PGP Mediation

Conflict Entrepreneur

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:00:33 +0000

I was watching the CBS news the other night when John Dickerson did a piece on “ What is a Conflict Entrepreneur?” https://youtu.be/fCrQRchkDWY?si=G24Lzq4Mu49tmUyR

Dan Harris, in his article “How to avoid a conflict entrepreneur,” defines it as “… someone who inflames turmoil to benefit themselves.” They are individuals who “get rewarded by social media algorithms with followers and profit.” (https://www.danharris.com/p/how-to-spot-a-conflict-entrepreneur). As Mr. Harris notes, they come in all shapes and sizes: “profiteering divorce lawyers, meddling mothers-in-law, shit stirring besties. (Id.)

Citing the author Amanda Ripley and her book, High Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How To Get Out, Mr. Harris notes that one good indication of a conflict entrepreneur is that the person is delighting in the suffering of others, perhaps because it assuages their own pain. (Id.) The way to deal with such folks is to identify and marginalize them. It may also be helpful to reflect on your behavior to see if, at times, you have been a conflict entrepreneur. (Id.)

I wondered: am I unknowingly dealing with conflict entrepreneurs in mediations? Has one of the parties escalated the conflict solely to gain profit, power, or solely for pleasure? ( https://www.courageousri.com/conflict-entrepreneurs)

Is a party there solely to make things worse, and who finds joy in others’ misery such that the more miserable the other party feels, the better the conflict entrepreneur?

Learning about this concept has been an eye-opener and will give me much food for thought. I hope that it gives you, the reader…

… Just something to think about.

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

Copyright 2021 Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com, 2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Phyllis G. Pollack and www.pgpmediation.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The post Conflict Entrepreneur appeared first on PGP Mediation.

When is a mediation not a mediation?

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:00:18 +0000

I had a troubling mediation the other day. I knew something was amiss when I did not get any mediation briefs. Thus, I had no clue what the case was about, much less the issues. While submitting a brief helps me learn about the case, more importantly, it forces the parties to think and analyze their case rather than “winging it.”

So, the appointed time came, and only the plaintiff’s counsel appeared on Zoom. I asked the plaintiff’s counsel if her client—the actual plaintiff—would be appearing. The response was “no.”

Further, defense counsel was absent, so I contacted her to see if she intended to mediate. She did, but could not find the link, so I provided it again.

I then spoke with the plaintiff’s counsel, who gave me a chronology of the case and her views on why the matter is in litigation and has not been settled.

When I spoke with defense counsel, I discovered that the plaintiff’s counsel had put a particular “spin” on the case, leaving out a few salient, if not crucial, facts. According to the defense, it had offered and tried to settle the case, even offering more than the amount required under the particular statute. As the defense counsel explained, plaintiff‘s counsel is seeking a lot more based on a particular reading of the statute.

So, after speaking with both counsel separately, I returned to the plaintiff’s counsel to find out what the demand was. She gave me a lump sum amount. When I asked if she was willing to break it down into its components, she declined.

So, I returned to the defense counsel and provided the lump sum demand. She advised that she had to speak with her client. After a few moments, she stated that she was unable to reach her client and thus could not provide a response.

We will have to end the mediation, and defense counsel will contact me once she speaks with her client.

As a result, I had no opportunity to speak with plaintiff’s counsel about her particular reading of the statute or how a court might consider the matter. The magic of the moment was lost.

So, the mediation ended… before it really began.

While counsel will return to court and tell the court that they “mediated”, I question the truthfulness of that statement.

… Just something to think about.

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post When is a mediation not a mediation? appeared first on PGP Mediation.

In Negotiations, Are Women More Ethical Than Men?

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 29 Aug 2025 16:00:48 +0000

The Harvard PONS blog posted (on August 27, 2025) a thought- provoking article by Katie Shonk entitled “Moral Leadership: Do Women Negotiate More Ethically than Men?”

The answer is that generally, “yes”, “…women are generally less accepting of unethical behavior than men are and tend to behave more ethically than men in a wide variety of contexts….” (Id.)

Citing a study by Michael P Haselhuhn and Elaine M. Wong of the University of California, Riverside, the article notes that “…25% of men used deception to negotiate a deal as compared with only 11% of women.” (Id).

