A. It is
ethically inappropriate for a mediator to make the determination as to whether
a party has complied with a judge's discovery order.
B. It
would be inappropriate for a mediator to cancel mediation merely because of the
assertion that one party has not complied with a discovery order.
C. Since
it is not appropriate for the mediator to make the determination to cancel the
mediation, the mediator would not be in a position of filing a report with the
judge stating that the mediator did so.
D. The
question ["Is it appropriate for a mediation unit to prepare a Rule to Show
Cause for the judge's signature based upon an individual mediator's outcome report
that states that the plaintiff did not comply with the judge's discovery
order?"] is beyond the jurisdiction of the MEAC; however, care should be taken
to ensure that the unit does not provide any service that would cause mediators
to compromise their integrity or impartiality.
Although the rules do not explicitly contain such a prohibition [against
actions outside of the mediation process which might give the appearance of partiality],
a mediator should not engage in such conduct.
A mediator is not prohibited from including accurate information
in marketing material so long as it is not misleading; therefore, the mediator
may use the information and/or logo, if it is clear that the rating relates to
the attorney-mediator's law practice (as opposed to his/her mediation
practice).
While
the MEAC is unable to state that the above-described impasse avoidance techniques
["silver bullet/baseball" or "the mediator's offer"] are per se ethical, it acknowledges that the techniques may at times be
ethically utilized by a mediator. Any mediator choosing to proceed with either
approach must do so only after first considering the various limiting
provisions in the rules and the totality of the circumstances.
A.
A mediator may ethically engage in unsolicited direct marketing to the parties
and/or attorneys in dissolution of marriage cases using information posted
online by court clerks, but may do so only in strict compliance with Rule
10.610 governing mediator advertising. Any mediator engaging in this practice
must also bear in mind the extent to which mishandling such communication may damage
the reputation of individual mediators and community acceptance of the
profession at large.
B. It is not ethical for a mediator to send out a notice of mediation
directly to the parties in the manner suggested in the inquiry.
A. It is not permissible for a mediator to
dictate, over the parties' objections, who participates in a mediation caucus.
B. If someone participates in a mediation, either a full session or just
a caucus, that person is a mediation participant subject to the confidentiality
requirements under Florida's Mediation Confidentiality and Privilege Act. Under
the statute, there is no violation of confidentiality associated with
disclosing mediation communications to another mediation participant.
A clear conflict of interest exists whenever a law
firm in which a mediator is a partner is part of an adversary process involving
a party to the mediation regardless of the size of the law firm, the location
of other cases, or the mediator's lack of personal involvement.
There is a clear conflict of interest when a mediator,
having mediated a dispute, subsequently represents or otherwise takes a
position for or against a former party in a related matter.
