Mediation Confidentiality Threatened by AB 2025

Assemblyman Wagner at the request of Assemblyman Gorrell has introduced Assembly Bill 2025. AB 2025 seems superficially innocuous as it creates an exception to the mediation confidentiality statute that exempts mediation communications between attorneys and their clients in a subsequent attorney malpractice action. The ramifications of this exception are, however, profoundly dangerous. For this reason, the California Dispute Resolution Council has registered its strong opposition to AB 2025. (more…)

Here’s what Cassel is about: In Cassel v Superior Court, 51 Cal 4th 113 (2011), the California Supreme Court once again stalwartly supported the concept of confidentiality in mediation.  The case arose from a suit filed by Michael Cassel against his attorneys in which he alleged that the attorneys had committed malpractice in the course of a mediation that was to determine the amount due Mr. Cassel for his interest in a license to sell a line of clothing.  (more…)

Factual history of Cassel: In August 2005, plaintiff Michael Cassel met privately with his attorney to prepare for mediation and trial in a trademark dispute entitled Von Dutch Originals, LLC v. Cassel. Prior to the mediation, Cassel and his attorneys discussed not accepting less than $2 million. After a 14-hour mediation, where plaintiff alleged that he did not feel well and had to leave to rest for a period of time, his attorneys called him back to the mediation where he ultimately settled for $1.25 million.  (more…)