Referencing another study by Jessica A. Kennedy of Vanderbilt University, Laura J. Kray of the University of California at Berkeley and Gilliam Ku of the London Business School that looked more closely at the “why” behind such differences, those researchers found:

As compared with men, women are more likely to be socialized to view themselves as interdependent with others and to be more attuned to relationships and others’ emotions. Generally speaking, men are socialized to define themselves as more independent and less reliant on others.

Consequently, Kennedy, Kray, and Ku hypothesized that women internalize morality into their identities more strongly than men do. “Because being moral helps people build and maintain relationships,” Kennedy and her colleagues write, “women are likely to adopt goals and values that promote the welfare of others. Over time, these goals and values may translate into identifying strongly as a moral person.” Because people with stronger moral identities tend to behave more ethically, the researchers hypothesized that women also would be more ethical negotiators. (Id.)

However, the researchers found this to be true only up to a point. In a different experiment, the participants pretended they were hiring managers for a job that was to last only six months. At issue was whether the female (as opposed to the male) participants (aka “hiring managers”) would be honest and forthcoming about this fact when interviewing job candidates. The findings were that women were indeed more honest about it. ( Id.)

The experiment was then changed slightly to now include a $100 incentive award for negotiating the lowest salary. This new “rule” changed the dynamic considerably : “… women were just as likely as men to behave unethically.” (Id.)

In conclusion,

Overall, the findings suggest that women may be socialized to be more ethical negotiators than men. However, when financial incentives to lie or cheat loom large, women may be just as tempted as men to focus on maximizing profit at the expense of their morality. (Id.)

Turning to negotiations during mediation, the implications of this study are clear: women may be more ethical in negotiating or at least will not be as deceptive as men EXCEPT when there is a financial incentive for them built into the process, such as attorney fees. Then, according to this study, women are liable to use deceptive tactics to the same extent as men. “… Women may be just as tempted as men to focus on maximizing profit at the expense of their morality.” (Id.)

Given that lawyers are bound by the Professional Rules of Conduct which include, among other things that lawyers should not engage in misrepresentation, I question the accuracy of this finding as it might apply to lawyers. Granted lawyers will engage in “puffery” which is okay to do. The issue is that there is a fine line leading to a slippery slope between puffing and misrepresentation. Will women lawyers engage in moral disengagement- ( “…the extent to which they rational[ize} away unethical decisions-…” (Id.)) to convince themselves that they are engaging in ethical negotiations during a mediation? Who knows?

It does pose an interesting dilemma.

… Just something to think about.

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post In Negotiations, Are Women More Ethical Than Men? appeared first on PGP Mediation.

Has Mediation Become Mechanized?

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:00:51 +0000

Assembly Bill 1755 (AB 1755) became law on September 29, 2024. It significantly amends California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (ACT), initially adopted in the 1970s. The Act is designed to provide motor vehicle owners with the remedy of restitution or replacement against automobile manufacturers when their vehicle proves to be defective.

As one might imagine, especially in California, where driving is a must, this created a cottage industry of lemon law civil lawsuits. According to one legislative analysis of AB 1755 :

Since the lifting of the COVID-19-related emergency procedures governing California’s civil litigation system, the number of annual lemon law filings in California courts has nearly doubled.

In fact, in 2023, nearly ten percent of all civil filings in the Los Angeles County Superior Court were lemon law-related cases. The influx of lemon law litigation and the accompanying increases in discovery disputes, dispositive motions, and protracted settlement negotiations is resulting in growing case backlogs across the entire civil justice system. The backlogs are now delaying justice for millions of Californians. (Analysis)

As a result, AB 1755 was enacted to lessen the impact of so many lawsuits by creating three streamlining procedures in civil lemon law lawsuits. The first was to require that the consumer make pre-litigation demands for repurchase or restitution to the manufacturer. This would allow the manufacturer to resolve the issue without a lawsuit. The second was to institute some initial streamlined discovery, including exchanging all pertinent documents and allowing for taking shortened depositions.

The third is to require that all cases be mediated within 150 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is filed. This requirement has created a flood of mediations. Now every single case must be mediated within its first five months.

Mediations are supposed to be voluntary and predicated on “self-determination,” in which each party is able to make free and informed choices about the process and outcome. Is this new law removing this self-determination? Is this new law an implicit sledgehammer “forcing” parties to settle? I do not know.

