History of CDRC

A Brief History

of the

California Dispute Resolution Council

Introduction

CDRC has been promoting effective, accessible conflict resolution services statewide since March 1994. Supported almost entirely by membership dues, it has established a reputation for influential, principled advocacy aimed at supporting policy that is good for both consumers and providers of ADR services. CDRC has earned a seat at the table whenever significant conflict resolution policy issues are considered. Its leaders have worked hard to maintain excellent working relationships with legislators and their staffs, consumer and business organizations, community ADR providers and consumers, lawyers and non-lawyer practitioners, professional dispute resolution provider associations, and others around the State who are active in the policy process. We have truly become the policy voice of ADR in California.

1992-1993: Early Visions

Prior to 1992, emerging ADR practitioners discussed the need for a statewide organization for the dispute resolution field, generally after conferences and over cocktails. On August 10, 1992, a group of 15 met for an informal lunch during the annual conference of the American Bar Association (held that year in San Francisco) to discuss what might be done.

The group was unanimous that its purpose should not be to form a new organization; rather the group believed it should brainstorm future needs of the field and trying to persuade existing organizations to address them. Accordingly, the group decided to hold an invitation-only "retreat" to brainstorm and sift ideas. Early pioneers of ADR in California participated including Bob Barrett, Randy Lowry (director of the Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University) and Ron Kelly. Other important figures in California ADR policy also participated in the founding discussion including Ramon Raugust and the late Don Weckstein of the University of San Diego.

The retreat was held November 13, 1992. Thirty-five people attended from all over the state, representing mostly mediation programs operating in a diversity of settings: court-connected, family, environmental and public policy, commercial, civil, and others. Brainstorming resulted in listing more than forty needs of the dispute resolution field, including the need for a "cohesive voice for legislation, including research about proposals, updating developments as they move through the legislation process, and education of legislators and staffs about the implications of different formulations of laws" and the need to keep practitioners informed of legislation that had the potential to impact their practices and programs. Needs of specific sectors of practice (public policy, community/court-related programs, and commercial) were also discussed.

The next meeting was held on February 5-6, 1993, in the Bay Area. Forty-two persons attended from such organizations as the American Arbitration Association, the California Judicial Council, the State Bar Association's staff on Consumer Affairs, the three local chapters of the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution, the Southern California Mediation Association, the Northern California Mediation Association, county bar associations, and a number of community-based mediation organizations. Discussions were grouped into six topics: legislation, education and marketing information, qualifications and ethics, institution-building, research and evaluation, and promoting diversity. In each area, attendees suggested specific plans and vehicles for addressing the needs identified. While each group was asked to suggest existing organizations that could implement the ideas, the notion emerged that some of the needs would require a statewide organization with a focused purpose and mission and the ability to act quickly.

The third meeting was held on June 18-19, 1993, at the University of San Diego School of Law and was hosted by Don Weckstein. At this meeting, attendees discussed the shape of a new organization, deciding on a name (the California Dispute Resolution Council) and a mission statement. There was still some hope expressed that existing organizations could solve the problem. The group decided to form a task force to focus on developing principles and a mechanism for responding to legislative proposals. Other task forces were set up to develop ways of increasing consumer awareness about mediation, addressing qualifications and ethics concerns, increasing evaluation and research efforts, and promoting diversity in the dispute resolution field.

By the fourth meeting, held in Southern California on November 12, 1993, it had become clear that a new statewide organization would be needed to undertake the legislative advocacy that no organization(s) could hope to do successfully. Legislative monitoring would require a day-to-day presence in Sacramento. In addition an organization was necessary to act quickly and draw ideas and views from a broad cross-section of the dispute resolution field in the state.

Key principles emerged: that the new organization would be inclusive, reaching out to all providers of dispute resolution services in all parts of the state; that the organization would concern itself with arbitration as well as mediation and other forms of ADR; and that it would attempt to promote the interests of consumers as well as providers of dispute resolution services.

Among the task forces working on developing specific action plans, the most energy centered on concerns about legislation, as the legislation task force had begun to track bills with important implications for practice in the state. Several bills required close attention, focusing on mandatory mediation (SB 401) and proposing to set standards for these programs, encouraging mediation directed at reducing racial and ethnic tensions, and increasing funding for community mediation programs.

