Search results

Modern Western states declaring the right to fair and speedy trial have faced serious obstacles while implementing it. The judicial procedure is suffering from severe caseload leading to a substantial delay and increasing costs in litigation. The situation resulted in growing public dissatisfaction with the formal court system and a justice as a whole. This encouraged the states to look for new dispute resolution mechanisms which could be alternative to litigation and could overtake certain disputes from courts leaving access to justice more available. In 1950's USA introduced mediation in solving labor disputes. It showed a success and gained the support of legislation and judiciary which led to wide spread of mediation to other areas of dispute resolution: small claims, neighborhood, consumer, landlord-tenant, victim-offender, family, environmental disputes. Mediation can offer a cheaper, faster, less formal procedure compared to litigation. Mediation leaves the ultimate decision making process in the hands of the parties themselves. The third neutral person is only assisting the parties in developing the dialogue and reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute. This voluntarily reached settlement diminishes the friction between adverse parties, helps to maintain further amicable relations between parties and preserve the social peace and harmony. Confidentiality is regarded as a fundamental feature to effective mediation. It encourages candid and free nature of the discussion. Parties are then free to communicate without fear that the facts they disclosed during mediation will be used against them in court if mediation fails. Parties to mediation, the mediator, non-party participants are obliged to keep all the information related to mediation confidential. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose the protected information or a part of it. The mediator doesn't have such authority to decide upon disclosure of protected communications – he has an obligation to keep it confidential. But are there circumstances when mediator is compelled to disclose the confidential information? If so, what are they? Scientific novelty of the thesis The European Union (hereinafter – the EU) has acknowledged the importance of alternative dispute resolution (hereinafter - ADR) and especially mediation in reaching one of its political objectives in securing better access to justice. The EU institutions produced a number of legal instruments promoting the use of ADR: Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law presented by the European Commission in April 2002, European Code of Conduct for Mediators passed by the European Commission in 2004 and finally the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters enacted by the European Parliament and the Council in May 2008. Lithuania as a Member State has to ensure a proper implementation of the provisions of this Directive through the means of national legislation. The Directive provides for a minimum standards to ensure the protection of confidentiality in mediation but Member States are free to take stricter measures at domestic level. Regardless which approach Lithuania is going to take – softer or stricter - it has to ensure that legislation regulating confidentiality is to be clear, precise, understandable and fair to the users of mediation and especially to mediators. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose certain confidential information in later judicial or arbitration proceedings. Mediator doesn't have such authority – he is obliged to keep information confidential. The obligation of confidentiality for mediator arise from statutes defining mediation, codes of professional conduct or mediation agreements. The duty of confidentiality must be preserved in order to assure that the reasonable expectations of participants regarding the confidentiality are met rather than frustrated. The goal of this thesis is to provide the answer for the legal issue: is the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators absolute? The proposed hypothesis is that the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators is not absolute. In order to accomplish the goal of the thesis and to support or deny the hypothesis we take the following steps: 1. to analyze the mediation and to determine what its main features are; 2. to analyze the confidentiality in mediation; 3. to determine what are the legal means for safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation; 4. to determine the role of mediator in preserving the confidentiality in mediation; 5. to determine the scope of confidentiality whether there is exceptions to it. In order to accomplish the tasks set above we analyzed number of legal instruments passed by the institutions of European Union, Lithuanian legislation on mediation, the provisions of confidentiality in Uniform Mediation Act of United States of America. It was important to explore the legal means in safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation in different countries: statutory protection, without prejudice rule, mediation privilege, attorney-client privilege and contractual protection – in order to determine which legal instrument provides the most protection of confidentiality. We looked at the case law of United Kingdom, USA, Australia that emphasized the importance of confidentiality in mediation, also analyzed British case law establishing the exceptions from the confidentiality. After the above mentioned tasks are accomplished we make the following conclusions: 1. Mediation unlike other ADR and unlike judicial procedures, can offer an amicable dispute resolution procedure which is strictly confidential. 2. Confidentiality is one of the most important mediation features distinguishing it from other dispute resolution mechanisms and making it more attractive to the users. Legally protected confidentiality fosters the candid and open communications between parties and mediator increasing the effectiveness of the procedure. Lifting the shield of confidentiality would destroy the public trust in mediation and would discourage its potential users from engaging in mediation. 