, a party who sees a dispute coming could trigger a mediation under this law. Perhaps they need a change order because of increasing costs, labor shortages, or <i>force majeure</i> conditions. Or, perhaps a supply chain issue makes timely performance questionable. Just today, I learned that over 200 cargo ships are stuck on either side of the Panama Canal because drought has lowered water levels in the canal system making ship traffic dangerous. Basically, the law gives contractual parties a forum and a facilitator to help them resolve contractual performance issues before parties escalate the conflict and damage the relationship. </p><p>I am curious to see if this more sophisticated thinking about the process continues throughout the law. Stay tuned. </p><h3>Sample Definitions of Mediation</h3><p>Before I discuss this definition, I'd like to share some definitions I use in my law school courses in the class introducing mediation to them: </p><p></p><ul><li>“Mediation is simply a negotiation conducted with the assistance of a third party….[T]he mediator has no decision-making power, maintains strict confidentiality and involves the clients deeply in the settlement process.” HAROLD ABRAMSON, MEDIATION REPRESENTATION (2004) at 67-68.</li></ul><ul><li>“Mediation is an extension or elaboration of the negotiating process that involves the intervention of an acceptable third-party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power. This person assists the principle parties in voluntarily reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of the issues in dispute. [M]ediation leaves the decision- making power primarily in the hands of the people in conflict. . . . Mediation is usually initiated when the parties no longer believe that they can handle the conflict on their own . . . .” CHRISTOPHER W. MOORE, THE MEDIATION PROCESS: PRACTICAL STRATEGIES FOR RESOLVING CONFLICT 8 (2d ed. 1996) (creator of Sphere of Conflict).</li></ul><ul><li>“Mediation is the feminine face of dispute resolution. Mediation is not the cause but a product of significant changes in society, and it is the beneficiary of a trend away from confrontation toward problem solving and beyond to mutual respect and wider gain. There is widespread evidence that people do not lose their human characteristics when they become litigants – that they prefer processes in which they have an opportunity for choice and for significant participation, particularly a chance to tell their stories.” BARBARA A. PHILLIPS, MEDIATION FIELD GUIDE: TRANSCENDING LITIGATION AND RESOLVING CONFLICTS IN YOUR BUSINESS OR ORGANIZATION xiv (2001) (former U.S. Attorney).</li></ul><ul><li>“Mediation’ means a process in which a neutral facilitates communication between the parties and, without deciding the issues or imposing a solution on the parties, enables them to understand and resolve their dispute.” VA. Code. §8.01-576.4.</li></ul><ul><li>“Imagine, if you will, a jigsaw puzzle in which the pieces can autonomously change their shape. The person attempting to solve such a puzzle has to continuously adjust his or her vision of how the pieces might align themselves to make a whole. Mediators are, in some ways, trying to solve such a puzzle. They seek to understand, with the same degree of attachment as the person solving the puzzle, the manner and extent to which the parties are willing to adjust their positions to fit those of the other parties, and yet paradoxically they can do so only by involving themselves in a deeply personal way with the parties.” DANIEL BOWLING & DAVID HOFFMAN, BRINGING PEACE INTO THE ROOM: HOW THE PERSONAL QUALITIES OF THE MEDIATOR IMPACT THE PROCESS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION 40 (2003).</li></ul><ul><li>“For some of us, mediation means negotiating a cease-fire, while for others it is facilitating a settlement, ending a dispute, resolving the underlying reasons people are fighting in the first place, transforming the parties, dismantling dysfunctional systems, promoting compromise, encouraging dialogue, ending litigation, coaching parties to let go and move on, promoting forgiveness, empowering dialogue, recommending solutions, or achieving reconciliation.” <i>Id</i>. at 52.</li></ul><h3>Essential Elements of a Definition</h3><div>These iterations of the definition highlight several aspects of mediation:</div><div><ul><li>The use of a third-party neutral who has no decision-making power, but helps the parties communicate, identify interests and issues, enhance understanding between them, negotiate, and resolve the dispute.</li><li>The parties retain the decision-making authority and work to reach a mutually acceptable settlement agreement.</li><li>The mediator has no power to impose a solution on the parties, unlike arbitration.</li><li>The process is subject to broad rules of confidentiality. </li></ul><h3>Shortcomings of the Definition in Qatari Mediation Law</h3><div>Now, let's look again at the UAE law's definition of Mediation. </div><div><br /></div><div>Unlike the Qatari law, it mentions the use of a third-party neutral. </div><div><br /></div><div>It does not attempt to define the role of the mediator (as facilitator), or conversely limit his or her role when it comes to option generation or decision-making. The drafters probably thought other parts of the law would fill this gap. </div><div><br /></div><div>The definition of "Mediator," is not sufficient in further defining or limiting the mediator's role. That definition states that a Mediator is "[e]ach natural or legal person engaged by the Parties to perform a mediation mission for amicable resolution of their dispute, whether such mediator is a private mediator or is included in the Center's mediator lists."</div><div><br /></div><div>It does reinforce the aspirational goal of mediation that it is an "amicable" process (compared to what?). But, I have been involved in some very unamicable mediations that still settled the dispute. Perhaps a better word choice would be "voluntary means of settling disputes." </div></div><div><br /></div><div>By reinforcing the role of the parties to reach "a settlement" it does reflect a core value of mediation, that of party self-determination. I will focus on this core value in later posts.</div><div><br /></div><div>In short, the drafters could improve this definition to highlight the voluntary and confidential nature of the process and the mediator's facilitative role.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-39933428560429763422023-08-18T18:23:00.005-04:002023-12-24T16:29:52.037-05:00<p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBtVyeKxs6eUMwepmIQ5UTTheTgM73cHjpLDiJl9Wo20hjqNr7nlV124QTfISRYFjrGPc6I-pXQ6Y3qEV6LDjl_Z7PMHZiXA0va3xp6WbKro9XtcyzIU0p4GbBI9KP9ZdoPnfxngmQWW74D9uF2nowEjDHCE77-mpmSvUZ8yaOS_rGkabVenl6uVq9Rh_h/s2147/UAE%20Dubai%20Skyline.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1397" data-original-width="2147" height="237" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBtVyeKxs6eUMwepmIQ5UTTheTgM73cHjpLDiJl9Wo20hjqNr7nlV124QTfISRYFjrGPc6I-pXQ6Y3qEV6LDjl_Z7PMHZiXA0va3xp6WbKro9XtcyzIU0p4GbBI9KP9ZdoPnfxngmQWW74D9uF2nowEjDHCE77-mpmSvUZ8yaOS_rGkabVenl6uVq9Rh_h/w365-h237/UAE%20Dubai%20Skyline.jpg" width="365" /></a></div><h1><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></span></h1><h1><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>2/n An Analysis of UAE’s Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, Mediation of Civil and Commercial Disputes: Introduction and Table of Contents</u></b></span></span></h1><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><b>Introduction</b></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Over the past four years, several countries in the Arab Gulf have created laws supporting commercial mediation in the region. I summarized those laws for a conference in May 2023, and my slides are available <a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/113WJEq7lAplSiuCkINLOUumVSapLtPOD/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">My plan is to analyze these laws over the next several months.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Beginning in March 2023, I started analyzing the new commercial mediation law in Qatar available <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1A4vicqTf6qx4p3mB14KxLP9LvAf0zu_u/view?usp=drive_link" target="_blank">here</a>. The first of 16 posts</span></span>, with a table of contents, <span style="font-family: inherit;">appears </span><a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">. The series offers more than a paraphrasing of the law. Instead, it provides context and critique of the law. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Admittedly, I am analyzing the laws in the Gulf through my own experience as a </span><a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_16.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">leader in the mediation field</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> of the United States. At the same time, I am mindful of the </span><a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_18.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">cultural lens</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> I am using and its limits when applied in an Arab Gulf context. In any event, I hope my analysis fosters thought, clarification, and perhaps modification of the laws emerging in the region. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">On April 29, 2021, UAE President Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan signed Federal Law No. 6 of 2021, entitled "On Mediation in Civil and Commercial Disputes." This law provides an important part of the “infrastructure” needed to expand the use of high-quality mediation services in the region as I discussed <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/08/1n-analysis-of-uaes-fed-law-no.html" target="_blank">here</a>.</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> The law contains 29 articles. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">A copy of the Westlaw Middle East English-language version of the law is available <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RBhmuZJF-jrXUjzYaRDjCgpxNqSS5guu/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>. </span>An Arabic version of the law should be available at www.almeezan the legal portal for UAE laws.</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><b>Table of Contents</b></span></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><br /></b></span></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Over the next several weeks, I will analyze the law and assess its strengths and weaknesses using the same approach I took with the Qatari commercial mediation law. I'll use this post as a table of contents and provide links to the topics discussed as I create the posts. </span></p><p style="font-size: medium;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;">First, I'll cover <span style="font-family: inherit;">the following topics:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"></p><ul style="font-size: medium;"><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">the definition of mediation found in Article 1 and how it compares to other descriptions of the process, and<span> </span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">the scope of the law and the types of disputes subject to its provisions.</span></li></ul><p style="font-size: medium;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Then, I will analyze how the law supports or undermines the core values of mediation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"></p><ul style="font-size: medium;"><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Party self-determination,</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediator impartiality, and</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Confidentiality of communications made during the process.</span></span></li></ul><div style="font-size: medium;">Finally, I consider:<br /><ul><li>the court's management of the litigated case,</li><li>the final settlement agreement,</li><li>the mediator's fees and expenses, and</li><li>Mediator misconduct.</li></ul></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">These posts also explore the following topics:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"></p><ul style="font-size: medium;"><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The mediation agreement</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Judicial referral powers</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Timing of the process</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Tolling of litigation procedures during mediation</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Selection of mediators</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Withdrawal, recusal, or dismissal of the mediator</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Opting out of the process</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Joint and caucus sessions, and</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size: 12pt; text-indent: -0.25in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Use of fact experts and legal evaluators.</span></span></li></ul><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">I want to thank Wolf von Kumberg, President of Global Resolution Resources LLC, <a href="http://www.globalresolutionservices.com/">http://www.globalresolutionservices.com/</a>, for providing me with the English-language version of the law.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: medium; margin: 0in;"><o:p><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span></o:p></p><p style="font-size: medium;"><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:0in;
margin-left:.5in;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:834688114;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-981199374 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1167671476;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-227127384 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693 67698689 67698691 67698693;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
font-family:Wingdings;}
-->
</style></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: white; font-family: inherit;">If you would like a copy of either version of the law, please send me a message or a connection request through LinkedIn at <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulamarieyoung">www.linkedin.com/in/paulamarieyoung</a>.</span></p></span></span></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-50125318679199470312023-08-17T18:38:00.003-04:002023-12-24T16:29:23.988-05:00<p> </p><h1><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPNUEaC_D85dLExh0_GmOkd1gwWYhi4_4l1FLlBoxSmQMI-JJLsjRH5dyOn2PJbN2dzLsn8Z2L3gfDnRA4YqZG6TSvBhSdiET847u359Cc8wEkRU7kSpUZ8OvTTNIAx2qr6VmrZyAYwIcYnOJFooB_7pF3ZLmICfORwL3e1FEWp9meOaX55Q-j7ThBzaG/s2225/GettyImages-514521208.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1347" data-original-width="2225" height="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyPNUEaC_D85dLExh0_GmOkd1gwWYhi4_4l1FLlBoxSmQMI-JJLsjRH5dyOn2PJbN2dzLsn8Z2L3gfDnRA4YqZG6TSvBhSdiET847u359Cc8wEkRU7kSpUZ8OvTTNIAx2qr6VmrZyAYwIcYnOJFooB_7pF3ZLmICfORwL3e1FEWp9meOaX55Q-j7ThBzaG/s320/GettyImages-514521208.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></b></span></span></h1><h1><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><u>1/n An Analysis of UAE’s Fed Law No. 6 of 2021, Mediation of Civil and Commercial Disputes: The Role of New Laws</u></b></span></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;">I've been reading a law review article that updates and expands on the "vanishing trial" in courts of the United States. In the U.S., the number of civil trials has dropped precipitously. From 1947 to 1985, the typical federal judge tried 1.7 civil cases per month. In 2015, that number had dropped to about 0.4 civil trials a month. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;">The author asserts that U.S. courts are in the fourth era of civil procedure, with the last era beginning in 1976 with the Pound Conference. That conference ushered in the modern alternative dispute resolution (ADR) movement. He explains:</p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"></p><blockquote>It makes sense that a broad-based ADR movement found traction only after [the chief judge of the United States Supreme Court] and the courts generally offered their imprimatur. States have a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercive force. In the context of dispute resolution, governments alone have authority to vindicate rights and to assign responsibilities. Without the infrastructure provided by courts, participation in ADR would be optional, ADR neutrals would have no meaningful authority, and the outcomes of many ADR proceedings would be non-binding and unenforceable.</blockquote><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Thomas O. Mann, <i>Mediation: An Unlikely Villain</i>, 34 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 537 (2019). </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">This quote especially resonated with me because of a comment made by a participant at a mediation conference held in Abu Dhabi on May 31, 2023, sponsored by ICC/CEDR/WIPO. The participant, a lawyer in the local office of a large international law firm, complained that any new legislation involving mediation was not at all needed and created too much regulatory formality. He and his sophisticated clients were quite capable of selecting a qualified mediator, designing the mediation process, executing the agreement to mediate, and writing and signing any final settlement agreement. He apparently assumed that both parties would perform the settlement agreement problem-free. