CDRC UPDATE MAY 28, 2008
Proposed Minimum Standards for Mediators
The Administrative Office of the Courts has begun the process of developing proposed minimum standards for mediators in court-connected mediations.
The AOC's initial proposal can be found by clicking on the yellow link titled "AOC Draft / Ct. Panel Standards" at the top of this page.
As of now, it is the AOC's position that the proposed minimum standards are merely guidelines for the courts. They do not necessarily have to adopt them. The only requirement imposed upon an individual court will be that it have minimum standards of some nature.Nevertheless, given the possibility that the proposed standards will be adopted by many courts, we believe that it is important for mediators to advise the AOC of their views. Written comments regarding the proposal must be sent to the AOC by July 7. Comments may be addressed to:
Heather Anderson, Esq.,
Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
************************************************
Ester Soriano
It is with great sadness that the California Dispute Resolution Council announces the loss of one of our founders. Ester Soriano was a board member and active participant in CDRC since its early years. Ester was the Program Manager for the Los Angeles Dispute Resolution Programs Act grants as well as the Program Manager of the Domestic Violence Planning Program in
************************************************
CDRC UPDATE APRIL 2, 2008
Greetings
AB1177
On the legislative front, we are one of the major sponsors of AB 1177, which is intended to support the work of the Commission on Civil Fees to increase the revenue provided under the Dispute Resolution Program Act (DRPA) for community ADR programs. We are also supporting AB 2336. This bill will amend Business and Professions Code 7085 and 7085.5, which pertain to disputes between building contractors and consumers. The bill will increase the cap on arbitrable disputes under the Code to $100,000, double the previous limit. That limit is no longer practical because a substantial number of these disputes involve a sum in excess of $50,000. We believe that the bill will provide greater access to justice for consumers involved in these disputes and will also lower the cost of defense to contractors.
S. 1782 and S. 2554
Two important arbitration bills are pending in Congress. They are identified as S. 1782 (Feingold) and S. 2554 (Kennedy). Both bills will substantially restrict the ability of employers to impose arbitration agreements upon employees as a condition of employment. Although the purpose of both bills is salutary, we believe that they will restrict access to justice for employees and we are attempting to work with Congress and others to amend the bills.
AB2947
We made a difficult decision to oppose AB 2947. This bill would bar the practice of health care facilities to require that an arbitration agreement be executed as a precondition for admission of an elderly person to the facility. One of the CDRC's guiding principles is to oppose predispute agreements imposed upon consumers and employees. However, we believe that the bill is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act and thus will only lead to increased litigation in this area. Its purpose can be accomplished by an amendment. Furthermore, given the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Preston v. Ferrer holding that a restriction on arbitration in the California Talent Agencies Act was preempted, it is not an appropriate time to introduce legislation that may also be preempted.
Proposed Guidelines for Arbitrators
Finally, the Dispute Resolution Section of the American Bar Association has proposed disclosure guidelines for arbitrators. We have supported the proposal in principle, but we also suggested some changes. We did receive a comment from the co-chair of the section's Arbitration Committee that our ideas were extremely helpful. We will continue to monitor this issue.