1994: Organizing, Electing Leaders, and Seeking Members

The fifth meeting occurred on March 20, 1994, in Sacramento. CDRC's articles of incorporation had already been filed, and the bylaws drafted by Ramon Raugust were approved. The group elected board members and officers and began planning how to implement a membership program. Bob Barrett was elected as the first president. In response to Ron Kelly's suggestion, the group also adopted five brief "Consensus Points" to guide its lobbying:

1. Definition. The mediation process should be clearly defined in substantially the form that follows: "Mediation" means a process in which a neutral person or persons facilitate communication between the disputants to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.

2. Funding. Mediation should be available to all parties in all types of cases, regardless of the parties' ability to pay.

3. Education. The courts, public agencies, and dispute resolution providers should share responsibility for furnishing information to the public, the bar, judges, court and government personnel, and others concerning dispute resolution processes, the availability of programs, the differences among various processes, the possibility of savings in cost and time, and the consequences of participation in such processes.

4. Declarations and Findings. No mediator should be required to submit, and no court should consider, any declaration or finding of any kind by a mediator regarding a case, beyond a required statement of agreement or non-agreement, unless all parties in the mediation expressly agree in writing.

5. Qualifications for Dispute Resolution Providers. Qualification criteria should be based on training, experience, and performance, not on the attainment of any particular academic degree or professional license.

The board's first meeting was held in May, 1994. The goal of having 400 members by the end of the year was set. The board also established committees to track legislation and a process for considering and responding quickly to legislative developments. Plans were also made for a strategic planning retreat in September and to continue the work of the qualifications and ethics task force to develop a more comprehensive statement of principles.

In June and July, membership solicitations were sent out to all who had been involved in the earlier retreats. By the end of July, CDRC had more than 120 individual and organizational members. Its legislative committee had begun to track 12 bills, dealing with both mediation and arbitration. The board decided to support two, one encouraging the use of mediation in land use cases, which passed and was signed by the governor, and the other to enlarge funding for community mediation programs, which was passed, but vetoed by the governor. Three bills setting up a confusing array of disclosure requirements for arbitrators passed before CDRC was able to comment on them.

On September 11-12, 1994, the CDRC board held a strategic planning retreat in San Diego. The board set as a goal that CDRC should become the primary contact for legislators on dispute resolution topics. The board hoped that CDRC would be routinely consulted by legislative staff and others around the state on policy topics. The budget (totaling $13,000) was approved. Plans were made for regular contact with members through a quarterly newsletter, a clearinghouse of information, and regular dialogue meetings with members. The board also clarified procedures and policies regarding who could speak for the organization: only the president or the president's designee.

The first annual meeting was held on November 18, 1994, at which the CDRC board distributed its first Newsletter, reporting on legislative developments and plans for the new legislative year. The board consisted of 22 leaders in the dispute resolution community from all parts of the state and a diverse range of practice sectors. The board was also diverse in gender, racial, and ethnic terms. At the November meeting the board clarified the procedures for studying and rapidly coming to positions on bills, either by vote of the full board or the executive committee. The year ended with about 200 active members and plans for implementing the vision that had been developed back in September.

1995: Establishing Procedures and Hiring a Lobbyist

Lauren Burton, then Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Bar Association Dispute Resolution Services, began her term as president on January 1, 1995. The first order of business was the hiring of a lobbyist for the organization. Fortunately, an excellent candidate was available, Donne Brownsey, who was just beginning a new lobbying firm and looking for "anchor" clients. She was an experienced legislative staffer with excellent relationships with members on both sides of the aisle. It was also important that she had taken mediation training, which helped assure that she knew and shared the values underlying the practice of mediation and arbitration. She was an outstanding choice, and the relationship continues with a contract that is renewed annually by mutual agreement.

Announcing that a "Bill Tsunami Hits ADR Shores," CDRC's March 1995 Newsletter reported on the 74 measures that mentioned the words "mediation" or "arbitration." The Legislative Committee prepared to review each bill and analyze the implications for the dispute resolution field, tracking closely those measures of importance to the field.

Among the bills were arbitration measures extending judicial immunity for arbitrators and defining the scope of appeal of arbitration awards. Dennis Sharp, a vice president of the American Arbitration Association, chaired the Arbitration Legislation Committee. He and Jim Madison, a well-known arbitrator from San Mateo County, developed language for a bill that CDRC could sponsor to "clean up" the arbitrator disclosure legislation that had been passed the year before.