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">I pushed back. Not all mediations involve sophisticated parties or competent lawyers. Some 20 years after entering the field, I still explain what mediation is to people who hear me use the term. Not all parties know how to pick a qualified mediator with the needed experience to handle their particular dispute. They may not know much about the mediation agreement. They may struggle with writing the settlement agreement. They may not know how to enforce it if one of the parties does not live up to his or her obligations under it. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">As I said this to the audience, I was thinking of the 30,000 cases Wolf von Kumberg had just said were now being handled annually in the UK by CEDR through mediation. Without an appropriate "infrastructure" for mediation by this third-party provider, many parties would not experience a high-quality resolution of their dispute. Their access to justice could be a failed promise.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">More importantly, perhaps, new laws give the courts instructions and powers they may not otherwise feel confident to exercise. New laws give them explicit powers to refer parties to mediation. New laws give courts guidelines for handling the case while it moves into, through, and out of the mediation process. It also gives them power to enforce a final mediated settlement agreement or void it for well-known reasons of capacity or fraud. The new laws provide a case management tool many courts will welcome. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">So, as I look at the recent activity to approve laws governing mediation in the Arab Gulf region, including the UAE, I greatly appreciate the role these new laws play in the justice system. I also wonder if these new laws signal a new era of civil procedure. Will a modern mediation movement significantly change the role of courts in the region? What will the legal landscape look like in another 20 years?</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Also, this reminder: The 2021 law has now been replaced by Federal Decree-Law No. 40/2023 On Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes, issued on September 28, 2023, and effective 90 days after its publication, which is some time in December 2023. A copy of the English-language version is available <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/13R6G9SNKFu3XZ_iNscB6tlk8N7u_NZ9v/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=106582600830299084704&rtpof=true&sd=true">here</a>. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0in;"><br /></p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-26119312310696464142023-05-21T16:02:00.001-04:002023-05-21T16:23:37.346-04:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfu3PtbrPHBajirNwa0Wj6nxV7D0gWmdDRkrGKyOSjnIM39Hkyk9rICkK_FuGGq0hMSW3G7hBpA8y9TJ7SFVg7ultH0lq4iGV2xEdCZVB2FCiqDoSWDrk1BlZnhtc6MwtZ9Xc17uJCd2gBUzb7NGTCfvHOgK0oI1blRC5wMmhGki5ic430Vto-cRlNlQ/s2121/GettyImages-1418970241.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfu3PtbrPHBajirNwa0Wj6nxV7D0gWmdDRkrGKyOSjnIM39Hkyk9rICkK_FuGGq0hMSW3G7hBpA8y9TJ7SFVg7ultH0lq4iGV2xEdCZVB2FCiqDoSWDrk1BlZnhtc6MwtZ9Xc17uJCd2gBUzb7NGTCfvHOgK0oI1blRC5wMmhGki5ic430Vto-cRlNlQ/s320/GettyImages-1418970241.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: large;">16/16 An Analysis of Qatar’s Mediation Law No. 20 of 2021, Mediator Misconduct</span></u></span></b></span></h1><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Background</span></u></span></b></span></h2><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">I</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;">n 2006, I published a book-length article analyzing grievances filed against </span><span style="font-size: 14.666667px;">mediators</span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> in five U.S. states with robust complaint systems. <i> </i></span><i>See Paula M. Young, Take it or Leave it. Lump it or Grieve it: Designing Mediator Complaint Systems that Protect Mediators, Unhappy Parties, Attorneys, Courts, the Process, and the Field</i>, 21 Ohio St. J. Disp. Resol. 721 (2006), available <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445" target="_blank">here</a>. The following background discussion is taken from that article. I have not included the numerous citations.</span><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the article, I noted that studies show that sixty-five to eighty-two percent of parties to family mediation viewed their mediators as “warm, sympathetic, and sensitive to feelings.” They found them “helpful in standing up for their rights in disagreements with spouses; staying focused on the important issues; and having clear and sufficient information for decisionmaking.” But, eighteen to thirty-five percent of parties did not feel this way after the mediation.</span><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />A majority of parties participating in court-connected civil mediations felt that the mediation process was fair and gave them sufficient opportunity to present their cases. A majority of parties felt they had control over the process or had input in determining the outcome. Most parties thought the mediator was neutral, did not pressure them to settle, understood their views and issues, and treated them with respect. A majority of parties felt the mediation resulted in a fair agreement. Most attorney-advocates shared the same feelings. But some minority of parties and attorneys did not have these feelings about the experience.<br /><br />Sixty-one percent of disputants in fifty-four waste management mediations were satisfied with the mediation process and the outcome. But thirty-nine percent of mediation-disputants were not. Another survey found higher levels of satisfaction in a Pennsylvania special education mediation program. There, eighty-two percent of clients were “very satisfied” or “satisfied” with the actions of the mediator and the process. Yet, eighteen percent of participants were neutral or dissatisfied with the mediator or the process.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />In short, studies suggest that perhaps a third of mediating parties are unhappy with the process or the mediator. However, the statistics on grievances and malpractice claims filed against mediators indicate that dissatisfied parties simply “lump it” and never file a complaint against the mediator. We know that mediators commit malpractice, engage in conduct inconsistent with standards of practice, or violate core values of mediation. Yet, the majority of U.S. states do not help mediators to “name” the misconduct or aggrieved parties to claim it.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuA4v2sLdlmLO6qrCof4LNTvhbU_PVSPWNExeVqTfP8mXWk_aihGS0jcn1N-2vpzCkPuUu9OE9t9szgNw8Vl5Ln7c1RHW11j63Z03DSOL_wnlSNshpiWsQFmiSo9WZW5SucwfHh5pepL56q6JhyO1ONi-MWMsupQdUpF3Y_Kqje_BH28cOVarPQ6e3fQ/s1732/GettyImages-1152218468.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1732" data-original-width="1732" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuA4v2sLdlmLO6qrCof4LNTvhbU_PVSPWNExeVqTfP8mXWk_aihGS0jcn1N-2vpzCkPuUu9OE9t9szgNw8Vl5Ln7c1RHW11j63Z03DSOL_wnlSNshpiWsQFmiSo9WZW5SucwfHh5pepL56q6JhyO1ONi-MWMsupQdUpF3Y_Kqje_BH28cOVarPQ6e3fQ/s320/GettyImages-1152218468.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediators increasingly feel the risk of malpractice suits or of grievances filed with mediation program administrators, state bar associations, or the entities regulating a mediator’s profession of origin. Effective and well-designed grievance systems can divert some potential mediator malpractice suits into grievance processes that may satisfy both the unhappy party and the mediator, will enhance mediator skill, will allow for de-rostering of incompetent mediators, will protect the mediation process, and will protect the reputation of the field and of referring courts. As Sharon Press, [former] Director of the Florida Dispute Resolution Center (DRC), recently said: “It is irresponsible to divert parties into court-connected mediation programs without providing a process by which they can get help if the process is handled improperly.”</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivww2b9fUBFSVhih6L9UJ7iFNlon9cO4DlEq1eyuaRTjzIKFHhvG6OKiHtIp1phbeVca8FMf5YjjOqmoD-QcFVNHKdO7LcCBBZyG6lOcklzVKrqi_PcCw8t5uzk3lFFm7lIePwHzG7acgn85lgJ6qWI-l5TvYQuvNkFmD8w6A9uqCjE6M28WtTJuzWEA/s1988/GettyImages-506869436.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1508" data-original-width="1988" height="243" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivww2b9fUBFSVhih6L9UJ7iFNlon9cO4DlEq1eyuaRTjzIKFHhvG6OKiHtIp1phbeVca8FMf5YjjOqmoD-QcFVNHKdO7LcCBBZyG6lOcklzVKrqi_PcCw8t5uzk3lFFm7lIePwHzG7acgn85lgJ6qWI-l5TvYQuvNkFmD8w6A9uqCjE6M28WtTJuzWEA/s320/GettyImages-506869436.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What types of grievances do parties file against mediators?</span></h2>One state, Florida, can serve as an example of the types of grievances filed against mediators and the type of sanction a regulatory body is likely to impose. Florida has an ethics code for mediators, which serves as the framework for determining mediator misconduct. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Florida’s 2000 census data show a population of nearly sixteen million people, making it the most populous state analyzed in my article. As of December 2005, over 18,000 people had completed certified mediation training programs. In August 2005, 1391 county mediators, 1682 family mediators, 2166 circuit mediators, and 138 dependency mediators operated as certified mediators in the state. Sharon Press estimates that courts refer over 100,000 cases a year to mediation. From May 1992 to April 2005, the DRC processed seventy-four grievances filed against certified mediators. Accordingly, an individual mediator’s risk that he or she will have to defend a grievance complaint in Florida remains extremely low.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />Florida parties most often alleged that a mediator interfered in some way with the party’s self-determination. Twenty-four of the complaints claimed that a mediator interfered with the parties’ self-determination and another twenty-five complaints alleged that mediators gave improper professional advice or opinions. The second most common allegation asserted that a mediator was not impartial. Thirty of the grievances specified this violation. Parties alleged improper continuation, adjournment, or termination of the mediation in fourteen complaints. Complainants alleged lack of mediator integrity in eleven complaints. In eight grievances, complainants stated that the mediator failed to conduct an appropriate orientation session before beginning the main sessions. Other alleged violations included: conflicts of interest (five complaints), excessive fees and expenses (four complaints), failure to maintain confidentiality (four complaints), demeanor not befitting a mediator (three complaints), improper advertising practices (two complaints), lack of professional competence (two complaints), and unfair scheduling practices (two complaints).</span></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkmExY0-8qDX669Dqhd84NDaHHjsYum3KWn2mWBAKT5Hl4_x7nCgXGbTvbCPV_G15ruzJSrYpRpdm2hAId_tqj4_ofUBawrZs_iiC51OeFXj242qc89Rg37w4pWI_h1vnkw2gCiW8yy5ffRdHHhD7mPfAbKORfhcfJrkguYvxcYo-fbHbyQ0nE7qVPQg/s2098/GettyImages-1335423497.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1428" data-original-width="2098" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkmExY0-8qDX669Dqhd84NDaHHjsYum3KWn2mWBAKT5Hl4_x7nCgXGbTvbCPV_G15ruzJSrYpRpdm2hAId_tqj4_ofUBawrZs_iiC51OeFXj242qc89Rg37w4pWI_h1vnkw2gCiW8yy5ffRdHHhD7mPfAbKORfhcfJrkguYvxcYo-fbHbyQ0nE7qVPQg/s320/GettyImages-1335423497.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"> The complaint committees reviewing the grievances most frequently imposed, in eleven of seventeen cases, a sanction requiring the mediator to get further training. The sanction included requirements for advanced mediation training, attendance at a dispute resolution conference, communications sensitivity training, communication and listening training, family mediation training, domestic violence training, and ethics training. Three mediators also accepted sanctions requiring them to observe mediations conducted by certified mediators. Three mediators agreed to mediate or co-mediate under the observation and supervision of a certified mediator. In eight cases, the complaint committees suspended the mediators from conducting mediations or certain types of mediations until they had completed the imposed sanction. When one mediator failed to satisfy the agreed sanction, the mediator was de-certified subject to reinstatement by petition no earler than two years after the date of the imposed sanction. In five cases, the complaint committees required mediators to adjust their fees by waiving them or forgiving unpaid fees or refunding fees charged in the mediation in which the violation occurred. They gave oral reprimands or admonishments to three mediators and a written reprimand to one mediator. Mediators also provided apologies in three cases. One sanction imposed by a complaint committee required the mediator to pay the cost of the complaint committee’s investigation. Another sanction required the mediator to write an article on confidentiality and good faith in mediation and on the limitations the ethics rules imposed on reports to judges about the mediation. In one case, as follow-up to the imposed sanction, the DRC required the mediator, before mediating again, to submit a copy of the mediator’s engagement letter along with its explanation of the fees charged.<br /></span></div></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Other than fee or investigative cost reimbursement, complaint committees do not impose monetary sanctions or penalties in the U.S. Instead, they focus </span>on<span style="font-family: inherit;"> restorative practices designed to help the mediator gain more knowledge of applicable ethical requirements or to learn the skills needed to provide high-quality mediation. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0twRICHnZkBsBQtVGiXjOBAh9jPHv3NFwTXU3CSM_KIrgBmIOixVLPzPGceTnd1U4wut3XnVTFoxOnCJlljrh2l7tVmjYFLMSbmt0_Rv78lVwn0pk-vO1arap0YTXN_SoAxuTAQLyou0PlL1cLdk5HbC7rjHhsPxybBouK0d7BglrHC8QTMduDC6SPg/s2386/GettyImages-1387792407.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1256" data-original-width="2386" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0twRICHnZkBsBQtVGiXjOBAh9jPHv3NFwTXU3CSM_KIrgBmIOixVLPzPGceTnd1U4wut3XnVTFoxOnCJlljrh2l7tVmjYFLMSbmt0_Rv78lVwn0pk-vO1arap0YTXN_SoAxuTAQLyou0PlL1cLdk5HbC7rjHhsPxybBouK0d7BglrHC8QTMduDC6SPg/s320/GettyImages-1387792407.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Mediator misconduct under the Qatar Mediation Law</span></h2><div>The Qatar Mediation Law takes a penalty approach to mediator misconduct. As far as I know, the country has not yet built the "mediation infrastructure" that I describe in my article. Thus, no ethics code exists in the court-connected program for mediation of commercial cases. </div><div><br /></div><div>Instead, Article 14 lists three types of misconduct that can lead to "accountability." It provides:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div>The mediator may not be held accountable for his exercise of mediation tasks unless his exercise thereof was with bad faith, collusion, or gross negligence.</div><div><br /></div><div>A decision shall be issued by the Council, regulating the procedures and controls of accountability and penalties.</div></blockquote><p>This article contemplates that the Supreme Judicial Council will create a system allowing parties to file complaints and for the Council to hear those complaints and issue a sanction. Its jurisdiction, however, seems quite narrow (bad faith, collusion, or gross negligence), and the designated misconduct only tangentially relates to the common ethical duties of a mediator or to the core values of mediation. I wonder again if we are seeing the input of arbitrators in the drafting process rather than the input of well-trained mediators.</p><p>Moreover, what penalties does the law contemplate? </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2mRufw4AkfPmVklfasOTfygQxv8Bs-qwHIbUvtXVk_prkxQosDBLvtzDKC1iZMlFzG6rl_fmfMGTYiAq5N-sOhT_1cOWw27ET8WdtGv9HETFeiazGA4uouHmeJvan9M4joYaCea0fuu18S42kFmGLbWbb00P7amrqgu_6_6O1nqGfl-DOK9ZQll14xw/s2121/GettyImages-1314248843.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2mRufw4AkfPmVklfasOTfygQxv8Bs-qwHIbUvtXVk_prkxQosDBLvtzDKC1iZMlFzG6rl_fmfMGTYiAq5N-sOhT_1cOWw27ET8WdtGv9HETFeiazGA4uouHmeJvan9M4joYaCea0fuu18S42kFmGLbWbb00P7amrqgu_6_6O1nqGfl-DOK9ZQll14xw/s320/GettyImages-1314248843.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><p>Article 30, governing confidentiality in mediation, also sets out a penalty for the wrongful disclosure of confidential communications. It provides:</p><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">In the event of violating any of the provisions of the paragraph above by the mediator or any of the parties to whom the disclosure was made, the court shall automatically charge the violating party with a penalty of twenty thousand riyals [about $5,500] or five percent of the dispute value, whichever is greater, provided the the adjudged amount shall not exceed one hundred thousand riyals [about $27,400]. The court shall refer the dispute to another circuit to adjudicate it, without any matters disclosed in violation of the provisions of this Article. In all cases, no court shall consider what was disclosed in violation of this Article, during its consideration of the lawsuit.</blockquote><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Thus, the drafters have used financial penalties to deter disclosures, but have not considered restorative practices to help the mediator fill a gap in his or her ethical knowledge or skills.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">In an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_16.html" target="_blank">post</a>, I also worried about how a party would prove a violation of this article. I </span>said<span style="font-family: inherit;">: I am not sure how a party will have a court consider a breach of confidentiality if that court must adjudicate the matter "without any matters disclosed in violation of this Article." This phrase is confusing. I suppose the party could subpoena the mediator to testify whether the disclosed communication was a confidential mediation communication. The mediator could simply answer "yes" or "no." But, the cross-examination could quickly go beyond that simple probe into matters deemed confidential. Parties can only hope that these stiff penalties will prevent unlawful disclosures.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Over time, I expect to see the entities offering mediation services in Qatar, whether court-connected or private third-parties, grapple with the issue of </span>mediator<span style="font-family: inherit;"> misconduct and the sanction system appropriate to sustaining </span>high-quality<span style="font-family: inherit;"> mediation in the region. However, the approach set out in the Qatar Mediation Law does not itself provide a workable scheme. </span></p><p>So, folks. That is the last post in my series on the Qatar Mediation Law. Next up? I'll do a similar analysis of the new mediation law in the United Arab Emirates.</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-4630228836308158422023-05-20T14:44:00.002-04:002023-05-21T16:23:25.231-04:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaaDQXHGzK0zzWr77eRa9mhw-HALjV_eb8CWbvUgFIJGXpAl7Rdvkg8kM2gWZuaVHC8fW9uYUg6lSlhcyj9YAlZxahnU-wXWruWPL_Oaz12paOghOV2lpuXGr6zriulXNsWso5nQA6v1Y7PevqAjEX4hWhhOldj21y-1YYBf4mgT9fJLgjCl2fDyxJTw/s506/Lawyer%205.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="506" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhaaDQXHGzK0zzWr77eRa9mhw-HALjV_eb8CWbvUgFIJGXpAl7Rdvkg8kM2gWZuaVHC8fW9uYUg6lSlhcyj9YAlZxahnU-wXWruWPL_Oaz12paOghOV2lpuXGr6zriulXNsWso5nQA6v1Y7PevqAjEX4hWhhOldj21y-1YYBf4mgT9fJLgjCl2fDyxJTw/s320/Lawyer%205.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />15/16 An Analysis of Qatar’s Mediation Law No. 20 of 2021, the Mediator's Fees and Expenses</span></u></span></b></span></h1><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span><span><span style="font-size: medium;">Background</span></span></span></h2><div><span><span><span>Mediators can charge by the hour, the half day, the whole day, or a flat fee for the entire mediation. Most ethics codes in the U.S. discourage a contingency fee based on the settlement value because it can compromise the mediator's impartiality towards and independence from the outcome of the mediation. I wrote about this risk <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_10.html" target="_blank">here</a>. In some cases, usually family law cases, the spouse with greater financial resources may agree to pay the entire fee. In that case, the mediator must take care that he or she does not show partiality towards the fee-paying spouse. </span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>Mediation rosters, whether court-connected or created by private third-party providers (like AAA, JAMS, and IMI), will often list the mediator's fee schedule. In any event, the mediator and the parties will negotiate the fee. That fee agreement typically appears in the agreement to mediate or a separate fee agreement. Typically, the fee must be paid whether the parties reach agreement or not. Some mediators will request a deposit on the fee. </span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>Most mediators charge for any time spent before and between sessions when they are reviewing pre-mediation submissions, reading documents or exhibits, or talking with the parties or their lawyers by email, text, or phone. A mediator would also expect the parties to compensate him or her for time spent drafting, signing, copying, and filing the settlement agreement.</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>Parties should expect to pay any travel or lodging expenses incurred by a mediator who does not reside in the same city as the parties. Increasingly, parties are using on-line mediation to avoid those expenses. I wrote more about that option <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>Sadly, fee disputes can give rise to a <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445" target="_blank">complaint</a> filed against the mediator in states with robust grievance processes. A fee dispute creates more work for the mediator and can damage his or her reputation.</span></span></span></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHa42QLiUVbH4_NAQI2u5TpS2Ro7pFhB7dTzO9UigqTgQfkxglQNJ1hQk9qBIrqFf-4PHwkqERw4hlUmxdCO8ywg1EiN3afeQMCY8f6PYYysK--iN3023OX1GiiIfpBGykM_45C5l9-zyRsCZbVCdixyGX68ddGhvlrvBqBDxXQq4Xvbp5s8SvDx_Gbw/s2121/GettyImages-1314248843.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHa42QLiUVbH4_NAQI2u5TpS2Ro7pFhB7dTzO9UigqTgQfkxglQNJ1hQk9qBIrqFf-4PHwkqERw4hlUmxdCO8ywg1EiN3afeQMCY8f6PYYysK--iN3023OX1GiiIfpBGykM_45C5l9-zyRsCZbVCdixyGX68ddGhvlrvBqBDxXQq4Xvbp5s8SvDx_Gbw/s320/GettyImages-1314248843.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></span></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span><span><span style="font-size: medium;">Qatar Mediation Law protects mediators</span></span></span></h2><div><span><span><span>Articles 11 and 21 of Qatar's Mediation Law govern a mediator's fees. </span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>Article 21 provides:</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span><span><span>The mediator shall be entitled to mediation fees for performing his task. Such fees shall be determined and the method of payment thereof by mutual consent between the parties. The mediator shall be entitled to his agreed fees even if the parties to the dispute have not reached a settlement.</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>In the event of disagreement to determine the fees of the mediator, the court shall estimate them, taking into account the effort made by the mediator, according to a petition submitted by the mediator or either of the parties</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span>The parties to the dispute shall bear all expenses required for the mediator to perform his tasks. </span></span></span></div></blockquote><p>This language makes the fee a matter of negotiation and gives clear recourse to a mediator seeking payment of his or her fee. </p><p>A recusal by the mediator triggers Article 11(4). In pertinent part, it provides: "The court may, upon ruling to recuse the mediator, determine the entitlements of such mediator, which are fees and expenses, or to redeem fees or expenses paid to him."</p><p>Next up? Mediator misconduct. It will be my last post on the Qatar Mediation Law. </p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-60208534876627284502023-05-19T16:20:00.003-04:002023-06-02T17:25:43.120-04:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV8nVWGQlO3w2Nqs6S78kYEGv1Ifk4QcxWRn4C_TKySY4TZsrrIHJJ5xFZkDTLA72W08BTYwI5WjZ-D4ODn8Kc_JAIri-32PAeCrutgX2NTnRWuFBsMdiOUqiqu6HtObyNB0kglAcOr-3wak2DGwFqroOeX3kS81ydX5RPS8Ou71swS85HkLodxqHzzQ/s2120/GettyImages-480266974.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1415" data-original-width="2120" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV8nVWGQlO3w2Nqs6S78kYEGv1Ifk4QcxWRn4C_TKySY4TZsrrIHJJ5xFZkDTLA72W08BTYwI5WjZ-D4ODn8Kc_JAIri-32PAeCrutgX2NTnRWuFBsMdiOUqiqu6HtObyNB0kglAcOr-3wak2DGwFqroOeX3kS81ydX5RPS8Ou71swS85HkLodxqHzzQ/s320/GettyImages-480266974.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;">14/16 An Analysis of Qatar’s Mediation Law No. 20 of 2021, the Final Settlement Agreement</span></u></span></b></span></h1><div>A successful mediation ends with the parties signing a settlement agreement. I have discussed the settlement agreement in earlier posts. I discussed it in the context of party control over the process choices <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">here</a>, in the context of confidentiality <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_16.html" target="_blank">here</a>, and in the context of the referring court's management of the litigated case <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_18.html" target="_blank">here</a>. I will include those discussions in this post for the ease of the reader. </div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX5Hf_Ejv-YGlSrNq8Ml3BW948C_r9_EphkEcT0ySiDuX0RTYhhR-QPeaSUtHThtiF2iO8E5mVWDnLEFLUF0vxJgQI6anTv-im3i0t6B8CSd8YQ1l-7RpV8LGhdoyji1UZbse7lgq2h5bp4yoMCudDtOeSfog0nasgvFSaN72FSXS6XSt2sgt_ygJzSw/s2148/GettyImages-1169977022.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1395" data-original-width="2148" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiX5Hf_Ejv-YGlSrNq8Ml3BW948C_r9_EphkEcT0ySiDuX0RTYhhR-QPeaSUtHThtiF2iO8E5mVWDnLEFLUF0vxJgQI6anTv-im3i0t6B8CSd8YQ1l-7RpV8LGhdoyji1UZbse7lgq2h5bp4yoMCudDtOeSfog0nasgvFSaN72FSXS6XSt2sgt_ygJzSw/s320/GettyImages-1169977022.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-size: large;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>Duties of the Mediator in Connection with the Settlement Agreement</span></h2><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Drafting the agreement</span></h3><div>Article 28 states that "[t]he mediation procedures shall be terminated . . . [upon the] [s]igning [of] the settlement agreement by the parties to the dispute. . . ." </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 24 sets out the duties of the mediator in connection with settlement agreement. It provides:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div>The mediator shall, in the event of reaching a settlement of the dispute, wholly or partially, through mediation procedures, <u>execute</u> the settlement agreement in writing, within seven days from the date of reaching the settlement of the dispute.</div><div><br /></div><div>The settlement agreement shall include:</div><div>1- Names, details and addresses of the parties to the dispute, and the case number, if any.</div><div>2- Name, details and address of the mediator.</div><div>3- Name of any other person whose approval of the agreement shall be obtained.</div><div>4- Summary of the subject matter of the dispute.</div><div>5- Name of any expert appointed in the dispute and <u>the expert opinion he provided</u>.</div><div>6- Detailed statement of what has been agreed between the parties to the dispute.</div><div><br /></div><div>A number of copies of the agreement shall be signed, so that each of the parties and the mediator shall have an original copy of the settlement agreement.</div><div><br /></div><div>For the settlement agreement to be enforceable, it shall be signed by the parties and, by the person whose consent on the subject of the dispute is required, <u>and the mediator</u>. (Emphasis added.)</div></blockquote><p>The outlines of the settlement agreement set forth in this article, with two notable exceptions, will look very familiar to most mediators. The parties need a document with sufficient particularity to allow the parties to properly perform the agreement, for enforcement if performance problems arise later, and for the court so it can "authenticate" the settlement agreement, which I discuss below.</p><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the U.S., you will see a number of approaches to drafting the final settlement agreement. Before the parties terminate the session, the mediator will help draft a list of agreed terms. Based on that list, either the </span>mediator or the lawyer for one of the parties will create the first draft of the agreement. Like any contract drafting process, the drafts will go back and forth between the parties until the language satisfies both lawyers. In some states, if the mediator is not licensed to practice law in that state, he or she cannot draft the settlement agreement. That act could be punished under laws governing the <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831491">unauthorized practice of law</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>In less complicated matters, where the parties appear <i>pro se</i>, the mediator will draft the settlement agreement, but he or she will advise the parties to have a lawyer look over it before they sign it. Parties can ignore that advice and sign it without a lawyer's input. </div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div>Article 24 says the mediator will "execute" the settlement agreement. The word "execute" has several <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/execute">definitions</a>, one of which is to "make or produce," while another is to "do what is provided or required by." One definition suggests the mediator is the drafter, with little participation by the parties. The second definition leaves room for party participation in the drafting, and the mediator plays the role of ensuring it is in writing, signed, copied, and filed with the Clerk Office of the court under Article 24. </div><p>In any event, a well-trained mediator will handle the drafting process in a way consistent with the nature of the dispute and the needs of the parties.</p><p>I mentioned my concern with two provisions of Article 24. The first provision causing me concern is the disclosure of the expert opinion in the settlement agreement. In two earlier posts, I explained the conflict created between Article 30 governing confidentiality and Article 24 governing the settlement agreement. </p><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 30 states that a confidential document includes "[a]ny document prepared for use during the mediation." </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 24 requires the inclusion in the settlement agreement of the "[n]ame of any expert appointed in the dispute and the expert opinion he provided." Article 25 requires the mediator to file the settlement agreement with the Clerk Office of the court, thus making its contents available to the court and its staff, and perhaps the public.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the U.S., any opinion generated by a neutral fact- or legal-expert would be deemed a communication "prepared for use during the mediation." Accordingly, it would be confidential. Obviously, the parties could waive the confidentiality of the opinion. But, the Qatari Mediation Law removes party control over this disclosure. If I were a party mediating under this law, I would not want any expert opinions in writing. In that way, I might prevent a forced disclosure. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The second provision of Article 24 causing me concern is the requirement that the mediator sign the settlement agreement in order for it to be enforceable. The mediator is a neutral. He is not a party to the dispute. He is not bound by the settlement agreement as a performing contract party. Accordingly, he should not be required to sign the agreement. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">So, what is the purpose of this provision? Is the mediator somehow authenticating the agreement by signing it? Should a separate signature page exist for the mediator clearly indicating his role as vouching for the <u>existence</u> of the settlement as opposed to vouching for the terms of the agreement? In most commercial cases, the lawyers for the parties will draft the agreement, not the mediator. My fear is that the mediator will face subpoenas to testify about the substantive terms of the agreement if one of the parties decides to enforce or contest it. In the process, the mediator may face pressure to disclose confidential communications. This risk may increase as a signatory to the agreement. So, no, no, no. It is not needed, especially when the law contemplates that the court will authenticate the agreement, as I discuss below. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Even so, mediators in Qatar will have to sign the agreement until the drafters revise this part of the law.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEKNM5UTotFXSINOdjVbqA9_VUO_aHGYPIYQEmBAnFW7by9xa4f0oNilWyYTbz8INS89bnVCbr_qK02xOjujAmwuUautOu_2_B6JVheLOzUpcKv2K1msDGChOpOQ35TetgUm_UUwVjDjhYe6bWDXBHnQNC-JdT9yZJ72INNz885WujNReIdR765zUIiA/s2121/GettyImages-639884564.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEKNM5UTotFXSINOdjVbqA9_VUO_aHGYPIYQEmBAnFW7by9xa4f0oNilWyYTbz8INS89bnVCbr_qK02xOjujAmwuUautOu_2_B6JVheLOzUpcKv2K1msDGChOpOQ35TetgUm_UUwVjDjhYe6bWDXBHnQNC-JdT9yZJ72INNz885WujNReIdR765zUIiA/s320/GettyImages-639884564.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Filing the settlement agreement with the court</span></h3><div>Article 25 states:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div>The mediator shall, within no later that seven days from the date of signing the settlement agreement by the parties, file an original copy of the settlement agreement and the agreement to appoint the mediator [the mediation agreement?] and his approval of the task assigned to him [letter of acceptance?], to the Clerk Office of the court. </div><div><br /></div><div>A request to authenticate the settlement agreement shall be submitted to the court, by one or all of the parties, or by the mediator . . . .</div></blockquote><p>Thus, the last duty of the mediator is to ensure that the court is made aware of the successful completion of the mediation by filing the settlement agreement with the court clerk. The mediator may also request the court's authentication of the agreement, although how "authentication" occurs in this context is not set out in the law, especially given the confidentiality provisions of Articles 30 and 31. As noted below, authentication creates significant legal effect.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqAl3VaizCsR2FtMuGo7WZKhbwIziho6sc6_mjZUcutM6p_q6GheH1UMguhzYcTmV6q22xyfP0YUVtPWgvn8wZH3ij6-bPFolxkJYpk6hAilLhBW_F-_AwoUuCtjG_GsZuAuD8IBUBLXWn6pP7x98nS9Ydxp7QmrHUnIiCAsysNeIKgTAHONNQp0dnaA/s443/Words%2021.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="443" data-original-width="387" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqAl3VaizCsR2FtMuGo7WZKhbwIziho6sc6_mjZUcutM6p_q6GheH1UMguhzYcTmV6q22xyfP0YUVtPWgvn8wZH3ij6-bPFolxkJYpk6hAilLhBW_F-_AwoUuCtjG_GsZuAuD8IBUBLXWn6pP7x98nS9Ydxp7QmrHUnIiCAsysNeIKgTAHONNQp0dnaA/s320/Words%2021.jpg" width="280" /></a></div><h2><span style="font-size: medium;">Duties of the Court in Connection with the Settlement Agreement</span></h2><div>The court's duties in connection with the settlement agreement fall into three categories: (1) authentication of the settlement agreement; (2) case management after the parties sign the settlement agreement, and (3) enforcement of the settlement agreement.</div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Authentication</h4><div>After the court receives a request to authenticate the settlement agreement, Article 25 instructs that:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div>The court shall issue its decision to authenticate the settlement agreement within seven days from the request date.</div><div><br /></div><div>After being authenticated by the court, the settlement agreement shall have the force of an executive document and it may in no way be challenged.</div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>Under Article 26, the court may refuse to authenticate the agreement "if it is in violation of the law or public order, if it was entered into through fraud or deception, because one of the parties to the dispute lacks capacity, if it is difficult to conciliate its subject, or if it is impossible to execute one of its clauses."</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, if one of the parties has buyer's remorse, he or she will need to raise one of the defenses and provide sufficient proof of the defense all within the seven days required for the court to issue its decision under Article 25. And, by the way, given that the court can deny authentication if "it is impossible to execute <u>one</u> of its clauses" a mediator should discuss with the parties the need for a "severance clause"?</div><div><br /></div><div>And, when is the agreement's "subject" "difficult to conciliate"? Wouldn't the parties know this before signing the agreement? Wouldn't they terminate the mediation under Article 28 and report back to the court? Then, wouldn't they return to litigation long before they signed a settlement agreement? </div><div><br /></div><div>The language describing some of these very broad defenses is not clear. Again, this lack of clarity could be a drafting issue or a translation issue, but I anticipate this article will spawn a lot of collateral litigation over the validity of the mediated settlement agreement. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTaDiEVirtPwoandxFnECgeiXpZ8JGGENUM9uIjpNKXGOlk01nx_pKNljKBq__hmL9rF3kv9YDmMpSrxF6_z5ttLg8Pe2idrSkZLARPZeyfS0aR4bknRn2G45ZCaF8qTpsKWSGbFRTzAGEMP5hkHJ9GYkRaZgVd9AhcEHnSykmf__0oMv_js6bMorqGQ/s2121/GettyImages-466365997.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTaDiEVirtPwoandxFnECgeiXpZ8JGGENUM9uIjpNKXGOlk01nx_pKNljKBq__hmL9rF3kv9YDmMpSrxF6_z5ttLg8Pe2idrSkZLARPZeyfS0aR4bknRn2G45ZCaF8qTpsKWSGbFRTzAGEMP5hkHJ9GYkRaZgVd9AhcEHnSykmf__0oMv_js6bMorqGQ/s320/GettyImages-466365997.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Litigated case management</h4><div>Next, the court must manage the litigated case in light of the authenticated settlement agreement. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 15 provides: "In the event that the parties accept the mediation procedure, followed by settlement of the dispute between them[,] and registering the settlement agreement in accordance with the provisions of Article No. 25 of this law, the court shall exclude such lawsuit from the list, due to the end of the litigation therein." </div><div><br /></div><div>The term "such lawsuit" refers to the lawsuit involving the dispute the court has referred to mediation. <i>See</i> Article 15.</div><div><br /></div><div>Article 27 deals with any lawsuit relating to the settlement agreement: </div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;">If any of the parties to the settlement agreement which is authenticated by the court <u>filed</u> a lawsuit <u>on the subject of the settlement agreement itself</u>, the court shall rule inadmissibility of the lawsuit because it was adjudicated previously, and charge the party who filed the lawsuit with payment of a penalty equivalent to ten times the fees of filing the lawsuit, provided that such penalty shall not be less than twenty thousand riyals [about $5,480 US] and does not exceed fifty thousand riyals [about $13,700 US]. In the event that there is more than one person who filed the lawsuit, the penalty amount shall be shared equally by them. (Emphasis added.). </div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>In short, a party is not permitted -- by theories of res judicata or estoppel -- to file a lawsuit related to the mediated dispute or the settlement agreement -- after the party has entered an authenticated settlement agreement -- without incurring the penalty. Thus, a party who has any buyer's remorse after mediation should express it in the authentication stage, because this article will prevent the filing of a lawsuit after the court authenticates the settlement agreement. </div><div><br /></div><div>In addition, the court can grant relief from filing fees. Article 17 provides that: "If the dispute is settled through mediation, during the consideration of the lawsuit before the court, the person assigned to pay the judicial fees shall be relieved from payment thereof and the fees will be refunded to him if he had already paid them." </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLp_4Z-XKcL5oQdpeGgQDdy8R-SmCQDyjbiTvjgiw4jdMRvjIpsbrFHKkY5mSsFGY-Y_OMq__A-oHLRM4SjMQDsP90fwQp-yVEZSAmpIwao6TzgsluqbBMR6K-KnDIDsdRpsrqiWW3ODzsdCZ-I1Jz82WetxEDRsyENR1IQwxkUzLQXj5gn7iHiXVcgA/s507/Sports%205.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="337" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLp_4Z-XKcL5oQdpeGgQDdy8R-SmCQDyjbiTvjgiw4jdMRvjIpsbrFHKkY5mSsFGY-Y_OMq__A-oHLRM4SjMQDsP90fwQp-yVEZSAmpIwao6TzgsluqbBMR6K-KnDIDsdRpsrqiWW3ODzsdCZ-I1Jz82WetxEDRsyENR1IQwxkUzLQXj5gn7iHiXVcgA/s320/Sports%205.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h4 style="text-align: left;">Enforcement</h4><div>If one of the parties fails to perform under the settlement agreement, Article 19 applies. It provides:</div><div><br /></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div>In the event that either of the parties to the dispute refuses to abide by the settlement agreement that was concluded based on the mediation and <u>before submitting before the judiciary</u>, the court may rule against the non-obliged party as follows: </div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div>1- A penalty of not less that one thousand riyals [about $273 US] and not more than ten thousand riyals [$2,740 US], while not exceeding a quarter of the lawsuit value, <u>even if the judgment was in his favor</u>.</div><div>2- Paying five times the fees of filing the lawsuit, not exceeding twenty thousand riyals [about $ 5,480 US], to the litigant in the lawsuit, as compensation for the expenses and charges, <u>even if the judgment was in his favor</u>, without prejudice to any other expenses or compensation decided by the court for any of the parties to the lawsuit. (Emphasis added.)</div></blockquote><p>This article really confuses me. It relates to enforcement of the settlement agreement, but it seems to impose modest penalties on the person breaching the agreement. It mentions that the penalty action by the court comes "before submitting before the judiciary." Submitting what? A lawsuit alleging breach of contract? </p><p>Moreover, the court may impose the penalty "even if judgement was in his [the penalized party's] favor." What judgment? A ruling that the alleged breach did not happen? In short, the intent and operation of Article 19 is at best unclear and at worst inviting collateral litigation about its meaning. </p><p>Next up? A short post on mediator fees.</p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-34468828319912574082023-05-18T14:09:00.005-04:002023-05-21T16:23:00.400-04:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBP-XO9eIeOGOK9_75r5-CoGg2lVLNpUerPSIUgQc5jUVLslGl8fUSkvIMUsu0BTT-49I3C0gdqIp8yQGHmtoSrvn615X6DwKaxAQtbj8l1oDZawreKCnU7vh52ORrK5BZKSi8Exgwvwew4e9fFaYSkPbfNEuHWY5w7qu39zlrLpcm89PyAyUiNMF0vg/s507/Litigation%2016.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBP-XO9eIeOGOK9_75r5-CoGg2lVLNpUerPSIUgQc5jUVLslGl8fUSkvIMUsu0BTT-49I3C0gdqIp8yQGHmtoSrvn615X6DwKaxAQtbj8l1oDZawreKCnU7vh52ORrK5BZKSi8Exgwvwew4e9fFaYSkPbfNEuHWY5w7qu39zlrLpcm89PyAyUiNMF0vg/s320/Litigation%2016.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;">13/16 An Analysis of Qatar’s Mediation Law No. 20 of 2021, Referring Court's Management of the Litigated Case</span></u></span></b></span></h1><div style="text-align: left;"><span><span><span>I now want to turn to the court's role throughout the mediation process.</span></span></span></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Court's power to refer parties to mediation</span></h2><div><span><span><span>The Qatar Mediation Law makes clear that courts may refer cases to mediation if the parties have executed an agreement to mediate. Article 15 states: "In the lawsuit considered before it, the court may ask the parties to settle the dispute through mediation, within a period specified by it." This clause suggest the court will invite the parties to enforce an existing agreement to mediate or to enter a new agreement to mediate. Article 16 states: "The court may, during the consideration of the lawsuit, before setting a date to render a judgement therein, and at any stage of the litigation, decide, based on the agreement of the parties, to stop considering the lawsuit and refer the dispute to be settled through mediation."</span></span></span></div><div><span><span><span><br /></span></span></span></div><div>As I noted in an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html">post</a>, <div><br /></div><div>Articles 1, 5(7), and 6 gives the parties the power to enter mediation voluntarily by executing a mediation agreement either before or after a dispute arises. The agreement can be a separate contract or a condition included in a contract. The agreement must be in writing, and it survives the death of any party. </div><div><br /></div><div>Articles 15 and 16 allow the court to refer parties to mediation, if they agree. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 15 suggests that the court has unilateral power to refer parties to mediation, but either party may opt out of the process. The law does not specify how and when parties can opt out. In the U.S., most courts require parties to attend an orientation session with the mediator before deciding to opt out. </div><div><br /></div><div>Note that the law also says the mediator must complete the mediation within 30 days "from the commencement of procedures" (whatever that means), but he can extend the time for another period (length not specified) with the consent of the parties. <i>See</i> Article 20. I assume the court sets a 30-day period for the mediation under Article 15, thereby avoiding any conflict with Article 20. But, does the clock start ticking when the mediator accepts the appointment? Or, when the mediator takes some action (calling the parties to schedule the session)? Or, from the day of the first mediation session? </div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLTZreVMqIWdHnJK_mchmeVJDMi8C6BVtGCu4_JYb-oWSTqfaTM-3dqWzeDxd5AB0XcrFoLb6ugcy7dxd99ogvvkEXAnz3rvuVaFMPTuuNDjGsYHqrJ4pofHuTFq3KKI9FUuHLGBFnV-Y_IAK5AVUjyjhYzAUMBQ_Fe6UiZaWb9OFBvpJxW0bFnThnAw/s413/Litigation%204.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="412" data-original-width="413" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgLTZreVMqIWdHnJK_mchmeVJDMi8C6BVtGCu4_JYb-oWSTqfaTM-3dqWzeDxd5AB0XcrFoLb6ugcy7dxd99ogvvkEXAnz3rvuVaFMPTuuNDjGsYHqrJ4pofHuTFq3KKI9FUuHLGBFnV-Y_IAK5AVUjyjhYzAUMBQ_Fe6UiZaWb9OFBvpJxW0bFnThnAw/s320/Litigation%204.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What are the responsibilities of the court while the parties attempt to resolve the dispute by mediation?</span></h2><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Provisional and precautionary measures</span></h3><div>The court can maintain the status quo during mediation in two ways. First, Article 18 allows the court to "order that provisional or precautionary measures be taken, either before proceeding with the mediation procedures or during such procedures . . . ." A request for provisional or precautionary measures "shall not be considered as an assignment by the applicant of adhering to the mediation agreement" and it incurs no penalty under the same article for an untimely lawsuit, which I discuss more below. The language is not clear, but what I think it says is this. A party can ask for the precautionary or provisional measures without that request being deemed an admission that an enforceable mediation agreement exists. The requesting party could still oppose mediation by alleging that "the [mediation] agreement is null, void, without effect, or not enforceable." <i>See</i> Article 18, discussed below. </div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Tolling power</span></h3><div>The court can also maintain the status quo under Article 22. It provides: "The commencement of mediation procedures shall result in the suspension of the legally determined periods for the forfeiture and prescription of rights, or for the filing a lawsuit within them, until the expiry of the mediation." Again, while the language is confusing, I assume it allows a tolling of any statute of limitations while the parties mediate. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib_nTgm4WPpGwQVH0qR-RYj11D4QvGxQA8EewABCD3K5JnTFNNHa9oZNx9Ryi39PMABlAn7mDhFxCryDgN7uXuRs7Fmhm3gupqv4VxuE-1hHgLtVE4AcMDBJ9QEB70wtZ8063Sg8c7vqz6E0rcSKYGzirzxUaQ5iAxae2CUKsq4XFKFEhs0Edio0MFxg/s506/Litigation%208.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="506" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib_nTgm4WPpGwQVH0qR-RYj11D4QvGxQA8EewABCD3K5JnTFNNHa9oZNx9Ryi39PMABlAn7mDhFxCryDgN7uXuRs7Fmhm3gupqv4VxuE-1hHgLtVE4AcMDBJ9QEB70wtZ8063Sg8c7vqz6E0rcSKYGzirzxUaQ5iAxae2CUKsq4XFKFEhs0Edio0MFxg/s320/Litigation%208.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Managing new or pending cases</span></h3><div>The court has responsibilities for managing any litigation either pending or filed during the mediation. One set of responsibilities attaches after the referral of the parties to mediation. The second set attaches after the parties enter the settlement agreement. A third set of responsibilities attach if the mediation fails.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, Article 16 allows the court to put the litigation process on hold while the parties mediate. It provides: "The court may. . . stop considering the lawsuit and refer the dispute to . . . mediation."</div><div><br /></div><div>A party might try to use a new or pending lawsuit to strategically interfere with the referral to mediation. The Qatar Mediation Law addresses this concern. Article 18 provides: "The court before which a dispute is filed, in respect of which there is a mediation agreement, shall rule inadmissibility of the lawsuit, if the defendant has plead[ed] that, and charge the party that filed the lawsuit to pay double the fees of filing the lawsuit, unless the court decides that the [mediation] agreement is null, void, without effect, or not enforceable, or the mediation between the two parties has ended without reaching agreement, within the period specified in the mediation agreement. Filing the lawsuit set out in the paragraph above shall not prevent the commencement or continuation of mediation procedures."