Confidential settlement agreements may not remain confidential

We have learned that mediation confidentially is protected in California by contract law, by the plain meaning of statutory law, and by our highest state court’s confirmation that our statutory law means what it says. But what about our settlement agreements; what about the anticipated results of our mediations, are they confidential too?

The answer, as found by the Second California District Court of Appeal in the case of In re Estate of Thottam (2008) (PDF) 165 Cal.App.4th 1331, is that it depends upon the agreements of the parties and the plain meaning of the applicable statute.

Evidence Code Section 1123 provides that:

A written settlement agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation, is not made inadmissible, or protected from disclosure, by provisions of this chapter if the agreement is signed by the settling parties and any of the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The agreement provides that it is admissible or subject to disclosure, or words to that effect.

(b) The agreement provides that it is enforceable or binding or words to that effect.

(c) All parties to the agreement expressly agree in writing, or orally in accordance with Section 1118, to its disclosure.

(d) The agreement is used to show fraud, duress, or illegality that is relevant to an issue in dispute.

In other words, a settlement agreement is "not made inadmissible" (is not confidential) if the agreement provides that it is admissible, the agreement provides that it is enforceable, the parties to the agreement agree to its disclosure, or the agreement is used to show fraud, duress, or illegality.

The importance of these distinctions was made clear in Estate of Thottam, which involved a dispute among siblings regarding the distribution of assets from their deceased mother’s estate. Before the mediation of this dispute, all three siblings and the mediator signed a “mediation and facilitation confidentiality agreement.”

Continue Reading...

Facts matter in mediation and trial

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion,
but not their own facts.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003)

Durable settlements and wining trial strategies rest on a foundation of facts.

Your opinion of the opposing party will get you into the courtroom or the mediation conference room. But remember that the quality of your facts will determine the quality of your settlement or your litigation result, and plan accordingly.

Study finds that settling is often better than trial

A study of 2,054 cases that went to trial from 2002 to 2005, concludes that parties in litigation can, and more often due, win without fighting.

“The lesson for plaintiffs is, in the vast majority of cases, they are perceiving the defendant's offer to be half a loaf when in fact it is an entire loaf or more,” said Randall L. Kiser, a co-author of the study and principal analyst at DecisionSet, a consulting firm that advises clients on litigation decisions.

Defendants made the wrong decision by proceeding to trial far less often, in 24 percent of cases, according to the study; plaintiffs were wrong in 61 percent of cases. In just 15 percent of cases, both sides were right to go to trial - meaning that the defendant paid less than the plaintiff had wanted but the plaintiff got more than the defendant had offered.

The problem in every case, of course, is knowing which ones should be tried and which ones should be settled

The moral of the above study, at least for plaintiffs, may be that the settlement offer you just received from the other side really is the high point of your case.

Lincoln's Notes on the Practice of Law

Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser – in fees, and expenses, and waste of time. As a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opertunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

Abraham Lincoln, Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, “Notes on the Practice of Law” (1850?), pp. 245-246, emphasis in original. Edited by Don E. Fehrenbacher (The Library of America, 1989).