Los Angeles Mediators - Members Welcome

Debra Self, Vice-President of LA Mediators, has secured a promise from a senior distinguished Judge to be our guest at the next LA Mediators event in the Spring of 2008. This event promises to be big, major big.

Alan Saler - www.alansaler.com - who launched one of the most spectacular exits in living memory from the black hole of mediator limbo, spoke to a packed crowd of well fed and lubricated LA Mediators on February 20, to reveal his techniques and methods for creating and then thriving in the heady atmosphere of success. He had many secrets and was willing to share. We came away satisfied.

Many attendees brought food in quantity and variety, while others ate the food and found it pleasing. Fine wines were provided by our distinguished President, Robert Tessier, and he was careful to taste everything to ensure quality and consistency right down to the end of every bottle. He also served as moderator, teasing out from Alan the fine details of his continuing success, which anyone can verify simply by looking at his website. V-P Deb Self and Secretary/Grand Vizier Glenn Gottlieb were also present to glow things right in the event of something untoward, though nothing untoward did happen.

We've now had several meetings in the Valley which is a hike for many people, so our next meeting which is warranted to exceed all expectations by a wide margin will be held in a place both accessible and delightful. And the speaker is guaranteed to be intriguing.

Thirty one mediators crowded into the Water Garden office complex in Santa Monica the evening of November 14, 2007, courtesy of and many thanks to David Laufer, Esq, with Tom Gajewski and David Laufer as guest speakers on the vital topic of mediation marketing with movie clips and powerpoint presentations to emphasize points. Bob Tessier added his successful experience marketing mediation services in litigated cases in LA County and numerous people joined in to create a lively and stimulating discussion. Therese Gray and Mary O'Neil came from as far as Orange County and others from Calabasas, Pasadena, Malibu, the South bay and points north, south and east.

Great food courtesy of everyone - it was pot luck - and Bob Tessier provided some lovely wines to make the meal portion of the evening memorable.

Everyone seemed quite absorbed in the presentations if these photos are anything to go by:

Bob Tessier (President, LA Mediators) standing, with Russell Birner, Mimi Steinbauer,Wendy Wright, David Laufer; : Elizabeth Moreno; Julie Renner; Scott Martin

Left to right: Glenn Gottlieb (Secretary LA Mediators); Andrew Golden, Russell Birner, Mimi Steinbauer

David Laufer (presenter); Rachelle Zazzu, Steve Zikman, Deb Self (V-P LA Mediators); Don Bloss

Natalie Armstrong, Wendy Wright and David Laufer, Terri Tucker and Kathryn Marshall, Therese White and Nicole Marcy and Dorit Cypis

Deanie Kramer, Carolyn Ward and Mary O'Neil, Brian Ghiglia and Mora, Tom Gajewski (presenter)

Tom Gajewski and Bob Tessier; Don Bloss and Deborah Rothman; Ken Reed and Susan Swenson, Peggy Barnes

Legislative amendments are being proposed for the 2007 legislative session in Sacramento with the specific purpose of increasing funding for community mediation centers.

Proposed amendments to the Dispute Resolutions Programs Act (proposed amendments in section 467.2 in bold italics)

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
Section 467 .2. A program shall not be eligible for funding under this chapter unless it meets all of the following requirements: (a) Compliance with this chapter and the applicable rules and regulations of the advisory council. (b) Provision of neutral persons, including volunteers reflective of the diversity of the community, adequately trained in conflict resolution techniques as required by the rules and regulations promulgated by the advisory council pursuant to Section 471. (c) Provision of dispute resolution programs, on a sliding scale fee-paying basis, and without cost to indigents, with respect to any disputes that have not yet entered the court system. (d) Provision that, upon consent of the parties, a written agreement or an award resolving a dispute will be issued setting out a settlement of the issues involved in the dispute and the future responsibilities of each party. (e) Provision of neutral procedures applicable equally to all participants without any special benefit or consideration given to persons or entities providing funding for the programs. (f) Provision that participation in the program is voluntary and that the parties are not coerced to enter dispute resolution. (g) Provision of alternative dispute resolution is the primary purpose of the program. (h) Programs operated by counties that receive funding under this chapter shall be operated primarily for the purposes of dispute resolution, consistent with the purposes of this chapter.

The wording of section 467 does not adequately set forth the specific types of programs eligible for funding, resulting in misdirection of funds contrary to legislative intent to reduce litigation.

The Amendment clarifies the requirements to receive funding by setting forth the type of programs eligible for funding consistent with the legislative purpose.