</div><div>I'm not sure what the phrase "inadmissibility of the lawsuit" means. Again, this could be an intentional word choice or it could be a translation issue. I assume it means that the court deems the lawsuit improperly filed or holds it in abeyance. </div><div><br /></div><div>Article 25 requires the mediator to file the settlement agreement with the court at the close of the mediation. The parties or the mediator may ask the court to authenticate it. The court may refuse to authenticate it under Article 26, but if it does, Article 27 applies. It provides: "If any of the parties to the settlement agreement which is authenticated by the court <u>filed</u> a lawsuit <u>on the subject of the settlement agreement itself</u>, the court shall rule inadmissibility of the lawsuit because it was adjudicated previously, and charge the party who filed the lawsuit with payment of a penalty equivalent to ten times the fees of filing the lawsuit, provided that such penalty shall not be less than twenty thousand riyals and does not exceed fifty thousand riyals. In the event that there is more than one person who filed the lawsuit, the penalty amount shall be shared equally by them." (Emphasis added.). </div><div><br /></div><div>In short, a party is not permitted to file a lawsuit related to the mediated dispute or the settlement agreement, after the party has entered an authenticated settlement agreement, without incurring the penalty. The principles of res judicata or estoppel apply. Thus, a party who has any buyer's remorse after mediation should express it in the authentication stage, because this article will prevent the filing of a lawsuit after the court authenticates the settlement agreement.</div><div><br /></div><div>In addition, the law gives the court power to refund filing fees. Article 17 provides that: "If the dispute is settled through mediation, during the consideration of the lawsuit before the court, the person assigned to pay the judicial fees shall be relieved from payment thereof and the fees will be refunded to him if he had already paid them." </div><div><br /></div><div>If the parties fail to reach agreement in mediation, then Article 29 applies. It provides: "If it is impossible to settle the dispute amicably through mediation, for any reasons, any of the parties to the dispute may file a lawsuit before the court." Thus, a party can pursue litigation by way of a new lawsuit or, presumably resumption of an existing lawsuit that has been held in abeyance. </div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJeyz_rNs4glcGFfxFQSdukt-2si3TQNzwKkpcbNVXR8B4SV_rMNUB3M67OqkgQVsFLLR3Z4lZUBXW70cZFlI83J3HTCsKnzGqR9EC4JIp4f4xGqMfJ8q6okehMko4f81o7jz1cG8WbAB2_yFzrOh5x-0N16nFneEuEmSjQ5LjaD1trYhD1NDvqB3TCg/s507/Three%2027.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJeyz_rNs4glcGFfxFQSdukt-2si3TQNzwKkpcbNVXR8B4SV_rMNUB3M67OqkgQVsFLLR3Z4lZUBXW70cZFlI83J3HTCsKnzGqR9EC4JIp4f4xGqMfJ8q6okehMko4f81o7jz1cG8WbAB2_yFzrOh5x-0N16nFneEuEmSjQ5LjaD1trYhD1NDvqB3TCg/s320/Three%2027.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">Management of mediator</span></h3><div>The court also must ensure that the mediation is not causing unreasonable delay in the resolution of the dispute. The court can set a period for the mediation under Article 15. Under Article 13, the court may terminate the appointment of a mediator, at the request of the parties, if he has "failed to perform, or ceased to perform his task, which leads to an unjustified delay in the mediation procedures" where the mediator has otherwise failed to resign.</div><div><br /></div><div>Article 21 of the Qatar Mediation Law expects that the parties, along with the mediator, will set compensation for the mediator, payable even if the parties fail to reach agreement. But, "[i]n the event of disagreement to determine the fees of the mediator, the court shall estimate them, taking into account the effort made by the mediator, according to a petition submitted by the mediator or either of the parties." </div><div><br /></div><div>I'll talk more about the settlement agreement and its authentication by the court in my next post. </div></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-28619420454323154032023-05-16T15:57:00.010-04:002023-06-02T17:14:13.385-04:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHycW_oL84xLp-guJj5_1JqJwpoBc7YjB-1KAW5JX2bQXmBxe-PquMqq82dvIVVVyVtKCfo84xlaJC_Yh5Yp8MEqIaM8aTtB7nhfIztLEl1bRsDHJwCCkeIm_tbOXAyV-dDbzJ112-ruCFw1wo9zd8SjFfE2SWg0qXqVJ7xZz62wwrqvfb83Chmq1a0g/s2121/GettyImages-1342069075.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="292" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHycW_oL84xLp-guJj5_1JqJwpoBc7YjB-1KAW5JX2bQXmBxe-PquMqq82dvIVVVyVtKCfo84xlaJC_Yh5Yp8MEqIaM8aTtB7nhfIztLEl1bRsDHJwCCkeIm_tbOXAyV-dDbzJ112-ruCFw1wo9zd8SjFfE2SWg0qXqVJ7xZz62wwrqvfb83Chmq1a0g/w439-h292/GettyImages-1342069075.jpg" width="439" /></a></div></span></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">12/16 An Analysis of Qatar’s Mediation Law No. 20 of 2021, Confidentiality in Mediation, Part 2: Many Unanswered Questions</span></span></u></span></b></span></h1><div>In my last <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" target="_blank">post</a>, I set out a framework for analyzing statutes or rules governing confidentiality in mediation. I will use it to analyze the Qatar Mediation Law. </div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Articles 23, 24, 30, 31, and 32 of the Qatar Mediation Law govern confidentiality in mediation. I will consider:</span></div><div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li><span><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -48px;">Who is the holder of the privilege who may prevent the disclosure of confidential information?</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -144px;">In what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit; text-indent: -144px;">What is confidential? What is exempted from confidentiality?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></li><li><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span></span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>What is the penalty for wrongful disclosure? </span><span> </span><span> </span></span></li></ul></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk3Ez-kLYaN1zdstCJQ4-rCV-mpb3x05cdJUE6lvNnoaKY9ylAagARFIhKlcfVTS_bPzJ3b6vMW2Ai8PKhAIO9x-szVKIO7m0V1Ox4qvFOV8OYEjKRAoQLgNiOIYqOquP3bPlRWTvJmCYm8b2hNUPYHQdKlCvHTxOooM1AZbms-ZQgpgbtXeWQUzEbHQ/s2099/GettyImages-1281344182.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1429" data-original-width="2099" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk3Ez-kLYaN1zdstCJQ4-rCV-mpb3x05cdJUE6lvNnoaKY9ylAagARFIhKlcfVTS_bPzJ3b6vMW2Ai8PKhAIO9x-szVKIO7m0V1Ox4qvFOV8OYEjKRAoQLgNiOIYqOquP3bPlRWTvJmCYm8b2hNUPYHQdKlCvHTxOooM1AZbms-ZQgpgbtXeWQUzEbHQ/s320/GettyImages-1281344182.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Who holds the privilege?</span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 1 defines "Parties" as: "The parties to the dispute who have agreed to settle it by mediation, whether natural or legal persons with legal capacity to contract."</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 23 makes caucus communications confidential. It provides: "[T]he mediator may negotiate with the parties individually or convene joint meetings between them . . . . A mediator to whom certain information has been disclosed by any of the parties may disclose it to the other party, <u>unless</u> the disclosing party requires the mediator to keep such information confidential." (Emphasis added.) The law thus places on the disclosing party the burden of asserting the confidentiality privilege, even as to caucus communications. As I noted in my earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">post</a>, laws in other jurisdictions provide that caucus communications are deemed confidential, <u>unless</u> the disclosing party specifically agrees to the disclosure of a particular communication. Thus, the Qatari approach can be a trap for unsuspecting parties or their lawyers. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 30 defines what communications are deemed confidential and expressly states that "the mediator or the party to whom any of the same has been disclosed may not disclose them to the court or a third party, without the approval of the disclosing party . . . ." So again, the disclosing party holds the privilege to keep information confidential.</span></div><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Analysis</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Recall the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" target="_blank">list in my Part 1 post of possible holders of the privilege</a>:</span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediator only?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties only?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">All participants?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Jointly between mediator and parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties control disclosures as between themselves.</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Mediator is given means to avoid being compelled to give testimony about the mediation.</span></li></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Qatar Mediation Law only mention the parties as the holder of the privilege.</span></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKunTFtERuzBjLAcE-cQ1NT07jTHGuinYel6EsSEj8rZgnxbxlFcD5OoBM1qtUk1jVOeAzTMsWp6AUp3Rwk-_UKV2CM-8GJV4F_ne_RhnNImxCUAPjyxpq4BWGFBu-R6X_T-4P12r4tWucjJ_DMi9u9PJ1o0iFhG7c7fXBG7rg_nPfuSaX2C7stexPFw/s465/Litigation%2019.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="369" data-original-width="465" height="254" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKunTFtERuzBjLAcE-cQ1NT07jTHGuinYel6EsSEj8rZgnxbxlFcD5OoBM1qtUk1jVOeAzTMsWp6AUp3Rwk-_UKV2CM-8GJV4F_ne_RhnNImxCUAPjyxpq4BWGFBu-R6X_T-4P12r4tWucjJ_DMi9u9PJ1o0iFhG7c7fXBG7rg_nPfuSaX2C7stexPFw/s320/Litigation%2019.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="text-indent: -144px;"><span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">I</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">n what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail? </span></span></span><span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></span></span></h3><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 30 indicates that the mediator or any party to the mediation may not disclose any confidential communications, without permission, "to the court or to a third party." </span></div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">Analysis</span></h4><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Recall the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" target="_blank">list in my Part 1 post of proceedings</a> in which a party might assert the privilege:</span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Any subsequent legal or administrative proceeding between the parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Any other context involving the parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">In legal or administrative proceedings involving third-parties to the mediation?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">In formal discovery process by the parties to mediation or by third parties?</span></li></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 30 of the Qatar Mediation Law prohibits disclosures to "the court." Is this language limited to the court referring the parties to mediation, or does it include any court, whether civil, or criminal? Article 1 defines "Court" as: "The court originally competent to consider the dispute, [sic] subject of the mediation." Thus, the language suggests a narrow interpretation. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">On the other hand, the penalty clause of Article 30 suggests that the privilege against disclosure applies more broadly. It states: "<u>In all cases, no court</u><span> shall consider what was disclosed in violation of this Article, during its consideration of <u>the lawsuit</u>." (Emphasis added.) This language may be limited to proceedings designed to determine the penalty for wrongful disclosure. Or, only to the court hearing the original lawsuit that led to mediation. In any event, even this added language seems to exempt criminal proceedings before a court, because they do not involve a "lawsuit." If the drafters intended more comprehensive confidentiality for mediation communications, they could resolve the ambiguity by revising the definition of "Court" in Article 1.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The law does not expressly confer confidentiality of mediation communications in administrative or ministerial proceedings or any discovery process. It does say that disclosures may not be made to third-parties, which might include other courts, administrative agencies, or even third-parties in discovery. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Given the ambiguity in the language, I suspect this clause will generate litigation involving the scope of confidentiality. </span></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8ppaKQCutqD8OeRl43D0IvTSQuxdBMOhquparJPYsZdBh6Is8dDlgKO5PZi6SkuJlFdYI8yNw4-G38DuJGsWir2gmlCneKomayiWT0w_7ijlecccrBw2buTTTxnX58_p6YqdtLCuT86UoxANvppDkzY_oDmJrzcKLRc24oBaI4GRxX_S402CXlNyTSw/s2121/GettyImages-79125754.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8ppaKQCutqD8OeRl43D0IvTSQuxdBMOhquparJPYsZdBh6Is8dDlgKO5PZi6SkuJlFdYI8yNw4-G38DuJGsWir2gmlCneKomayiWT0w_7ijlecccrBw2buTTTxnX58_p6YqdtLCuT86UoxANvppDkzY_oDmJrzcKLRc24oBaI4GRxX_S402CXlNyTSw/s320/GettyImages-79125754.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">What is confidential? What is exempted from confidentiality?</span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 30 states that: </span></div><br /><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">All deliberations, discussions, offers, negotiations and documents related to the mediation shall be confidential . . . and this particularly includes:<br /></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">1- The request of mediation, the party that requested it, and the documents, letters or correspondence related thereto.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">2- Accepting the mediation request and the documents, letters or correspondences related thereto.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">3- Opinions and suggestions submitted by any party in relation to the dispute.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">4- Declarations and acknowledgments made by any of the parties to the dispute, in the context of the mediation procedures.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">5- Deliberations and discussions between the mediator and any of the parties or between the parties themselves.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">6- Proposals submitted by the mediator.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">7- Willingness of any party to accept a settlement proposal.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">8- Any document prepared for use during the mediation procedures.</blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 31 sets out the exceptions to confidentiality: It provides:</span></div><br /><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">The party to whom the disclosure was made or the mediator may disclose <u>to the court</u> any of the issues set out in the Article above, in the following cases:</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">1- If it is proven that the disclosed issue was know before the mediation before the mediation commencement, without prejudice to any confidentiality clause imposed on the party to whom the disclosure was made, in accordance with a law or any other agreement.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">2- Issuance of a court judgment, obliging the parties to disclose such issue, for reasons related to State security, to protect persons or property from imminent danger, to prevent an offense, or if it is related to money laundering or terrorism financing.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">3- Disclosure is made to a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining a legal opinion. In this instance, it is not permissible that the lawyer uses what was disclosed to him, except to express his legal opinion.</blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">4- In the event that one of the parties to the dispute requests the other to resolve the dispute by mediation and the other party failed to respond to this request, the applicant may disclose <u>to the court</u> his request and the other party's failure to respond, all of which [were] before the mediation. (Emphasis added.)</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">Any of the parties to the dispute may disclose the issues set out in the previous Article [30], to prove or deny any allegation about impartiality or independence of the mediator or that he committed a fatal or willful mistake. In this case, the court shall consider such allegation and issue a decision regarding it and refer the dispute between the parties to another circuit to consider it, without any issues that were disclosed in violation of the provisions of this Article. <u>In all cases, no court</u> shall consider the disclosed issues, to prove or deny any order in the lawsuit. Without prejudice to the first paragraph of Article 30 of this law, <u>the court may take any evidence used during the mediation</u>. (Emphasis added.)