Mediation confidentiality statutes protect Los Angeles lawyers in a legal malpractice suit created by Allison K

In Cassel v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4^th 113, 244 P.3d 1080 (Cal.2011), the California Supreme court reversed the Los Angeles Superior Courts ruling when they held that all communications between the attorneys and client related to the mediation were inadmissible based on California’s mediation confidentiality statutes. 

In the client’s action against his attorneys he claimed legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract.  Much of the client’s claim was based on the events that took place during a mediation between the client and Von Dutch Originals.  Before the mediation the client and his attorneys agreed to accept nothing less than 2million to settle.  However, after hours of mediation it was clear that Von Dutch Originals would not go beyond 1.25million.  The attorneys pressured their client to accept the 1.25million and called him greedy for wanting more.  The client attempted to leave in order to eat and get some rest, but his attorneys told him he had to stay.  Furthermore, client stated that his attorneys misrepresented the terms of the proposed settlement and falsely stated they would reduce his legal fees if he accepted the offer.  His attorneys to not let up and even accompanied him to the bathroom continually pressuring him to accept the offer.  After 14hours of continuous mediation the client signed the agreement.

The trial court granted the attorney’s motion to exclude all evidence of communication between the attorneys and client relating to the mediation pursuant to the mediation confidentiality statutes.  On appeal, the trial court’s ruling was vacated.  Conversely, the California Supreme Court reversed, agreeing with the attorneys and the trial court. 

The Supreme Court concluded that the mediation confidentiality statutes clearly exclude these communications from court proceedings.  The purpose of the statutes is to allow for uninhibited conversations, making it easier to come to an agreement/settlement outside of court.  While this makes proving a case of legal malpractice extremely difficult and may not have been a foreseeable consequence of the mediation confidentiality statutes, it is up to legislation to modify these laws and not the job of a court of law.