However, what concerns me more is that mediation has become just another box to check off in the litigation timetable. And because it is mandatory, I am finding that the only way counsel and their clients can comply with the tight time requirement is to conduct several mediations at once using an Excel spreadsheet to keep each case and each offer and demand in each case straight. Mediation has sometimes become simply a process of trading numbers or amounts of money. The “true” mediation process we teach is gone; it has become merely an assembly line process.

While the requirement to mediate undoubtedly helps the courts manage their caseloads and get rid of the backlog, I wonder if it has done a disservice to the field of mediation by mechanizing it.

… Just something to think about.

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post Has Mediation Become Mechanized? appeared first on PGP Mediation.

Ask Before Offering Advice!

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 15 Aug 2025 16:00:26 +0000

One of the topics I cover in my mediation classes is the different styles or models of mediation, one of which is evaluative mediation.

In the evaluative mediation model, the mediator aims to help the parties reach a resolution. To do this, she “… assumes that the participants want and need the mediator to provide some direction as to the appropriate grounds for settlement… She also assumes that “the mediator is qualified to give such direction based on her experience, training and objectivity.” “(Waldman, Ellen, ed. Mediation Ethics: Cases and Commentaries (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Ca. 2011) at p.20 and fn 22.) To help settle the dispute, the mediator will feel free to offer her opinion on proposed options for settlement based on her own experiences and assessments of the situation at hand. (Id.) These mediators believe that the parties can make their best decisions only by being fully informed of their options, good and bad. And the mediator is the one to provide that information. (Id.)

A recent article in the Wellness newsletter of The New York Times questions whether it is wise to offer such free-wheeling advice, especially when not sought. In “Before You Offer Advice, Ask This Question,” author Janice Dunn (Updated August 9, 2025) notes that offering unsolicited advice can make one feel “… powerful, helpful and even generous. But unsolicited advice can backfire….” (Id.)

Like the evaluative mediator, when we offer advice, we base it on our own experiences (an implicit bias on our part!). While our insights may be relevant, we must ask whether they apply to the other person. (Id.)

As noted above, unsolicited advice can backfire by harming a relationship. It may seem self-serving and thus be ignored (Id.) If someone does indeed ask for advice, they are more likely to find it valuable (Id.)

So… before offering advice, ask, “Do you want my advice?” If the answer is “yes,” the listener will listen and pay attention to what you say. They made the choice, and they feel empowered! And hopefully less resistant to what you have to say! (Id.)

When I teach mediation, I note that even though the parties may want an evaluative mediator, one should still ask them whether they want your opinion before providing it. Don’t just give it; ask first. Psychologically, asking this simple question does wonders by giving them agency and allowing them to be more receptive to what you have to say, even if it is not good news!

… Just something to think about.

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post Ask Before Offering Advice! appeared first on PGP Mediation.

Sexual Orientation and Negotiation

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 08 Aug 2025 16:00:32 +0000

It has long been said that men tend to be assertive and competitive in negotiations, while women tend to be more passive and cooperative.

A recent study discussed in the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School (PON) daily blog post debunks this stereotyping. In “Gender and Negotiations: New Research Findings” (July 23, 2025), Katie Shonk discusses a study that shows how sexual orientation influences our negotiation style.

A 2023 study on gender and negotiation revealed that its underlying assumption was that the negotiators were heterosexual. “Yet, at least nine million U.S. adults publicly identify as homosexual….” So, is this assumption wrong at least part of the time? (Id. at 2.)

The authors of this 2023 study, Sreedhari D. Desai of the University of North Carolina and Brian C. Gunia of Johns Hopkins University, looked at a range of studies and found that people stereotype the negotiating behavior of those they presume to be gay based on explicit or implicit cues. (Id. at 4.) One example would be belonging to a gay or lesbian organization. The researchers found that in negotiating with gay or lesbian individuals,

“…participants expected gay women to be more dominant negotiators than straight women and gay men; consequently, the participants made better offers to gay women than to straight women and gay men. Participants also expected gay men to be more passive negotiators than straight men and consequently made worse offers to gay men. The study results suggest that gay men may face a similar negotiation disadvantage as straight women, and that lesbian women may accrue a bargaining advantage—at least if their sexual orientation is known” (Id. at 2.)