</p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><h4 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Analysis</span></h4><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">I have a problem with the use of the words "issues" and "issue" in Article 31. I am not sure if this word choice is intentional or a product of the unofficial translation. In any event, I suggest that drafters revise it to talk in terms of mediation communications. Or, it could repeat the language used in Article 30 that references "[a]ll deliberations, discussions, offers, negotiations and documents related to the mediation." The term "issue" strikes me as too broad. An issue can pre-date the mediation, but a communication or document related to that issue might not. I will use use the term "communications" in this analysis to avoid confusion. </span></p><p><span>Article 30 sets out a scope of confidentiality that would look familiar to many mediators from around the world. R</span><span style="font-family: inherit;">ecall the</span><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" style="font-family: inherit;" target="_blank">list in my Part 1 post of communications</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">that could be designated as confidential mediation communications. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Based on that list, the following communications seem to be protected by the Qatar Mediation Law:</span></p><div><ul><li>Communications in setting up the mediation. Even “ex parte” communications with mediator. And, intake information.</li><li>Appraisals, fact- or legal-expert opinions, etc. obtained to prepare for settlement negotiations, <u>if</u> a "document prepared for use during the mediation procedures." The caveat is important. </li><li>Communications made by the parties in the course of settlement discussions – oral and written.</li><li>Documents or other evidence created in the mediation process.</li><li>Statements made by or notes of the mediator.</li></ul></div><p><span>Articles 10 and 28 define the length of "mediation procedures." They "start from the date when the mediator accepts his duties" and end with the "[s]igning of the settlement agreement by the parties to the dispute." Accordingly, c</span>ommunications made between multiple sessions of mediation and communications made at the time between reaching agreement in mediation and the final execution of the settlement agreement should be confidential.</p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 31 exempts:</span></p><div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Communications made prior to the start of the mediation. This limitation prevents someone from bringing a pre-existing document into mediation and trying to vest it with confidentiality it did not have previously, like a set of tax documents. Interestingly, this clause indicates that the disclosure is exempted even if the receiving party is bound by a confidentiality agreement. I'd love to know why the drafters thought it necessary to sidestep contractual confidentiality in this context. </span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Communications ordered disclosed by the court for public policy reasons, like "State security, to protect persons or property from imminent danger, to prevent an offense [criminal?], or if it is related to money laundering or terrorism financing." Many jurisdictions grapple with this sort of potentially broad public policy exception, but nearly all mediators would agree that mediation should not be used to further or plan a crime. </span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Communications to a neutral legal-expert, it seems, for the purpose of getting a legal opinion. The lawyer, however, must keep those communications confidential, but as noted below, the opinion itself must be included in the settlement agreement filed with the court. Thus, this clause reinforces that those expert opinions are not confidential. Again, these are documents created in mediation and should be confidential, as discussed below. Why does a court approving a settlement agreement need to see a neutral's opinion? </span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Pre-mediation communications about one party's failure to opt in to mediation. This clause permits a party to enforce the agreement to mediate. </span></li></ul><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Communications needed to prove mediator misconduct, but this exception is poorly drafted and very difficult to interpret.</span></li></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 30 sets up a conflict with Article 24, discussed below, by stating that a confidential document includes "[a]ny document prepared for use during the mediation." </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 24 governs the final settlement agreement. It designates what must be included in the agreement. Quite surprisingly, it requires the inclusion of the "[n]ame of any expert appointed in the dispute and the expert opinion he provided." Article 25 requires the mediator to file the settlement agreement with the Clerk Office of the court, thus making its contents available to the court and its staff, and perhaps the public.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In the U.S. any opinion generated by a neutral fact- or legal-expert would be deemed a communication "prepared for use during the mediation." Accordingly, it would be confidential. Obviously, the parties could waive the confidentiality of the opinion. But, the Qatari Mediation Law removes party control over this disclosure. If I were a party mediating under this law, I would not want any expert opinions in writing. In that way, I might prevent a forced disclosure. </span></div><div><br /></div><div>Article 32 allows the court to restrict any disclosures under Article 31 "to the extent required to prove its [sic] cause . . . ." This clause will need further explanation.</div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">But, certain </span>communications are not clearly covered, or clearly exempted, from confidentiality:<br /><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Acts or conduct of the parties.</li><li>Appraisals, fact- or legal-expert opinions, etc. that were obtained to prepare for settlement negotiations, (and apparently not confidential if prepared during the mediation.)</li><li>Information assembled for research or program accountability or assessment.</li></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Courts may end up interpreting the laws language broadly to protect all or most of the listed communications. But, they could just as easily interpret it more narrowly when confronted with the need for evidence in another administrative, civil, or criminal case. Moreover, the clause making confidential "[a]ny document prepared for use during the mediation procedures" conflicts with the exemption for neutral fact- or legal-expert opinions. </span></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivPyRXjuwhqbNwZ-ZJOsRC3v6RUg1GtyFXEKma59RzFFoMK-Z6QsYJy2Id7ZImmiFB8d5GJO06OjmDY5jx4a_iEG48c_E8dvHs-tUa08D1X_85FinchUcVQdeJ0Qy1bMkBuuDrsrIKZ3JNXPdwRjB9XV8JiY0tgGjaXWc3j4Am_4KtlSiDYn13qjaxzQ/s2121/GettyImages-1171570620.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivPyRXjuwhqbNwZ-ZJOsRC3v6RUg1GtyFXEKma59RzFFoMK-Z6QsYJy2Id7ZImmiFB8d5GJO06OjmDY5jx4a_iEG48c_E8dvHs-tUa08D1X_85FinchUcVQdeJ0Qy1bMkBuuDrsrIKZ3JNXPdwRjB9XV8JiY0tgGjaXWc3j4Am_4KtlSiDYn13qjaxzQ/s320/GettyImages-1171570620.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span><span>Who can enforce confidentiality? </span></span><span><span>Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></span></span></h2></div></div><div><span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Recall the <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" target="_blank">list in my Part 1 post of potential persons</a> who might have an interest in enforcing the confidentiality of mediation communications:</span></span></div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Parties to the mediation? </span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Witnesses or other participants?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">The mediator?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Interested non-parties?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Courts and other public agencies?</span></li></ul><div><h4><span style="font-family: inherit;">Analysis</span></h4></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Qatar Mediation Law does not state who can enforce confidentiality other than the parties and the mediator. See Article 30. <span> </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>The law is also not specific about against whom it can be enforced other than "the court" or a third-party. See Article 30. The penalty clause in Article 30, discussed below, states that confidential communications cannot be used by <u>any</u> court. It provides: "<span><u>In all cases, no court</u> shall consider what was disclosed in violation of this Article, during its consideration of the lawsuit." (Emphasis added.) However, as noted above, this limitation may only apply in the penalty context. The penalty</span> clause also states that the penalty will result in the event of a disclosure "</span>by the mediator or any of the parties to whom the disclosure was made." </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The exception in Article 31 for communications that prove mediator misconduct contains similar language and, by doing so, creates confusion about what communications can be used in proving misconduct and which courts are precluded from hearing evidence consisting of confidential communications. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;">Again, the drafters need to revisit these aspects of confidentiality to clear up any ambiguities and to provide more clarity and guidance to mediating parties, the mediator, third-parties, and courts.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTiJt9V6j6jVNhwNAsvg3RWmy2D4KES59p8dvK1Apdx9zxIqAxXsmX6GwWWKf34rkPTtuEp2eRltcOd2QKmIHEuTwJFAtClUJGvpW3A1hgJHFpflMikN42Wf-d49RqxdGa7Zxa3_8szF7O8X3F5upx9il5lRbyafJ09y9QjtOLj5zDJXaTihLTjTJMRA/s2120/GettyImages-83397711.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2120" data-original-width="1414" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTiJt9V6j6jVNhwNAsvg3RWmy2D4KES59p8dvK1Apdx9zxIqAxXsmX6GwWWKf34rkPTtuEp2eRltcOd2QKmIHEuTwJFAtClUJGvpW3A1hgJHFpflMikN42Wf-d49RqxdGa7Zxa3_8szF7O8X3F5upx9il5lRbyafJ09y9QjtOLj5zDJXaTihLTjTJMRA/s320/GettyImages-83397711.jpg" width="213" /></a></div></div><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span></h3><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">In my <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" target="_blank">Part 1 post</a>, I set out a number of options for the scope of the privilege:</span></div><div><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Absolute with no exceptions?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">One broad exception: when interests of justice or public policy requires disclosure?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">A list of specific exceptions, like:</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Bad faith</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Past illegal conduct or crime</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Fraud</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Abuse of process</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit crime or disclosure of ongoing crime</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or other bodily harm</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</span></li></ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or neglect by a governmental agency in charge of persons in its care</span></li><ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</span></li></ul><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Threat of harm to property</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">Commission of crime in mediation</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">When disclosure is mandated by another state law</span></li><li><span style="font-family: inherit;">When disclosure is mandated by court or administrative agency</span></li></ul></ul><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Qatar Mediation Law adopts the third option, by creating confidentiality subject to a short list of enumerated exceptions, including a public policy exception covering "[s]tate security, to protect persons or property from imminent danger, to prevent an offense, or if it is related to money laundering or terrorism financing." I expect that over time, courts will better define the list of exceptions. Drafters may find they need to add additional exceptions.</span></div></div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw6KYfd8_SeHmjmAEzIOrh6BXik7HCFRV6m5XlvsvNI4l0xqtkOuMoi0YiKN9xowvDBOixb5KpTxXq0aIs2kn1oWEuFKO1NtCX8EZD8oOC9GJoSxjGuIJbVWifRlpUpV20-e0rTMi3-GP5EgX6FbNearpkhZKB9fbkudY78HCpavfm87J-ogPt7c9thA/s2121/GettyImages-1318429958.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhw6KYfd8_SeHmjmAEzIOrh6BXik7HCFRV6m5XlvsvNI4l0xqtkOuMoi0YiKN9xowvDBOixb5KpTxXq0aIs2kn1oWEuFKO1NtCX8EZD8oOC9GJoSxjGuIJbVWifRlpUpV20-e0rTMi3-GP5EgX6FbNearpkhZKB9fbkudY78HCpavfm87J-ogPt7c9thA/s320/GettyImages-1318429958.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span>What is the penalty for wrongful disclosure? </span><span> </span></span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span>Problems arise when someone breaches the confidentiality of mediation. A party can find that enforcing confidentiality is difficult. A party can also have difficulty calculating damages arising from a breach. </span>In my <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_14.html" target="_blank">Part 1 post</a>, I suggested several reasons for why parties seek to breach mediation confidentiality.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Article 30 of the Qatar Mediation Law has provided a penalty for violating confidentiality. It states:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: medium; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;">In the event of violating any of the provisions of the paragraph above by the mediator or any of the parties to whom the disclosure was made, the court shall automatically charge the violating party with a penalty of twenty thousand riyals [about $5,500] or five percent of the dispute value, whichever is greater, provided the the adjudged amount shall not exceed one hundred thousand riyals [about $27, 400]. The court shall refer the dispute to another circuit to adjudicate it, without any matters disclosed in violation of the provisions of this Article. In all cases, no court shall consider what was disclosed in violation of this Article, during its consideration of the lawsuit.</blockquote><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">I am not sure how a party will have a court consider a breach of confidentiality if that court must adjudicate the matter "without any matters disclosed in violation of this Article." This phrase is confusing. I suppose the party could subpoena the mediator to testify whether the disclosed communication was a confidential mediation communication. The mediator could simply answer "yes" or "no." But, the cross-examination could quickly go beyond that simple probe into matters deemed confidential. Parties can only hope that these stiff penalties will prevent unlawful disclosures. </span></p><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">Conclusion</span></h2><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Qatar Mediation Law provides meaningful protection for mediation communications. Parties hold the privilege to prevent disclosures to "the court" or third-parties, but must specifically assert it to cover caucus communications. Only the parties can enforce the privilege. A court can sanction the mediator and a party for wrongful disclosures, but apparently not third-parties. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">The scope of the privilege is fairly broad, but does not seem to cover any neutral fact- or legal-expert opinions. The law also contains a broad public policy exemption. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: inherit;">Drafters need to clarify whether a disclosure can be made to administrative agencies and other civil and criminal courts (other than the referring court). Are confidential communications subject to discovery in other litigation?</span></div><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Next up? I'll discuss the court's management of the case pending mediation and precautionary measures available to parties while they mediate. </span></p><p><br /></p>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-41620501777896845112023-05-14T13:30:00.009-04:002023-10-04T14:13:44.206-04:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPtSdGS7su0KkhMwNiGlY2NNDMkq3W0CtGsNQYJrZsM6r1ZJskI0wKeUJWRvbEYJQlF-_RFcBi8DSxhoZDrBCpBKI10kA3cUcbL1VNXMtMaltis03Odizvh7XwU2CQ43X1g4UutKG3fcVDl7tJpZwZVcz2u-ayvsdCoKx2K4VYsHT-DlILZ24WgjKrVA/s2120/GettyImages-1317481087.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2120" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPtSdGS7su0KkhMwNiGlY2NNDMkq3W0CtGsNQYJrZsM6r1ZJskI0wKeUJWRvbEYJQlF-_RFcBi8DSxhoZDrBCpBKI10kA3cUcbL1VNXMtMaltis03Odizvh7XwU2CQ43X1g4UutKG3fcVDl7tJpZwZVcz2u-ayvsdCoKx2K4VYsHT-DlILZ24WgjKrVA/s320/GettyImages-1317481087.