Maryland’s Mediation Confidentiality Act (SB 856/HB 762) went into effect on October 1, 2012. The Act establishes that, with certain exceptions, communications made in a mediation (i) in which the parties are required to mediate by law or (ii) are referred by an administrative agency or arbitrator, or (iii) in which the parties agree in writing that the mediation will remain confidential, must be kept confidential. Under the Act, the mediator must state in writing that he/she has read and will abide by the Maryland Standard of Conduct for Mediation during the mediation. The duty of confidentiality extends to any party present or otherwise participating in the mediation. Prior to the passage of the Act, Maryland court rules provided for confidentiality in mediations only for civil court action mediations. The full text of the Act is here.

by Jeremy Clare After blogging about In the Matter of Applications for Search Warrants for Information Associated with Target Email Address, we have come across several noteworthy materials related to e-discovery written by the Honorable David J. Waxse, the author of the Order. Judge Waxse is a Magistrate Judge with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and a well-known scholar on e-discovery. He is an Observer to The Sedona Conference Working Group 1 on Electric Document Retention and Production and Working Group 6 on International Electronic Information Management, Discovery and Disclosure. Magistrate Judge Waxse has given many presentations on e-discovery, including presentations at the 6th Annual Sedona Conference Institute Program on Staying Ahead of the eDiscovery Curve in 2012, Exterro’s 2012 E-Discovery Case Law Forecast: Hindsight is 20/20, Georgetown Law’s Advanced eDiscovery Institute in 2011, and Kroll Ontrack’s Turning the Tide – The Need for E-Discovery Education in 2011. He is also the author of several articles related to e-discovery, including “Do I Really Have To Do That?” Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosures and Electronic Information,10 RICH. J.L. & TECH. 50 (2004), at http://law.richmond.edu/jolt/v10i5/article50.pdf. Magistrate Judge Waxse earned his B.A. degree from the University of Kansas and his J.D. degree from Columbia University. He was a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon prior to his appointment to the District Court in 1999. On top of giving presentations on e-discovery, Judge Waxse has also been a lecturer at the University of Kansas. Jeremy Clare is a law clerk at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert. Jeremy received his J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 2012 and received a B.A. from the University of South Carolina where he studied political science.  

by Holly Hayes I recently read the book Ethical Intelligence by Bruce Weinstein, PhD, also known as The Ethics Guy. The subtitle of the book is “Five Principles for Untangling Your Toughest Problems at Work and Beyond”. In Chapter 10, titled “If I Am Not for Myself, Who Will Be? Ethical Intelligence with Yourself” Dr. Weinstein talks about “Five Rules of Engagement” for dealing with anger using ethical intelligence. 1. Stop. Don’t react right away. Take some time to assess what is going on. 2. Breathe deeply. Cooling down will make it easier to come up with a strategy that will succeed. 3. Look at the matter from another point of view. What are all of the possible explanations for why this is happening? 4. Ask, “What response is most likely to be effective?” It probably won’t involve blowing your stack. 5. Get help if need be. The problem may be too big to handle alone. Help can even be in the form of some feedback from another person. The book is based on five overall principles of ethical intelligence: 1. Do No Harm 2. Make Things Better 3. Respect Others 4. Be Fair 5. Be Loving To read more about Ethical Intelligence, see here. Holly Hayes is a mediator at Karl Bayer, Dispute Resolution Expert where she focuses on mediation of health care disputes. Holly holds a B.A. from Southern Methodist University and a Masters in Health Administration from Duke University. She can be reached at: holly@karlbayer.com.

  The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering two significant arbitration-related petitions: BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina, Docket No. 12-138. The issue is whether, in disputes involving a multi-staged dispute resolution process, a court or the arbitrator determines whether a precondition to arbitration has been satis?ed. Opinion below: Republic of Argentina v. BG Group PLC, 665 F.3d 1363 (D.C. Cir. 2012) Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C. v. Howard, Docket No. 11-1377. The issues is whether the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s holding that a state court may review an underlying employment agreement based upon a state statute restricting covenants not to compete, notwithstanding the presence of a valid arbitration clause, is foreclosed by the Federal Arbitration Act and forty-five years of authority from the Court (particularly Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna). Opinion below: Howard v. Nitro-Lift Techs., LLC, 2011 OK 98 (2011). Stay tuned!