This study shows that, unfortunately, stereotyping is alive and well. The term “stereotype”

… is a generalized belief about a particular category of people.[2] It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group’s personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes make information processing easier by allowing the perceiver to rely on previously stored knowledge in place of incoming information. (Wikipedia)

The term was first used in 1798 by Firmin Didot, a printer,”… to describe a printing plate that duplicated any typography.” (Id.) In 1922, the term was first used outside of printing by Walter Lippmann to denote the social psychological meaning we ascribe to it today. (Id.) And that meaning has stuck with us today.

So, the next time you negotiate anything, are you doing so with the implicit assumption about that person’s sexual orientation? If so, catch yourself and try not to let that assumption govern your demands, offers, and concessions.

… Just something to think about

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post Sexual Orientation and Negotiation appeared first on PGP Mediation.

Does AI Understand Emottions Better than I Do?

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 01 Aug 2025 16:00:56 +0000

Recently, I took a survey about my mediation practices. Several of the questions concerned my use of AI before and during mediation. For example, do I use AI to conduct research about the issues in the case? Do I use AI to develop questions to ask during mediation? Do I use AI to suggest ways to get past an impasse?

My answer to these questions was negative. A recent study, though, suggests that I should rethink my use of AI before and during mediations. The study suggests that AI “understands” emotions better than humans, especially when the situation is emotionally charged.

In “New Study claims AI “understands” emotions better than us-especially in emotionally charged situations”, the author Drew Turney (LiveScience, June 23, 2025) notes a new study published on May 21 2025 in the Journal Gemini 1.5, Psychology in which researchers from the University of Geneva and the University of Bern applied widely used emotional intelligence tests to several different large language models (LLMS) such as ChatGPT-4, Chat-GPT-01, Gemini 1.5, Claude 3.5 Haiku and, Copilot 365 to compare how they performed vis a vis humans and “…their ability to create new test questions that adhere to the purposes of EI tests.” (Id. at 3.-4)

Their results were interesting to say the least:

“By studying validated human responses from previous studies, the LLMs selected the “correct” response in emotional intelligence tests 81% of the time, based on the opinions of human experts, compared to 56% for humans.”

“When ChatGPT was asked to create new test questions, human assessors said these efforts stood up to the original tests in terms of equivalent difficulty and clearing the perception they weren’t paraphrasing the original questions. The correlation between the AI-generated and original tests were described as “strong”,…” (Id. at 4.)

Thus, researchers concluded that AI is better at “understanding “emotions than humans (Id. at 5).

But there is a deeper story. In reaching this conclusion, several experts noted that we must remember the methodology used: multiple-choice questions. These experts pointed out that rarely in the real world, when emotions are high, are we confronted with multiple choice questions to determine what we are feeling or should do! (Id. at 5.) :

“It’s worth noting that humans don’t always agree on what someone else is feeling, and even psychologists can interpret emotional signals differently,” said finance industry and information security expert Taimur Ijlal. “So ‘beating’ a human on a test like this doesn’t necessarily mean the AI has deeper insight. It means it gave the statistically expected answer more often.”

“They added that the ability being tested by the study isn’t emotional intelligence but something else. “AI systems are excellent at pattern recognition, especially when emotional cues follow a recognizable structure like facial expressions or linguistic signals, “said Nauman Jaffar, Founder and CEO of CliniScripts—an AI-powered documentation tool built for mental health professionals. “But equating that to a deeper ‘understanding’ of human emotion risks overstating what AI is actually doing.” (Id.at 6)

These experts point out that while AIs are great at answering quizzes in structured quantitative environments, these are tests about emotional situations; they do not put the bot in the heat of the moment when tensions are high, which is what humans experience (Id. at 67.)

So, while AI “understands” emotions better than humans, it is questionable whether it can do so in the heat of the moment—in a real, live, tension-filled moment!

So, the upshot is that I should probably learn how to use AI in my mediations—there is more of an upside than a downside. I should just be careful about allowing it to be involved in the more emotional aspects of my mediations.

… Just something to think about.

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post Does AI Understand Emottions Better than I Do? appeared first on PGP Mediation.