Also included among the flood of bills were proposals to establish a mandatory mediation program for selected counties and to create a voluntary credentialing program for the state modeled on the program developed and used by the San Diego Mediation Center. That proposal raised many concerns among some in the dispute resolution field and virtually ensured a high profile for legislative activity for the year.

On March 21, 1995, CDRC celebrated its one-year anniversary and Mediation Week with a legislative luncheon in Sacramento. Highlighting the luncheon were presentations by Assemblyman Bill Morrow and legislative staffers.

The CDRC "Consensus Points" were expanded by the Committee on Qualifications and Standards into a comprehensive listing of CDRC Principles on topics expected to come up sooner or later in the legislature. Don Weckstein chaired the committee. The resulting principles reflected points made in extensive discussions among the board members and the annual membership meeting the prior November. These principles poised CDRC to react rapidly when new legislative proposals came to its attention, and firmly established CDRC as a "principle driven" organization.

Recognizing the need for sustained attention to the credentialing bill, Lauren Burton appointed a special committee to review it, chaired by Bob Barrett. The committee held meetings around the state--sometimes scheduled simultaneously so they could be connected by conference call--and prepared detailed recommendations for the CDRC board regarding the measure. Because of the controversy surrounding the bill, it was set for more extended consideration as a "two-year" proposal. Public hearings around the state were scheduled for the fall by the author of the bill, Senator Newton Russell, who was also a trained mediator. It was important to CDRC that its approach to the proposed legislation would be seen as deliberative and principled, so CDRC took every opportunity to engage in informal dialogues on this complicated proposal.

During the year the Newsletter was expanded and greatly improved in format and content. The editor was Sheila Purcell, the State Bar Association's dispute resolution program developer and resource person.

CDRC also, for the first time weighed in on a case, Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1995) 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 621. CDRC requested review by the California Supreme Court of the appellate decision that had approved a one-sided, but mandatory and binding arbitration system in the health care field. The Supreme Court granted review and reversed the decision in Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951.

1996: Enhancing CDRC's Reputation and Building Capacity

Ken Bryant, a commercial mediator and arbitrator from San Jose, took over as president in 1996. Membership had grown to nearly 500, and the budget had risen to $46,000, most of which was used to retain Donne Brownsey.

The most pressing legislative challenges included the review of more than 85 bills mentioning mediation or arbitration and the development of positions on the three bills introduced by Senator Russell in 1995 and held over as "two-year" bills. The three bills proposed a voluntary mediator certification program, suggested a requirement that attorneys advise clients about ADR in all civil litigations, and required judges to hold early status conferences in all civil cases to consider mediation. Senator Russell wanted to promote greater use of dispute resolution, but many concerns had been identified with specific provisions of the bills. CDRC carefully studied each proposal and sought extensive input from its members, especially on the certification bill. Positions were prepared in order to describe the implications of the bills at legislative hearings. In the end, none of the three bills passed.

CDRC, however, was successful in sponsoring its first bill seeking to increase funding for mediation programs under the Dispute Resolution Programs Act. Lauren Burton drafted the bill's language, working closely with Los Angeles County's legislative staff, and it was introduced by Assemblyman Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles. With extensive efforts by Donne Brownsey and DRPA-supported organizations throughout the state, the bill passed and was signed by the Governor.

Inspired by Dennis Sharp, president-elect, CDRC also began its first annual statewide dialogue programs, held during March in four locations: Sacramento, Los Angeles, Anaheim, and San Diego. More than 300 dispute resolution practitioners participated, with lively facilitated discussions on such issues as mediator certification, court-referred mediation, arbitrator immunity, arbitration vacatur grounds, DRPA funding, lawyer obligations to clients concerning advising about ADR, and arbitrator disclosure requirements.

1997: Expanding Membership and Developing Infrastructure

Dennis Sharp became president in 1997 and devoted much attention to building the membership of CDRC and improving CDRC's administrative capacity. Membership grew to 600 individual members and 150 organizational members. The budget increased again, to $60,000 and special contributions were also received to supplement membership dues revenues.

A key benefit of membership was the publication of CDRC's first Directory, which also included a copy of the CDRC Principles and a list of committee rosters and CDRC accomplishments.

One decision of this period was to establish a related organization that could conduct research and other educational activities, later named the California Dispute Resolution Institute (“CDRI”). It was organized under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and secured its tax-exempt status in 1997.

