The Daily Journal on Mediator Waivers of Prospective Potential Liability
(CPR, right. Are mediators like fireman as Straus Institute's Peter Robinson suggests?)
Excellent article on mediator liability waivers in a recent Los Angeles Daily Journal Article (excerpted below). I have much to say about this topic, particularly as to mediators who hold themselves out as possessing expertise in niche areas, such as the resolution of intellectual property disputes. My observations on this topic in the next post. For now, a sampling of some of the comments made by local mediators and ADR panel executives below:
Some Question Mediators' Liability Waivers
by Greg Katz
Daily Journal Staff Writer
LOS ANGELES - Mediators, perhaps more than anybody, know how expensive and time-consuming litigation can be.
So it should come as no surprise that many of them insert professional liability waivers in the forms they use for their mediations, using clauses, like: "The mediator has no liability for any act or omission in connection with the mediation."
While the State Bar prohibits attorneys from putting prospective liability waivers in contracts with their clients, mediators, who are unregulated, face no such restrictions.
Major providers, including JAMS and ADR Services, insert liability waivers in mediation forms posted on their Web sites, as do leading independent practitioners.
Now, some mediators and other participants in the industry are questioning what the waivers say about the ethics of mediation as a field. They warn that, despite the state's strict confidentiality rules that prohibit using anything said or done in mediation in court, it is likely mediators eventually will face lawsuits.
"In both law and medicine, it's unethical in California to seek a prospective waiver of liability from the people for whom you perform services," said Los Angeles mediator Jeff Kichaven, who has long expressed concerns about those waivers and does not use them himself. "If mediators want to have the same kind of respect in society, the way to do it is to try to emphasize their ethical standards."
While not all of the ethical standards imposed on lawyers should be applicable to mediators, Kichaven said, this one should.
"To me, it's a basic willingness to stand behind the quality of your work, which every professional ought to be willing to do," he said. . . . . .* * *
Jay Welsh, JAMS' general counsel, said ethical standards should be different for attorneys and mediators because the professions are "totally different."
"We want mediators and arbitrators to remain out of the fray so that they can take people who are contentious, and in litigation and make sure that litigation is focused on each other and no one else," Welsh said. "So that's why it's in our agreements."* * *
Peter Robinson, managing director of the Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law, said he had qualms with the use of liability waivers. He said they may not stand up if challenged in court. But, he added, attorneys don't sue mediators because they look at mediation as a public service profession akin to fire fighting.
"The fire department is a helping profession - whenever they go out, they're heroes. And in a similar way, mediators are there to help people get the case resolved, and I think most of the time they're perceived as a resource or an asset, as compared to a person who's responsible," Robinson said.
Finally, the always colorful Jeff Kichaven noted that:
"When I discuss these matters with other mediators, oftentimes the response I've met is, 'I've been doing this for a long time, and nobody has sued me,'" he said. "That's like a conversation with a hypothetical teenage daughter who says, 'What's the big deal with condoms? So far, I haven't gotten pregnant.'"
For full article,
click here.

Vickie, to be honest, I don't get the whole public service reference and I've heard it before from others. In some ways that view of jobbing mediators holds us back - for many of us and in particular your blog's readership, what is public service about being paid USDX?/day to assist two commercial organisations to settle a business dispute? Most of us are just another unbundled service provider in the legal food chain are we not?
This is the first I've heard the public service reference & thought it odd enough to put on my mental check list to ask Peter about the next time I see him. Only my community mediation service is a public service and I do not expect to be cloaked in some kind of immunity when I do THAT pro bono. In fact, I feel a higher sense of duty in community mediation because I'm mediating for people who aren't represented by attorneys and who are usually far less sophisticated than the parties for whom I mediate for a living. We ARE "another unbundled service provider in the legal food chain." Well said.