Private Sanctions of ADR Providers


Private Sanctions of ADR Providers


2013

Private Sanction

In June 2013, a mediator accepted a private sanction requirement to re-take the on-line Ethics Exam and attend additional ethics training for violations of URCADR Rule 104 Canon IV (g) and Canon I (k) as well URCADR Rule 101 (c).

Summary

A mediator spent many hours speaking to each of 2 parties separately, by phone, discussing issues of the case and related documents. The mediator never convened the mediation with parties present and did not obtain a signed agreement to mediate from respondent which created confusion as to the nature and confidentiality of the communications. After several months, the mediator filed an ADR disposition notice with the Court detailing the number of hours spent in phone and email contact with parties and reported that "ultimately Respondent refused to mediate".

Mitigating factors include: The mediator attempted on more than one occasion to convene mediation at a time, date and place agreed to by parties but each time one party cancelled on short notice. The mediator cooperated fully with the investigation and accepted responsibility for inappropriate actions.

2012

Private Reprimand

In May, 2011, a mediator was admonished for making statements to a party that could be considered coercive.

2009

Private Sanction

In September, 2009, a mediator accepted a private sanction requirement to re-take the on-line Ethics Exam and observe a mediation session conducted by a specified master mediator after a complaint involving URCADR Rule 104 Canons I, III and VIII.

Summary

A complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the mediator lacked impartiality. In subsequent communication the mediator accused complainant of breaching the confidentiality agreement by filing a complaint with the ADR Director.

Mitigating factors include: The mediator cooperated fully with the investigation and accepted responsibility for inappropriate actions.


The qualification of ADR Providers on the Utah Court Roster is governed by UCJA 4-510.03.

In terms of discipline, the rule states,

(9) A provider may be sanctioned for failure to comply with the code of ethics for ADR providers as adopted by the Supreme Court or for failure to meet the requirements of this rule or state statute. The committee shall inform the public of public sanctions against a provider promptly after imposing the sanction.

and in regard to private sanctions,

(9)(B) Private sanctions may include singly or with other sanctions:

(9)(B)(i) admonition;

(9)(B)(ii) re-take and successfully pass the ADR ethical exam.


Page Last Modified: 12/4/2013
Return to Top