Also during 1997, CDRC became very involved in two key legislative projects. The first involved the efforts of the California Law Revision Commission to modify and clarify the law applying to mediator confidentiality in the state. Ron Kelly, on behalf of CDRC, closely followed the development of this comprehensive new statute, which successfully codified strong protections for confidentiality of the mediation process, explicitly protecting mediators from compelled disclosure of mediation communications, the substance of mediation participation or efforts to set up a mediation in later civil litigation. CDRC played an active role in commenting on the specific legislative language that evolved. The second key proposal concerned arbitrator disclosures and CDRC successfully sponsored an arbitrator disclosure cleanup legislation.

Finally, in the wake of the defeat of mediator certification in 1996, CDRC began an effort to develop a comprehensive set of standards that could govern mediation practice and that would be a model for courts, counties, and mediation programs to adopt. It was believed that the "model standards" approach would be preferable to legislation that would be difficult to enact and even more difficult to amend or modify as needed in later years. Lee Jay Berman, a Los Angeles mediator, chaired a special committee to prepare a draft set of standards. The committee's drafts were widely circulated within the state and improved through such consultation, and attracted a substantial list of endorsers.

1998: Lobbying Effectively and Looking Beyond Legislation

In 1998 Norm Brand, an arbitrator and mediator from San Francisco, began his term as president. Patricia Brown, Executive Director of the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center in San Mateo County, and Ellen Miller, ADR Program Developer at the State Bar, led a Strategic Planning Committee to maintain and expand CDRC’s statewide presence and influence.

A prominent legislative concern was whether disclosure requirements for mediators should be similar to those enacted earlier for arbitrators. CDRC representatives met several times during the fall of 1998 with the staff of the Assembly Judiciary Committee to discuss this complicated area. No proposed legislation emerged from these discussions, due in part to the success of CDRC in articulating the difficulty of crafting appropriate language.

The most important development during the year was the California Supreme Court's decision in Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, holding that representation of a party in arbitration constituted the practice of law. CDRC advocated the standard of the international arbitration statute, permitting representation of a party in arbitration by anyone that party chooses. Despite those efforts, Birbrower remains the California rule.

CDRC succeeded in producing a widely endorsed draft of Standards of Practice for California Mediators, which were circulated for use by courts, counties, and mediation programs. They have since been adopted by two programs, have served as a model for several more programs, and are under consideration for adoption in many more locations throughout the state.

1999: Increasing Administrative Support

Liz O'Brien, executive director of the San Diego Mediation Center, became president of CDRC in 1999. One of the key issues during the year was the emergence of a series of proposed drafts of a Uniform Mediation Act being produced by committees of the American Bar Association and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Since the early drafts included language that, if enacted in California, would weaken the protections for mediation confidentiality, CDRC requested its public policy committee, chaired by John Seitman, an arbitrator and mediator from San Diego and formerly president of the state bar, to study the draft and prepare formal comments on it. Several CDRC representatives also met with the ABA/NCCUSL drafting committees in December in Monterey, during dialogue sessions permitting extensive and informal discussion regarding key provisions of the evolving draft.

Well-attended dialogue sessions were held in May to focus on the Uniform Mediation Act draft. On October 15, 1999, CDRC collaborated with CDRI in the annual conference in the San Francisco area featuring discussions about where mediation and arbitration were going, dispute resolution research needs, and the Judicial Council's Task Force report on ADR and its implications for the courts, litigants, and the public. The conference also highlighted legislative developments, and sought membership input on priorities for attention in the upcoming year.

Principal legislative action focused on efforts to ban pre-dispute arbitration clauses in employment and insurance contracts, and in connection with contracts for medical care or treatment. The 1999 version of the bill was dropped after several amendments stripped the bill of its application to insurance, consumer, and health-care contracts.

Organizationally CDRC's membership leveled off, with the perception that the legislative activity was not as urgent as it had been in the past. The board began to address longer-term needs for more administrative help and the necessity of communicating regularly with members and emphasizing membership retention.

2000: Enhancing Influence and Visibility

John Seitman became president of CDRC in January 2000. Priorities during the year included attempts to stabilize and increase membership so as to increase the breadth and influence of CDRC's voice and to review the possibility of hiring of an executive director and staff to handle administrative needs.

In July CDRI and CDRC launched a project focusing on compensation of neutrals in court-connected, agency-operated, and community-based programs. This project was meant to include the collection of survey information concerning the such programs’ functions and their key features. The collaboration meant to host a series of dialogues around the state to allow participants to discuss what principles should govern and whether, and under what circumstances, neutrals should be paid for their work.