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></u></span></b><b><span><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">11/16 An Analysis of Qatar’s Mediation Law No. 20 of 2021, Confidentiality in Mediation, Part 1: The </span>Analytical<span style="font-family: inherit;"> Framework</span></span></u></span></b></span></h1><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><span face="-webkit-standard">In an earlier <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html" target="_blank">post</a>, analyzing party control over process choices, I talked about confidentiality in mediation. I said: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><span face="-webkit-standard"></span></p><blockquote><span face="-webkit-standard">This topic has </span><span face="-webkit-standard">confounded many organizations trying to set guidelines for confidentiality in mediation. In 2001, the National Conference on Uniform State Laws in the U.S. produced the </span><a href="https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1427&context=jdr" style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">Uniform Mediation Act</a><span face="-webkit-standard"> after many drafting sessions occurring over several years. A large part of the draft law applies to confidentiality. After a lapse of 22 years, only </span><a href="https://www.uniformlaws.org/committees/community-home?CommunityKey=45565a5f-0c57-4bba-bbab-fc7de9a59110" style="font-family: -webkit-standard;">twelve</a><span face="-webkit-standard"> states have adopted it. Instead, other states rely on their own laws governing mediator confidentiality.</span></blockquote><span face="-webkit-standard"></span><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; margin: 0in;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Similarly, various iterations of rules governing confidentiality exist all over the world. Accordingly, to create some structure to the analysis, I am providing this discussion covering:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">What are the breakdowns in the process that lead to a desire to breach mediation confidentiality?</span></li><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">What are the public policies supporting confidentiality in mediation?</span></li><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Why do we r</span><span style="text-indent: -96px;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">ely on a statute to protect these interests</span></span><span style="text-indent: -96px;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">?</span></span></li><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="text-indent: -96px;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">What are the possible approaches to mediation confidentiality?</span></span></li><ul><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; text-decoration: none; text-indent: -48px;">Who is the holder of the privilege who may prevent the disclosure of confidential information?</span></span></li><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; text-indent: -144px;">In what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail?</span></li><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px; text-indent: -144px;">What is confidential?</span></li><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></li><li style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></li><li><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 11pt;"><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 11pt;"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 14.6667px;"><br /></span></li></ul></ul><h2 style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM1QQ2VpytmkX4Zt1fFZN-KbeoFwMUZAW2no3Az0AC4xziNcRzYaM-DNvRHy7P_n0A1ohGHlIf5N_lEuXlQbBhfOrybeqOoeKJqDj4DUv86tSsEZyDzJppqmw85Rdtq3BC8PUajWVIUJnuhXCEl5AQXIemuA4mR9LeMeowI1iq_nkoDCUWbY0_R2mymg/s414/Communication%204.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="414" data-original-width="414" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM1QQ2VpytmkX4Zt1fFZN-KbeoFwMUZAW2no3Az0AC4xziNcRzYaM-DNvRHy7P_n0A1ohGHlIf5N_lEuXlQbBhfOrybeqOoeKJqDj4DUv86tSsEZyDzJppqmw85Rdtq3BC8PUajWVIUJnuhXCEl5AQXIemuA4mR9LeMeowI1iq_nkoDCUWbY0_R2mymg/s320/Communication%204.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What are the Breakdowns in the Process that Lead to a Desire to Breach Mediation Confidentiality?</span></h2><div style="text-align: left;">Parties may wish to breach confidentiality in an effort to void a settlement agreement when they discover later that the mediator committed malpractice or engaged in misconduct. Similarly, a party may try to unwind a settlement agreement tainted by fraud or duress by introducing mediation communications showing a party's failure to disclose material information, a party's intentional misrepresentation of material facts, or a party's proffer of incorrect financial data. A party might also want to raise a defense of unfairness or unconscionably using mediation communications. </div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;">A party may also wish to show that the other party failed to participate in a failed mediation in good faith or to use mediation communications to clarify an ambiguous provision of the settlement agreement. Finally, a party may simply have buyer's remorse and will search for any way to void the settlement agreement.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOohM7pfvHjKzJSWkpRr5JTO7q8WqXHoHBAt_4wP9gxeBJ_PGSFO-RDZoDyya0QTpwkHANDrMjvRsrr2ZDL0w4y7v3sQW4Jbw3VTL1d8a5CmmUwH9fG_-wh3W7nJnrElKv5XfU-VHNB3jeMKL3ghQ-h5FLzqun6lg8qJpV4a4WtXPoos2rOdGJnMc7ig/s507/Three%2016.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="338" data-original-width="507" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOohM7pfvHjKzJSWkpRr5JTO7q8WqXHoHBAt_4wP9gxeBJ_PGSFO-RDZoDyya0QTpwkHANDrMjvRsrr2ZDL0w4y7v3sQW4Jbw3VTL1d8a5CmmUwH9fG_-wh3W7nJnrElKv5XfU-VHNB3jeMKL3ghQ-h5FLzqun6lg8qJpV4a4WtXPoos2rOdGJnMc7ig/s320/Three%2016.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What are the Public Policies Supporting Confidentiality in Mediation?</span></h2><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;">Statutes, laws, or rules governing confidentiality in mediation attempt to address two conflicting public policies. The first seeks to preserve confidentiality in the mediation process to encourage the early, cost effective resolution of disputes. On the other hand, the justice system emphasizes the production and consideration of all available evidence.</p><br />The reasons for preserving confidentiality in mediation include the following: <div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;">First, effective mediation requires candor. Because the mediator has no coercive power, he or she is dependent on increasing the amount and quality of the communication between the parties, if not their trust of each other. Thus, a mediator uses confidential communications to identify interests, needs and issues; explore fully all possible bases for agreement; encourage parties to accommodate each other’s interests; and uncover underlying causes of the conflict. That process often results in the admission by a party of facts that he or she would not otherwise disclose. These disclosures often come in a private caucus, in which the mediator promises confidentiality. <br /><br />Second, fairness to the disputants requires confidentiality. Typically, no specific rules or procedures exist to safeguard against one party's abuse of the process by using it as cheap discovery of relevant facts. Mediation should not be used solely as a vehicle for making one's case at trial.<br /><br />Third, the mediator must remain neutral in fact and in perception. Thus, we need to avoid the potential situation where the mediator is forced to divulge information against one party when subpoenaed in a later proceeding by the other party. Even the risk of this type of post-mediation disclosure could damage the public’s perception that individual mediators and the mediation process are neutral and unbiased. In addition, subpoenas issued to mediators cause distraction and potential harassment. Even lawyer-mediators may feel the need to hire a lawyer to resist a subpoena. Even if a mediator appears <i>pro se</i>, the court appearance will take time and energy away from other aspects of the mediator's life and career. In addition, the threat of subpoenas can discourage people from serving as volunteer mediators in various programs. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><br />Fourth, confidentiality is an incentive for many to choose mediation. Some parties will use it to protect information like trade secrets or patents. Other parties will use it to avoid airing their "dirty laundry" in public that could damage a party's reputation or brand, or make hiring of quality employees more difficult. Many parties will use mediation to avoid adverse court precedent when the stakes are high or when liability is uncertain. <br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"><br /></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2VUcX-lS4-e5YnVEZFiG9oxKc0rWiIrk_lyaniTiLNUaQvVNAXrYr8RJ8BNh8mV1ds_nmqCgcqrm1raF74Gc_lJp7LrFhhvCv5fQQwBBgQ0nciOk1X2A3Yp7Fid-UhPSxgxwNjOO5tFZ0NraCkLWgTDckcs-ViuKfSXQn4iN6BqaWPO6OM--pDINIag/s509/Litigation%2011.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="509" height="211" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2VUcX-lS4-e5YnVEZFiG9oxKc0rWiIrk_lyaniTiLNUaQvVNAXrYr8RJ8BNh8mV1ds_nmqCgcqrm1raF74Gc_lJp7LrFhhvCv5fQQwBBgQ0nciOk1X2A3Yp7Fid-UhPSxgxwNjOO5tFZ0NraCkLWgTDckcs-ViuKfSXQn4iN6BqaWPO6OM--pDINIag/s320/Litigation%2011.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Why do we Rely on a Statute to Protect these Interests?</span></h2><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;">Evidentiary exclusions at trial governing compromise and settlement negotiations are under-inclusive. Some courts have ruled that only offers of settlement are excluded, not any admission of facts made during negotiations. Problems also exists where the two -- offers and admission of facts -- are intertwined.<br /><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;">First, some evidentiary rules, like Rule 408 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, do not preclude information revealed in settlement negotiations to be used for another purpose. They can be used <br /></p><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>to show bias of a witness,</li><li>to show an obstruction of justice, or</li><li>to show a prior inconsistent statement.</li></ul>Moreover, some evidentiary rules of exclusion, like Rule 408 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, do not apply to administrative proceedings or criminal proceedings.<br /><br />Second, rules governing discovery of information in litigation are under-inclusive and permit discovery of information that may lead to admissible evidence.<br /><br />Third, private agreements to keep mediation communications confidential are under-inclusive. The agreement cannot bind parties who did not sign the agreement. Confidentiality agreements may lead to enforcement problems and create difficulty in calculating damages caused by the breach of confidentiality. Moreover, public policy typically precludes contracting to exclude evidence needed at a subsequent trial or hearing.</div><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGtGhwdRESCDDIdlo7hF8NWP-Gh2uAZi-evZNli59AnRH_2mna00yNzsx0-dcZvwRNVFC4eemMs6Knk95LXLPI6PxNOhDDOxM-exorR53hSRztPrn-DkER112oAm751RLNQi5oKxN1IZfLyGaFkPSb2R6-oJ4vEtoQCIpdUQiYK-K0sN5c0_bAuU8bwg/s436/Words%2071.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="397" data-original-width="436" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgGtGhwdRESCDDIdlo7hF8NWP-Gh2uAZi-evZNli59AnRH_2mna00yNzsx0-dcZvwRNVFC4eemMs6Knk95LXLPI6PxNOhDDOxM-exorR53hSRztPrn-DkER112oAm751RLNQi5oKxN1IZfLyGaFkPSb2R6-oJ4vEtoQCIpdUQiYK-K0sN5c0_bAuU8bwg/s320/Words%2071.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><br /><p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in;"></p><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">What are the Possible Approaches To Mediation Confidentiality? </span></h2><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> Who is the holder of the privilege who may prevent the disclosure of confidential information?</span></h3><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Mediator only?</li><li>Parties only?</li><li>All participants?</li><li>Jointly between mediator and parties?</li><li>Parties control disclosures as between themselves</li><li>Mediator given means to avoid being compelled to give testimony about the mediation</li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> In what subsequent proceedings will confidentiality prevail?</span></h3><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Any subsequent legal or administrative proceeding between parties?</li><li>Any other context involving the parties?</li><li>In legal or administrative proceedings involving third-parties to the mediation?</li><li>In formal discovery process by parties to mediation or by third parties?</li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> What is confidential?</span></h3><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>The mere fact of settlement?</li><li>The terms of a settlement?</li><li>Statements made by the parties in the course of settlement discussions – oral or written?</li><li>Acts or conduct of the parties?</li><li>Pre-existing documents, other written evidence, or tangible items <u>disclosed</u> in mediation?</li><li>Documents or other evidence <u>created</u> in mediation process?</li><li>Statements made by or notes of the mediator?</li><li>Appraisals, fact- or legal-expert opinions, etc. obtained to prepare for settlement negotiations?</li><li>Agreement to mediate?</li><li>Communications in setting up the mediation? Even “ex parte” communications with mediator? Intake information?</li><li>Communications made between multiple sessions? </li><li>Communications made at the time between reaching agreement in mediation and the final execution of the settlement agreement?</li><li>Information assembled for research or program accountability or assessment?</li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> Who can enforce confidentiality?</span></h3><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Parties to the mediation? </li><li>Witnesses or other participants?</li><li>The mediator?</li><li>Interested non-parties?</li><li>Courts and other public agencies?</li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> Against whom can confidentiality be enforced?</span></h3><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Parties?</li><li>The mediator?</li><li>Non-party participants or witnesses?</li><li>Private third-parties?</li><li>Public third-parties?</li></ul><h3 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;"> How absolute should the grant of confidentiality be?</span></h3><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>Absolute with no exceptions?</li><li>One broad exception: when interests of justice or public policy requires disclosure?</li><li>A list of specific exceptions, like:</li><ul><li>Bad faith</li><li>Past illegal conduct or crime</li><li>Fraud</li><li>Abuse of process</li><li>Threats to commit crime or disclosure of ongoing crime</li><li>Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or other bodily harm</li><ul><li>Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</li></ul><li>Threats to commit child abuse or adult abuse or neglect by a governmental agency in charge of persons in its care</li><ul><li>Only when such disclosure is mandated by local law?</li></ul><li>Threat of harm to property</li><li>Commission of crime in mediation</li><li>When disclosure is mandated by another state law</li><li>When disclosure is mandated by court or administrative agency</li></ul></ul><p>In my next post, I'll apply this analytical frame work to the Qatar Mediation Law. </p></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2365527641763427790.post-72578458828254017692023-05-10T19:16:00.004-04:002023-05-21T16:22:23.325-04:00<h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSDAGujjT9ZQOgH6o9uiN3-7VttHhnu_b_IBZ05jh6w1WTurX7lrbs5ayczgv6HMHv94wJOWd7JQps8zUvAkCWzyxAgSxe4iF6vqdzEfS69gbBfMXfvc_AXa1FNf065iDJAgftpjpC50t_qe6GiZ72Mc3G3v-kDq86x8zKly5mrRifHWTk0Kut8nYqIw/s2121/GettyImages-1252016131.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSDAGujjT9ZQOgH6o9uiN3-7VttHhnu_b_IBZ05jh6w1WTurX7lrbs5ayczgv6HMHv94wJOWd7JQps8zUvAkCWzyxAgSxe4iF6vqdzEfS69gbBfMXfvc_AXa1FNf065iDJAgftpjpC50t_qe6GiZ72Mc3G3v-kDq86x8zKly5mrRifHWTk0Kut8nYqIw/s320/GettyImages-1252016131.