3. The statutory privilege against disclosure of any mediation communication by parties, the mediator and non-parties participants and ability to block others from disclosure – is the most effective legal instrument preserving the confidentiality in mediation and protecting the mediator from being called as a witness regarding confidential information. 4. The duty of confidentiality placed upon mediator is not absolute as it can be proved by several exceptions created by legislation and by courts. There is certain situations when courts can decide to look at otherwise privileged information when public interest to hear mediator testimony outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and integrity of mediation. There are certain situations when courts are willing to hear the confidential information related to mediation. Absent any statutory protection the mediator may be called as a witness and could be compelled to testify. The mediator testimony may reveal certain information which could be in favor of one party and damaging to the other party this undermines the principle of mediator neutrality and the integrity of the process. All the exceptions to confidentiality must be construed carefully and precisely by statute leaving no ambiguities and providing the legal certainty for participants. The recommendations: In order to ensure the adequate protection of confidentiality in mediation we recommend: 1. to incorporate in the Code of Civil Procedure the provision prohibiting to call the mediator as a witness in civil or commercial proceedings; 2. to incorporate in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act the exception to confidentiality for information that is sought or offered to prove mediator malpractice claim or complaint; 3. to add an exception in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act that information about future or ongoing crimes which became known during mediation is not protected and must be disclosed to authorities.

Modern Western states declaring the right to fair and speedy trial have faced serious obstacles while implementing it. The judicial procedure is suffering from severe caseload leading to a substantial delay and increasing costs in litigation. The situation resulted in growing public dissatisfaction with the formal court system and a justice as a whole. This encouraged the states to look for new dispute resolution mechanisms which could be alternative to litigation and could overtake certain disputes from courts leaving access to justice more available. In 1950's USA introduced mediation in solving labor disputes. It showed a success and gained the support of legislation and judiciary which led to wide spread of mediation to other areas of dispute resolution: small claims, neighborhood, consumer, landlord-tenant, victim-offender, family, environmental disputes. Mediation can offer a cheaper, faster, less formal procedure compared to litigation. Mediation leaves the ultimate decision making process in the hands of the parties themselves. The third neutral person is only assisting the parties in developing the dialogue and reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute. This voluntarily reached settlement diminishes the friction between adverse parties, helps to maintain further amicable relations between parties and preserve the social peace and harmony. Confidentiality is regarded as a fundamental feature to effective mediation. It encourages candid and free nature of the discussion. Parties are then free to communicate without fear that the facts they disclosed during mediation will be used against them in court if mediation fails. Parties to mediation, the mediator, non-party participants are obliged to keep all the information related to mediation confidential. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose the protected information or a part of it. The mediator doesn't have such authority to decide upon disclosure of protected communications – he has an obligation to keep it confidential. But are there circumstances when mediator is compelled to disclose the confidential information? If so, what are they? Scientific novelty of the thesis The European Union (hereinafter – the EU) has acknowledged the importance of alternative dispute resolution (hereinafter - ADR) and especially mediation in reaching one of its political objectives in securing better access to justice. The EU institutions produced a number of legal instruments promoting the use of ADR: Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law presented by the European Commission in April 2002, European Code of Conduct for Mediators passed by the European Commission in 2004 and finally the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters enacted by the European Parliament and the Council in May 2008. Lithuania as a Member State has to ensure a proper implementation of the provisions of this Directive through the means of national legislation. The Directive provides for a minimum standards to ensure the protection of confidentiality in mediation but Member States are free to take stricter measures at domestic level. Regardless which approach Lithuania is going to take – softer or stricter - it has to ensure that legislation regulating confidentiality is to be clear, precise, understandable and fair to the users of mediation and especially to mediators. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose certain confidential information in later judicial or arbitration proceedings. Mediator doesn't have such authority – he is obliged to keep information confidential. The obligation of confidentiality for mediator arise from statutes defining mediation, codes of professional conduct or mediation agreements. The duty of confidentiality must be preserved in order to assure that the reasonable expectations of participants regarding the confidentiality are met rather than frustrated. The goal of this thesis is to provide the answer for the legal issue: is the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators absolute? The proposed hypothesis is that the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators is not absolute. In order to accomplish the goal of the thesis and to support or deny the hypothesis we take the following steps: 1. to analyze the mediation and to determine what its main features are; 2. to analyze the confidentiality in mediation; 3. to determine what are the legal means for safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation; 4. to determine the role of mediator in preserving the confidentiality in mediation; 5. to determine the scope of confidentiality whether there is exceptions to it. In order to accomplish the tasks set above we analyzed number of legal instruments passed by the institutions of European Union, Lithuanian legislation on mediation, the provisions of confidentiality in Uniform Mediation Act of United States of America. It was important to explore the legal means in safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation in different countries: statutory protection, without prejudice rule, mediation privilege, attorney-client privilege and contractual protection – in order to determine which legal instrument provides the most protection of confidentiality. We looked at the case law of United Kingdom, USA, Australia that emphasized the importance of confidentiality in mediation, also analyzed British case law establishing the exceptions from the confidentiality. After the above mentioned tasks are accomplished we make the following conclusions: 1. Mediation unlike other ADR and unlike judicial procedures, can offer an amicable dispute resolution procedure which is strictly confidential. 2. Confidentiality is one of the most important mediation features distinguishing it from other dispute resolution mechanisms and making it more attractive to the users. Legally protected confidentiality fosters the candid and open communications between parties and mediator increasing the effectiveness of the procedure. Lifting the shield of confidentiality would destroy the public trust in mediation and would discourage its potential users from engaging in mediation. 3. The statutory privilege against disclosure of any mediation communication by parties, the mediator and non-parties participants and ability to block others from disclosure – is the most effective legal instrument preserving the confidentiality in mediation and protecting the mediator from being called as a witness regarding confidential information. 4. The duty of confidentiality placed upon mediator is not absolute as it can be proved by several exceptions created by legislation and by courts. There is certain situations when courts can decide to look at otherwise privileged information when public interest to hear mediator testimony outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and integrity of mediation. There are certain situations when courts are willing to hear the confidential information related to mediation. Absent any statutory protection the mediator may be called as a witness and could be compelled to testify. The mediator testimony may reveal certain information which could be in favor of one party and damaging to the other party this undermines the principle of mediator neutrality and the integrity of the process. All the exceptions to confidentiality must be construed carefully and precisely by statute leaving no ambiguities and providing the legal certainty for participants. The recommendations: In order to ensure the adequate protection of confidentiality in mediation we recommend: 1. to incorporate in the Code of Civil Procedure the provision prohibiting to call the mediator as a witness in civil or commercial proceedings; 2. to incorporate in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act the exception to confidentiality for information that is sought or offered to prove mediator malpractice claim or complaint; 3. to add an exception in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act that information about future or ongoing crimes which became known during mediation is not protected and must be disclosed to authorities.

Modern Western states declaring the right to fair and speedy trial have faced serious obstacles while implementing it. The judicial procedure is suffering from severe caseload leading to a substantial delay and increasing costs in litigation. The situation resulted in growing public dissatisfaction with the formal court system and a justice as a whole. This encouraged the states to look for new dispute resolution mechanisms which could be alternative to litigation and could overtake certain disputes from courts leaving access to justice more available. In 1950's USA introduced mediation in solving labor disputes. It showed a success and gained the support of legislation and judiciary which led to wide spread of mediation to other areas of dispute resolution: small claims, neighborhood, consumer, landlord-tenant, victim-offender, family, environmental disputes. Mediation can offer a cheaper, faster, less formal procedure compared to litigation. Mediation leaves the ultimate decision making process in the hands of the parties themselves. The third neutral person is only assisting the parties in developing the dialogue and reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute. This voluntarily reached settlement diminishes the friction between adverse parties, helps to maintain further amicable relations between parties and preserve the social peace and harmony. Confidentiality is regarded as a fundamental feature to effective mediation. It encourages candid and free nature of the discussion. Parties are then free to communicate without fear that the facts they disclosed during mediation will be used against them in court if mediation fails. Parties to mediation, the mediator, non-party participants are obliged to keep all the information related to mediation confidential. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose the protected information or a part of it. The mediator doesn't have such authority to decide upon disclosure of protected communications – he has an obligation to keep it confidential. But are there circumstances when mediator is compelled to disclose the confidential information? If so, what are they? Scientific novelty of the thesis The European Union (hereinafter – the EU) has acknowledged the importance of alternative dispute resolution (hereinafter - ADR) and especially mediation in reaching one of its political objectives in securing better access to justice. The EU institutions produced a number of legal instruments promoting the use of ADR: Green Paper on Alternative Dispute Resolution in Civil and Commercial Law presented by the European Commission in April 2002, European Code of Conduct for Mediators passed by the European Commission in 2004 and finally the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters enacted by the European Parliament and the Council in May 2008. Lithuania as a Member State has to ensure a proper implementation of the provisions of this Directive through the means of national legislation. The Directive provides for a minimum standards to ensure the protection of confidentiality in mediation but Member States are free to take stricter measures at domestic level. Regardless which approach Lithuania is going to take – softer or stricter - it has to ensure that legislation regulating confidentiality is to be clear, precise, understandable and fair to the users of mediation and especially to mediators. Parties to dispute can agree to disclose certain confidential information in later judicial or arbitration proceedings. Mediator doesn't have such authority – he is obliged to keep information confidential. The obligation of confidentiality for mediator arise from statutes defining mediation, codes of professional conduct or mediation agreements. The duty of confidentiality must be preserved in order to assure that the reasonable expectations of participants regarding the confidentiality are met rather than frustrated. The goal of this thesis is to provide the answer for the legal issue: is the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators absolute? The proposed hypothesis is that the duty of confidentiality placed upon mediators is not absolute. In order to accomplish the goal of the thesis and to support or deny the hypothesis we take the following steps: 1. to analyze the mediation and to determine what its main features are; 2. to analyze the confidentiality in mediation; 3. to determine what are the legal means for safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation; 4. to determine the role of mediator in preserving the confidentiality in mediation; 5. to determine the scope of confidentiality whether there is exceptions to it. In order to accomplish the tasks set above we analyzed number of legal instruments passed by the institutions of European Union, Lithuanian legislation on mediation, the provisions of confidentiality in Uniform Mediation Act of United States of America. It was important to explore the legal means in safeguarding the confidentiality in mediation in different countries: statutory protection, without prejudice rule, mediation privilege, attorney-client privilege and contractual protection – in order to determine which legal instrument provides the most protection of confidentiality. We looked at the case law of United Kingdom, USA, Australia that emphasized the importance of confidentiality in mediation, also analyzed British case law establishing the exceptions from the confidentiality. After the above mentioned tasks are accomplished we make the following conclusions: 1. Mediation unlike other ADR and unlike judicial procedures, can offer an amicable dispute resolution procedure which is strictly confidential. 2. Confidentiality is one of the most important mediation features distinguishing it from other dispute resolution mechanisms and making it more attractive to the users. Legally protected confidentiality fosters the candid and open communications between parties and mediator increasing the effectiveness of the procedure. Lifting the shield of confidentiality would destroy the public trust in mediation and would discourage its potential users from engaging in mediation. 3. The statutory privilege against disclosure of any mediation communication by parties, the mediator and non-parties participants and ability to block others from disclosure – is the most effective legal instrument preserving the confidentiality in mediation and protecting the mediator from being called as a witness regarding confidential information. 4. The duty of confidentiality placed upon mediator is not absolute as it can be proved by several exceptions created by legislation and by courts. There is certain situations when courts can decide to look at otherwise privileged information when public interest to hear mediator testimony outweighs the interest in protecting the confidentiality and integrity of mediation. There are certain situations when courts are willing to hear the confidential information related to mediation. Absent any statutory protection the mediator may be called as a witness and could be compelled to testify. The mediator testimony may reveal certain information which could be in favor of one party and damaging to the other party this undermines the principle of mediator neutrality and the integrity of the process. All the exceptions to confidentiality must be construed carefully and precisely by statute leaving no ambiguities and providing the legal certainty for participants. The recommendations: In order to ensure the adequate protection of confidentiality in mediation we recommend: 1. to incorporate in the Code of Civil Procedure the provision prohibiting to call the mediator as a witness in civil or commercial proceedings; 2. to incorporate in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act the exception to confidentiality for information that is sought or offered to prove mediator malpractice claim or complaint; 3. to add an exception in Civil Dispute Conciliation Mediation Act that information about future or ongoing crimes which became known during mediation is not protected and must be disclosed to authorities.