2002: The Year of Reform and Regulation

2002 was a in which new rules for neutrals and providers took root. President Ruth Glick, Donne Brownsey and the entire board worked persistently and relentlessly to make sure new regulation would be reasonable and workable for ADR professionals.

The legislative agenda for ADR reform in 2002 was thrust in the public eye with a three part investigative report in the San Francisco Chronicle in the fall of 2001 about the failures of private arbitration. Soon a Blue Ribbon Panel was appointed by the Chief Justice Ronald George to assist in drafting new ethical standards. CDRC members Jim Madison, Ken Bryant and Richard Chernick were part of the Blue Ribbon Panel and added their sage advice and assistance to the drafting process. Their strong but minority voices sought to shape the rules to insure compliance by ADR professionals. Ruth Glick wrote two lengthy letters on behalf of CDRC warning of untended consequences of the developing standards and explaining how to make them more practicable and useful to the arbitration community.

The Ethical Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration were incorporated into California Code of Civil Procedure on July 1, 2002. For the first time anywhere in the nation, in any state, arbitration providers, community non-profits and private arbitration companies became subject to extensive disclosure requirements and prohibitions. Moreover, arbitrators themselves became subject to the most rigorous and technical disclosure requirements trumping already existing federal and state requirements. Ethical goals were now written into rules, and failure to follow them would result in vacature of an arbitration award and possible retaliation against the arbitrator and provider. As warned, this has happened since the implementation of these Ethics Standards.

Meanwhile in Sacramento, Donne Brownsey and Ruth Glick worked hard communicating to legislators and their staff not to create an inordinate amount of new reform legislation that would be so unreasonable that providers would discontinue providing arbitration services in California. Some initial legislative drafts were extraordinary in their lack of understanding. For example, one piece of legislation sought to treat arbitrators who served in more than five consumer arbitrations a year as arbitration providers themselves, thereby requiring quarterly global reports. CDRC was able to discourage its passage.

Of six new arbitration bills passed by the Legislature, the Governor signed five into law. CDRC actively worked with the legislature and the Governor’s office to make the bills reasonable for compliance. Taking notice of the potential for unintended consequences pointed out by CDRC, the Governor vetoed AB 3029, the sixth bill which would have caused significant problems in its application.

During the same year the Judicial Council also developed the Rules of Conduct for Mediators in Court-Connected Mediation Programs in Civil Cases, rules which were not as controversial as the arbitration ethics standards. CDRC members Ellen Miller, Mickey Katz, Lee Jay Berman and others carefully crafted comments to these new rules.

For the first time in 2002, CDRC was able to implement mass emails to members. This allowed for timely communication in a cost efficient manner. In addition, the electronic newsletter made its first appearance that year, courtesy of Dick Bayer.

The annual conference was held at Loyola Law School with well over 100 people attending. Blue Ribbon Panel Chair, Dean Jay Folberg and State Senator Sheila Kuehl were part of exciting lineup of speakers.

CDRC also weighed in on an extraordinarily important appellate court decision, Rojas v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (2002) 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 97. Because the case had significant implications for mediation confidentiality, CDRC submitted a letter requesting the Court de-publish the case, or in the alternative, review the ruling (see 2004 for a review of the Supreme Court’s decision in Rojas and CDRC’s position.)

Members’ enthusiasm and level of interest was extraordinarily high in 2002, finding twenty members running for eight Board of Director seats. 2002 was a very important year for CDRC’s role in shaping ADR in California.

2004: A Year of Transition

As Tom Reese became President in 2004, CDRC was closely and intensively working with the CDRI to produce a computation and analysis of consumer arbitration cases from CCP 1281.96 required data of six large arbitration services providers. John Blackman and Nancy Warren worked closely with Bob Barrett and CDRI – by then a part of the Leo McCarthy Center at USF – to complete and publish the survey.

Organizational change occurred, including the seamless transition of administrative support from Maureen Newman in San Francisco to Amy Johnsgard in La Jolla. The website, under the control of the very able Beth Strickland, become current, complete, credit card accessible and full of CDRC happenings. E & O insurance for neutrals became available to CDRC members through Complete Equity Markets. The annual CDRC conference (November 2004) was planned and accomplished by CDRC alone rather than by CDRI as before. CDRI and CDRC mutually decided to become independent of each other.