Legislative intent is set forth in Section 465. It seeks to encourage pre-litigation community-based mediation, by emphasizing the following in specific statutory language: (1) The resolution of many disputes without unnecessarily costly, time-consuming, and complex… formal court proceedings where the parties are adversaries and are subjected to formalized procedures (2) the use of greater use of alternatives to the courts, (3) increased use of other alternatives to the formal judicial system by funding community-based dispute resolution programsreflective of the diversity of the communities to be served (4) encouragement and support of community participation in the development, administration, and oversight of local programs designed to facilitate the informal resolution of disputes among members of the community.

However, this statutory purpose language in section 465 is not explicitly contained in the eligibility requirements for funding contained in section 467, resulting in programs that do not follow legislative intent being funded.

Specifically, funds are being directed away from community-based programs, and the legislature’s desire for programs reflective of the diversity of the community has been circumvented, and funds are being diverted into pending litigation.

For example, Community and Senior Services of Los Angeles County, the DRPA funding ntity for LA county, gives priority to disputes already in litigation (exactly contrary to legislative intent), even favoring high value unlimited jurisdiction civil claims while discriminating against low value Small Claims and low value ‘limited jurisdiction’ (formerly community-based Municipal Court) cases. Indeed, Los Angeles Superior Court is the only county court to receive DRPA funding. LA County also fails to encourage the statutory purpose of seeking volunteers reflective of the diversity of communities, and discriminates against entities against seeking to provide pre-litigation services for disputes “between neighbors, domestic disputes and consumer-merchant disputes,” as specified by legislative intent.

An enumeration of specific matters that may be referred to government-funded programs is eded to prevent diversion of funds and to uphold the statutory purpose.

The San Fernando Valley Bar Association ADR section made an important proposal to the court by letter dated October 31, 2006. The letter proposes pro bono mediation ONLY for limited jurisdiction and fee waiver cases, and a market rate panel for all other cases. Here is the text of the letter:

The Executive Committee of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association, submit the herein proposal for your consideration.

On May 1, 2005, we sent the enclosed letter in which we submitted certain proposals with respect to the court’s mediation panels in the interests of all concerned. As you know, the court rather than adopt our proposal decided it merited further study.

Meantime, we too have continued to study the matter. After considerable thought and discussion we have agreed to modify and resubmit our proposal, as follows:

1. That cases of limited jurisdiction, as well as cases in which filing fees have been waived on grounds of financial hardship, may be submitted to the pro bono panel.

2. That all other cases may be submitted to the paid panel or other private mediation.

3. That a mediator (other than mediators on the pro bono panel) may offer services to parties at his or her determined rate, subject to demand, so that parties may have the opportunity to find a mediator most suited to their particular needs and have the widest possible choice.

Adopting the proposal will result in a number of significant benefits. The pro bono panel will provide a valuable resource for the mediation of limited jurisdiction cases, thus increasing the pool of mediated cases, as well as serving litigants in financial need. It will provide those wanting to volunteer their time the opportunity to serve pro bono. Random selection will also foster diversity. At the same time, the party pay panel will offer an important resource for attorneys and parties, offering a wide selection based on criteria including availability, location, subject-matter expertise, experience and cost.

We submit the time is ripe for this development to the system. The proposal continues to guarantee access to free or very affordable mediation services while offering wide variety based on diverse selection criteria.

Executive Committee On Behalf Of
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Section
San Fernando Valley Bar Association
By: ______________________________________
Alan G. Saler, Esq.
Chairman

An event under consideration continues the progress of a recent event called 'Working Within the System,' held at Loyola Law School on May 25, 2005. That event, sponsored by the Beverly Hills Bar Association, the California Dispute Resolution Council, and the Southern California Mediation Association, sparked a good deal of interest in the mediation community, including the idea of a follow-up event to continue the discussion.

Working ideas for the program under consideration include an examination of how the system got to where it is, recognizing that it has changed and evolved, and exploring ways in which further change could enhance the environment for mediators. Topics that might be fruitfully discussed include:

1. The history of the Judicial Arbitration Statute from 1978
2. Court mediation: its development following the Mediaton Statute in 1993
3. The relative decline of judicial arbitration and turn to court mediation
4. The mediation pilot program; its inception and results
5. The expansion of mediation teaching programs in the past 15 years
6. The expansion of the numbers of mediators
7. Four paid panels: JAMS, Judicate West, ARC and ADR Services
8. The impact of CCP 1141, et seq. & 1775 et seq.
9. History of the court's pro bono panel
10. Inception of the court's paid panel
11. Serving the indigent community; the place of community mediation programs currently operating in LA county
12. The effect of the Dispute Resolutions Programs Act, it provisions, how it functions and who uses it.