Michael Cassel, Petitioner, went to trial court suing his attorneys, Wasserman, Comden, Casselman, & Pearson, LP for legal malpractice. He claimed that his attorneys only through “[b]ad advice, deception, and coercion” got him to come to agree to a settlement of business litigation during mediation. The attorneys filed a motion to exclude client’s mediation-related evidence due to attorney-client privileges. Then the Court of Appeal reversed that decision; the Supreme Court then reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. They held, too, that the confidentiality of the mediation-related discussions were in platy under Evid. Code, Stat. 1119, subds. (a), (b). It states “No evidence of anything said or any admission made for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation consultation is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any arbitration… .” “No writing, as defined in Section 250, that is prepared for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation or a mediation, consultation, is admissible or subject to discovery, … .”
The Supreme Court reasoned that the mediation-related discussions between Cassel and his attorneys were in fact confidential; they were in the course of mediation. They held that a client seeking to use the confidential discussions as evidence was no exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment