search
Articles

The Uniform Mediation Act...
Do We Need It? Do We Want It?


By Michael Geigerman

With the recent passage and approval and recommendation for enactment of the Uniform Mediation Act (UMA) in all fifty states by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (August, 2001) and the ABA House of Delegates (February, 2002), it is time for mediators and interested parties to consider the impact of this legislation on Missouri mediation practice. The legal community should carefully weigh support for the UMA. Before jumping on a band wagon that Florida, Texas, California, and Pennsylvania and many other states will not ride, Missouri must seriously consider whether we a need remedial mediation statute.

The UMA will significantly impact the mediation process, and this impact may not all be for the better. The International Academy of Mediators (IAM) has passed a resolution opposing the adoption of the current version of the UMA in the states because of a number of concerns over UMA confidentiality provisions (Resolution passed at IAM’s November, 2001 Conference). In an open letter to the IMA Committee, IAM President Steven L. Schwartz explained why the IAM took issue with several sections of the UMA. The most controversial sections were Section 9, which governs the assertion of mediation privilege; Section 2(2), which defines “mediation communication”; and Section 6(A)(4), which defines the privilege exception for “Criminal” conduct.

Missouri’s existing confidentiality statute (RSMo. 435.014(2)) and Supreme Court Rule 17 provide for confidentiality of communications made during the course of the mediation. Currently, in Missouri, mediation discussions are treated as settlement negotiations and communications in mediation are, as such, confidential. Under the UMA, a wide swath is cut eliminating confidentiality protection in several areas.

There are numerous copies of the Uniform Mediation Act available on-line. Two may be found at www.ronkelly.com or at www.pon/harvard.euc/guests/uma/.

The loss of confidentiality coupled with latent and clear ambiguities in the UMA give this author concern lest we sweep away Missouri’s existing confidentialit provisions. May be we should, may be we shouldn’t adopt the UMA in Missouri, but in any event we must carefully review it. Let’s think before we act!


Back to newsletters