Rojas v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 407was decided by the California Supreme Court with the aid of the Amicus Curiae brief prepared by the Public Policy Committee of the CDRC, under Jim Madison urging the position eventually taken by the Court .

CDRC sponsored 11 Dialogues with local Bar Associations, the Mediation Society, and other ADR interest organizations throughout the State to flush out what mediation users were experiencing from mediation providers. This was in response to the growing discussion about further regulating, and possibly credentialing, mediators.

CDRC focused on community mediation in California. Donne Brownsey, CDRC’s legislative analyst, worked closely with the Judicial Council and the Court Fees Working Group to protect the portion of the court filing fee that was directed to community programs through the Dispute Resolution Programs Act. CDRC also sponsored and assisted in the creation of the California Coalition for Community Mediation with special membership fees, meetings to be held in conjunction with and as part of CDRC’s Annual Conference, the ability of community practitioners (and others) to obtain E &O insurance and representation in Sacramento through CDRC.

CDRC also initiated the annual MCLE presentation at the State Bar Conference on “ADR Happenings in 2004” featuring a panel of current officers of CDRC.

The year ended with a celebratory Tenth Anniversary Gala at the LA Athletic Club honoring founding Board members, the LA Bar Association’s Dispute Resolution Service, San Mateo’s PCRC, San Diego’s NCRC, the Contractor’s State Licensing Board and Richard Chernick for the standards of excellence they have set in the provision of neutral services. Dick Bayer, Don Fobian, Amy Johngard and Gerald Phillips were responsible for this highly successful and nationally remarkable occasion.

2005: Working the Edges

Dick Bayer became President in 2005 and oversaw a year of transition in partnering relationships. CDRC took responsibility for the annual conference, marking the end of its partnership with CDRI and marking the beginning of its expanded collaboration with the many other ADR member organizations in the State.

The Board elected at the annual meeting was the first board with policy level members from the most important sectors of the California ADR landscape including representation from JAMS, AAA, NAF, the Straus Institute at Pepperdine, court connected programs and community programs as well as independent mediators and arbitrators. CDRC strengthened its alliance with the newly created California Coalition for Community Mediation.

In Sacramento, CDRC sponsored legislation to delete the sunset provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1282.4, allowing parties in arbitration to be represented by out-of-state counsel. CDRC also worked with the Law Revision Commission on its proposal for a State Ombudsperson for Home Owner Associations in California.

In the courts, CDRC filed an amicus brief arguing strongly for arbitral immunity for both the arbitrator and his sponsoring organization in a case involving damage claims against the arbitrator based on the claimed non-disclosure of involvement in a case more than twenty years old. That case settled in April.

Once the Rojas decision was announced in December, 2004, articles appeared within the next week authored by various trial attorneys around the state criticizing the ruling. There were calls for the Consumer Attorneys of California to draft legislation to overturn Rojas and weaken the confidentiality statute. CDRC met with the CAOC to ensure that no such legislative action would be forthcoming in 2005 and none was. CDRC committed to work alongside CAOC to address confidentiality concerns as well as cooperate with CAOC on access to justice issues.

The State Bar of California introduced a seemingly benign proposal that all attorneys performing ADR services must maintain "active" status with the State Bar, even if they no longer practice law. CDRC argued that this would unwittingly help establish that acting as a third party neutral in mediation and arbitration constitutes the "practice of law." CDRC filed a strong statement in opposition to the rule resulting in the Bar amending its proposal (CDRC continued to challenge the less heinous but nonetheless dangerous attempt to include alternative dispute resolution within the compass of the Bar.)

The Judicial Council proposed rule changes to California Rules of Court 1620, 1621 and 1622, including a new complaint procedure against mediators in court connected programs. CDRC took a very strong position that welcomed review of mediator services but found Rule 1622 an over-reaction to what appeared to be a very small problem. The Judicial Council withdrew Form ADR108 that contained a confidentiality waiver tied to a complicated complaint procedure.

CDRC weighed in on the issue of free mediation services in connection with the Los Angeles Superior Court mediation program and voiced its opinion that the program ran afoul of some of CDRC’s announced principles including the concept that where parties can afford mediation services, they should pay for them. CDRC later sponsored a dialogue in Pasadena to address concerns with court-connected programs. CDRC was included in the small circle of individuals and organizations looking into that issue with the L.A. Superior Court.

10/07