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></u></span></b></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">10/16 An Analysis of Qatar’s Mediation Law No. 20 of 2021, Mediator Impartiality</span></u></span></b><span><u>: Using the Firestone Grid as an Analytical Tool</u></span></span></h1><h1><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Mediator impartiality, one of the core values of mediation, gets little specific attention in the Qatar Mediation Law. </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Instead</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">, the Qatar Mediation law mentions impartiality or independence in very </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">general</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> terms. This oversight will require Qatari leaders in the mediation field to supplement the law with rules and a code of ethics that defines mediator impartiality in a clear and culturally sensitive way. Article 7 governing the register of mediators may </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">contemplate</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> this approach when it provides that the Council will "</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">define[e] the conditions, controls, and procedures of [mediator] registration." </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;">Conduct that makes a party believe that the mediator has lost his or her impartiality is the most frequently cited reason for <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1831445" target="_blank">filing a complaint</a> against a mediator in the U.S. states of Virginia and Maine. It appears as the second most frequently raised allegation in Florida, Georgia, and Minnesota. </span></span></h1><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigwN7CKGVdFgvqaltDxc5psqP3YmBEdecd1Se0jbWewlxhKbR90WtTnOIjnAoMvJypUrV33uDnwxq-ELD2XPYN-Dr3bzCW1MAWZzdCASqp_W4LLGUGw79iV51ySRG76okMVbwjQC-tITk32rWeH9gWTZMwGwdJPjvziToCXnL7Q2-xKYvzYJcyXsX13g/s305/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%206.31.31%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="305" data-original-width="296" height="210" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigwN7CKGVdFgvqaltDxc5psqP3YmBEdecd1Se0jbWewlxhKbR90WtTnOIjnAoMvJypUrV33uDnwxq-ELD2XPYN-Dr3bzCW1MAWZzdCASqp_W4LLGUGw79iV51ySRG76okMVbwjQC-tITk32rWeH9gWTZMwGwdJPjvziToCXnL7Q2-xKYvzYJcyXsX13g/w203-h210/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%206.31.31%20PM.png" width="203" /></a></div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">The Firestone Grid</span></b></h2><h1><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Mediator impartiality fits generally into four categories: (1) conflicts of interest, (2) conduct bias, (3) bias in favor of a specific outcome, and (4) lapses of impartiality that undermine party self-determination.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.gregoryfirestone.com" target="_blank">Greg Firestone</a>, a Florida mediator, spoke about mediator impartiality at the October 2003 conference of the Association for Conflict Resolution. He suggested that the field think about these issues along two dimensions that create four quadrants on a grid. See the grid set out at the end of this post. On one side of the grid are the terms “parties” and “outcome.” On the other side of the grid are the terms “relationship” and “conduct." The resulting four quadrants are the following: “relationship-parties,” “conduct-parties,” “relationship-outcome,” “conduct-outcome.” </span><br /></span></h1><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMBSSgp-oUpFiSDVXumw_1TerW4du9oMPYEHBf0U2iIdvQ1tglOqn9_QAXV8RPmkyI3S9_8YcthWz-r5ZJaA3vW87HjFR0W3cQmigNTu_NFZkhK6RDWNpKFTq-zXiI60MiGzKg0UIPEeq0QdSnG02qEff6AMk0dlHJ9SS_VPlv7vWucjPY3NCX2TNb2A/s2121/GettyImages-677894544.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1414" data-original-width="2121" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMBSSgp-oUpFiSDVXumw_1TerW4du9oMPYEHBf0U2iIdvQ1tglOqn9_QAXV8RPmkyI3S9_8YcthWz-r5ZJaA3vW87HjFR0W3cQmigNTu_NFZkhK6RDWNpKFTq-zXiI60MiGzKg0UIPEeq0QdSnG02qEff6AMk0dlHJ9SS_VPlv7vWucjPY3NCX2TNb2A/s320/GettyImages-677894544.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></span></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Quadrant 1: Impartiality in the Mediator’s Relationships with the Parties</span></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">The mediator’s impartiality towards the parties is often discussed in terms of conflicts of interests. Firestone suggests that parties should consider the following issues when choosing a mediator. A party should learn if the mediator has any current or prior relationships with the other parties to the mediation or their counsel. Has the mediator represented a party in a legal matter previously? Has she provided one of the lawyers therapeutic counseling? </span></span></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Does she play golf with one of the lawyers? Does the mediator attend the same church, temple, or mosque as one of the parties? Do their children play on the same football team? Does the mediator get most of his or her business from one company or firm related to one of the parties? Can she remain impartial to the party who is not the repeat player in the referral system? </span></span></h2><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;">Mediators should error on the side of over-disclosure of conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest. They should check for conflicts with the same care imposed on lawyers by legal ethics rules. Mediators must also avoid creating any conflicts of interest during the course of the mediation – for instance, by buying stock in the company owned by one of the parties. Finally, mediators should avoid creating an appearance of impropriety by representing parties in the future in the same or similar matter.</span></span></h2><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The Qatar Mediation Law attempts to </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">address</span> a mediator's relationships with the parties, but with no specificity. Article 5(4), governing the <span style="font-weight: 400;">qualifications</span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> of registered mediators, states that the mediator (notably referred to as "he") "shall be known for integrity, impartiality and experience." Article 11 requires a mediator to withdraw from a mediation if "any issue that affects [the </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">mediator's</span><span style="font-weight: normal;">] impartiality or independence arises." </span></span>"Independence" could refer to independence from either party. </div><div><br /></div>Article 9 of the Qatar Mediation Law provides that the mediator "may not be a member of an arbitral or judicial panel . . . regarding the same dispute or part thereof." Thus, the neutral cannot wear two hats in relation to the same disputing parties.<br /><br /><br />Article 14 says that a mediator "may not be held accountable for his exercise of mediation tasks unless his exercise thereof was with bad faith, collusion, or gross negligence." Thus, a mediator could not engage in collusion, which, by its very nature, is bias in favor of one party. <div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT_5NOGuWJk5aB30qOEHAOnt_F54lFfx9QFx38psxBn5mu_jbLmbtp62m8HQarX8xr3URWwMpwCUsIx32t-tc5B3LRBVTSQqvefoHBzWHY1mn59NQmwjRuyldFuqUcgq0lVWhIKUgnx_wUPUh6vmDs6Vzmb4xT2sqeo_olRPffXfOia5ubCU9B0jZ-ZA/s1732/GettyImages-1364563276.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1732" data-original-width="1732" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiT_5NOGuWJk5aB30qOEHAOnt_F54lFfx9QFx38psxBn5mu_jbLmbtp62m8HQarX8xr3URWwMpwCUsIx32t-tc5B3LRBVTSQqvefoHBzWHY1mn59NQmwjRuyldFuqUcgq0lVWhIKUgnx_wUPUh6vmDs6Vzmb4xT2sqeo_olRPffXfOia5ubCU9B0jZ-ZA/s320/GettyImages-1364563276.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Quadrant 2: Neutrality of the Mediator’s Conduct Toward the Parties</span></h2><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Next, Firestone urges mediation parties to consider whether the mediator can maintain, through his or her conduct, neutrality towards the parties. Will the mediator become frustrated, disrespectful, or heavy-handed if he or she believes a party or his or her client is uncooperative? Does the mediator hold any racial or cultural biases? Can he work with people that express racial bias? Does she think in traditional ways that may impose gender biases or reinforce gender-role expectations in the mediation? </span></span><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Does anger make the mediator uncomfortable in a way that he may cut off a party’s expression of it? Does crying make the mediator uncomfortable in a way that he may suppress the expression of sadness, fear, vulnerability, regret, and other emotions expressed in this way or other ways? Can she work with borderlines, narcissists, sociopaths, and other high conflict personalities without those parties pushing her buttons or manipulating her? </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: normal;">Does she accept referral fees from lawyers who regularly use her in mediation, therefore consciously or unconsciously creating a bias in favor of the referring attorneys and their clients? Is one party paying the full cost of the mediation so that the mediator may end up showing bias in favor of that party? Is the party a repeat player? Can the mediator remain even-handed knowing that she may be dependent on one party for her next referral?</span><br /><br /> Article 21 of the Qatar Mediation Law is the only article that addresses potential bias in favor of or against a party. It governs fees and provides: "[F]ees shall be determined and the method of payment thereof by mutual consent between the parties. . . . In the event of disagreement to determine the fees of the mediator, the court shall estimate them, taking into account the effort made by the mediator, according to the petition submitted by the mediator or either of the parties." Accordingly, even under this article, bias tied to fee payment could occur. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgccV_LV5uYsy_Sryv_vX7GvQpCE-AieXxU0-dfey-o18kEq54GwenE0-zN0L44qtD9SF7vIImUFiw8bfWVXFdu95dDZFPg0JP-8uX0fpUDVDDBlRz7xA9mHN9zkNRys_LzUPP2UltUXJe0kNUlU6eTFUiRJSR2wxAvRrHWZk03wyu7bhO0HIELhyxHMw/s2392/GettyImages-1327024770.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1252" data-original-width="2392" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgccV_LV5uYsy_Sryv_vX7GvQpCE-AieXxU0-dfey-o18kEq54GwenE0-zN0L44qtD9SF7vIImUFiw8bfWVXFdu95dDZFPg0JP-8uX0fpUDVDDBlRz7xA9mHN9zkNRys_LzUPP2UltUXJe0kNUlU6eTFUiRJSR2wxAvRrHWZk03wyu7bhO0HIELhyxHMw/w441-h230/GettyImages-1327024770.jpg" width="441" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: medium;">Quadrant 3: Impartiality in the Mediator’s Relationship to the Outcome.</span></b></h2><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> In an ideal setting, a mediator will defer to the high-quality decision making of the parties to settle (or not) and on what terms. Firestone suggests that parties, however, should consider the following situations because they change a mediator’s relationship to the outcome of the mediation. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Does the mediator brag about a high settlement rate? Does the court-connected program director refer cases to mediators with high settlement rates? Should a party, therefore, be concerned that the mediator views the case as the next notch on his belt? Will he work hard for his settlement rate even if it requires coercive interventions that disfavor one party? </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Does he have a vested interest in the outcome because his fee is based on a percentage of the agreed settlement? Does she unduly prolong the mediation session to earn a larger hourly fee? Does he act in a way to ensure future referrals from the repeat player? </span><br /><br />Does she believe that all human rights-related mediations must result in an agreement consistent with UN guidelines? Can he mediate with impartiality as to the outcome in an air pollution case if his son suffers from severe asthma? Can she mediate with impartiality an age discrimination case if she believes people should retire at age 65?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">The Qatar Mediation Law addresses a mediator's relationship to the outcome in two articles, and then very generally. Article 11, quoted above, requires the mediator to withdraw if an issue arises putting the mediator's "independence" into question. "Independence" could refer to independence from any particular outcome. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><p style="text-align: left;">Article 14 says that a mediator "may not be held accountable for his exercise of mediation tasks unless his exercise thereof was with bad faith, collusion, or gross negligence." Typically, bad faith in mediation refers to the negotiating behavior of the parties. One party has set an unreasonably high demand, or has made a low-ball counter, or refuses to negotiate in an objectively meaningful way. One <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith#:~:text=Bad%20faith%20refers%20to%20dishonesty,standards%2C%20or%20a%20fraudulent%20intent.">legal dictionary</a> defines bad faith as: "dishonesty or fraud in a transaction. Depending on the exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing standards, or a fraudulent intent." Thus, the Qatar Mediation Law, under this definition, would limit relationships to the outcome that arise from dishonesty or fraud on the part of the mediator.</p><div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjFGGMjnHyMsTSseYtzS1yH_LPH-Fvu87zR7Ym12Sau6giNFi5fk9XtA4JO_w5tZcojxmzJ_XSlzWLDa6krigoPPuPIl_wRbmjXaax3r1eg9X1ddu8uSTiOHg6nokf-xXCKMcAk8qKO_llYuGkJYAbvHs-UQl4P6iTglTC3IGRJZGViAde2zgaog03VA/s2309/GettyImages-1391439504.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1299" data-original-width="2309" height="229" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgjFGGMjnHyMsTSseYtzS1yH_LPH-Fvu87zR7Ym12Sau6giNFi5fk9XtA4JO_w5tZcojxmzJ_XSlzWLDa6krigoPPuPIl_wRbmjXaax3r1eg9X1ddu8uSTiOHg6nokf-xXCKMcAk8qKO_llYuGkJYAbvHs-UQl4P6iTglTC3IGRJZGViAde2zgaog03VA/w406-h229/GettyImages-1391439504.jpg" width="406" /></a></div><h2 style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Quadrant 4: Neutrality of the Mediator’s Conduct Towards the Outcome.</span></h2><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Firestone also suggests parties should consider whether the prospective mediator can maintain neutral conduct towards the outcome. This post interprets that concern as conduct that undermines party-self determination intentionally or unintentionally. I discussed party self-determination over the substantive outcome <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_22.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_23.html" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Conduct towards the outcome may reflect a mediator’s belief that he knows more than the parties about the law, their dispute, or other factors, and so he should play a role in its substantive resolution. Conduct towards the outcome may also reflect a lack of mediation skill or an over-reliance on the skills the mediator has developed in his profession-of-origin. For instance, does the mediator use coercion, intimidation, or other heavy-handed tactics? Does she fall back on her lawyerly problem-solving skills of giving legal advice because she lacks the skills to adopt a less coercive approach? Does he or she truly respect party-self determination? Does the mediator engage in interventions or processes inconsistent with the definition of mediation? Does she add terms to the settlement agreement on which the parties have not agreed? </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div><div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Article 9 of the Qatar Mediation Law provides that the mediator "may not be a member of an arbitral or judicial panel or express his opinions or testimony to either of them, regarding the same dispute or part thereof." Thus, a neutral in an arbitral or litigation process cannot serve as a mediator in the same case. This limitation does help keep a mediator in a facilitative role, with less concern or opinion about the substantive outcome. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">The second clause of this article is a bit confusing. I think it limits the ability of a mediator to express any opinions or testimony in a related arbitration or litigation. Again, this would help keep the mediator in a facilitative role. It also has the added benefit of keeping a party in a failed mediation from calling the mediator as a witness in a subsequent arbitration or court case. But, it also would preclude hybrid processes known as med-arb or arb-med by the same neutral. Some people in the field would suggest that that's a good thing, because those hybrid processes invite the mediator to become much more embroiled in the substantive outcome of the dispute.</span></div></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Articles 4 and 30(6) of the Qatar Mediation Law, which I discuss in greater detail in earlier posts <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/03/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no_23.html" target="_blank">here </a>and <a href="https://the-red-velvet-lawyer.blogspot.com/2023/05/an-analysis-of-qatars-mediation-law-no.html">here</a>, allow the mediator to suggest solutions and make proposals to resolve the dispute. If the mediator proposal process is not handled with skill, it can undermine party self-determination over the substantive outcome. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;">Here is the Firestone grid, with my updates and interpretation.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYVFcdsozgfeVyw9UVfEYHLEvegTO_LMQxlQl_zhvsAtT08jkRnw6lByE3jQMH6eB_ye9AthXh4rpNe3w9r-rj4Se5Pijn5gGCF1KYjGrYviCbbVEnA6xzpRGwspnGKjlGFt0ihC_72xEM0o7tC7Xuvo9IZHKqJ9AGlplk96x9SJWsVmT8SnhAL2s98g/s711/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%204.44.59%20PM.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="711" data-original-width="690" height="565" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYVFcdsozgfeVyw9UVfEYHLEvegTO_LMQxlQl_zhvsAtT08jkRnw6lByE3jQMH6eB_ye9AthXh4rpNe3w9r-rj4Se5Pijn5gGCF1KYjGrYviCbbVEnA6xzpRGwspnGKjlGFt0ihC_72xEM0o7tC7Xuvo9IZHKqJ9AGlplk96x9SJWsVmT8SnhAL2s98g/w500-h565/Screenshot%202023-05-10%20at%204.44.59%20PM.png" width="500" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: small;">Next up? The articles of the Qatar Mediation Law governing confidentiality in mediation. </span></div>The Red Velvet Lawyerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14898390294545305035noreply@blogger.com0