Threat of Serious Bodily Injury or Harm

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:00:11 +0000

Suppose you are a mediator and during the mediation, one party, either in a joint or separate session with you, threatens the other party with serious bodily harm or injury if they refuse to settle on the terms proposed. What do you do if anything?

Do you ignore it? Keep quiet? Postpone, terminate, or withdraw from the mediation? Call the police?

Fundamental to mediation is mediation confidentiality. Model Standard of Conduct for Mediators, Standard V covers confidentiality and states, “A mediator shall maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained by the mediator in mediation, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or required by law.” (Emphasis added.)

Does the “required by law” provide an exception to mediation confidentiality?

California, like many states, has a mandated reporter statute. Penal Code 11165.7 lists over 40 categories of professions deemed mandated reporters, including educators, social workers, peace officers, firefighters, physicians, surgeons, psychiatrists, psychologists, dentists, emergency medical technicians, marriage and family therapists, clergy, and animal control officers. If you are in one of these professions and also a mediator, then you are obliged to report child or adult abuse, abandonment, or neglect. However, neither attorneys nor mediators per se are on this list. So, what does the mediator do?

In 1976, the California Supreme Court held in Tarasoff v Regents Board of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d.425, 551 P.2d. 334, 131 Cal. Rptr . 14 that a mental health professional had a duty to warn a third party that his patient was threatening that third party with bodily harm. Despite the patient-therapist privilege, the professional had a “duty to protect” the third-party victim by either notifying he police, warning he victim, or taking other reasonable steps to protect the potential victim. (See: Wikipedia)

Should this “duty to protect” apply to mediators? Indeed, while section B of Standard VI on the Quality of Process in the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators states, “If a mediator is made aware of domestic abuse or violence among the parties, the mediator shall take appropriate steps, including, if necessary, postponing, withdrawing from or terminating the mediation,” other standards go further.

Standard VII of the Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediators (2000) provides that while the mediator shall maintain confidentiality of all information acquired during the mediation…unless…required … by law, “(C.) The mediator shall disclose a participant’s threat of suicide or violence against any person to the threatened person and the appropriate authorities if the mediator believes such threats is likely to be acted upon as permitted by law.”

The Uniform Mediation Act, adopted in 13 states and the District of Columbia (but NOT in California), creates an exception to mediation confidentiality in Section 6(a)(3), providing that there is no confidentiality to “… a threat or statement of a plan to inflict bodily injury or commit a crime of violence.”

In 1997, California adopted Evidence Code sections 1115-1128 covering mediation. Section 1119 provides that all evidence of anything said, all written documents, and all communications “…made for the purpose of, in the course of or pursuant to a mediation…” is neither admissible nor discoverable in a noncriminal proceeding. Note that the protection of mediation confidentiality applies only to the discoverability and admissibility of evidence in a civil proceeding.

While Evidence Code 703.5 provides that a mediator is NOT competent to testify in certain subsequent proceedings as any statement, conduct… occurring in the mediation, an exception exists for conduct that constitutes a crime. In that case, the mediator is competent to testify.

Under a 1990 appellate decision, Howard by Drapkin, 222 Cal. App.3d. 843 (Cal. App. 1990), California grants quasi-judicial immunity to mediators for their alleged acts and/or omissions during a mediation.

In 2010, the Tennessee Alternative Dispute Resolution Commission issued advisory opinion No. 2010-0002 answering whether a mediator may provide a statement to law enforcement or be called a witness when a participant or the mediator is assaulted during mediation.

The Commission responded in the affirmative; the mediator may provide a statement and testify if called as a witness on the theory that the assault was a collateral issue to the mediation. Thus, while the mediator is still bound to uphold confidentiality on the substantive issues discussed during the mediation, they could discuss the collateral issue of the assault.

In California, mediation confidentiality is a rule governing the admissibility and discoverability of what occurred in a mediation in subsequent noncriminal proceedings. Mediation confidentiality seemingly does not apply to collateral criminal issues arising during a mediation. Further, a mediator is competent to testify in a criminal matter and has quasi-judicial immunity for such testimony.

Given the above, what would you do if a party during a mediation threatened serious bodily harm or injury?

…. Just Something To Think About.

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post Threat of Serious Bodily Injury or Harm appeared first on PGP Mediation.

Is Mediation the Practice of Law?

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 11 Jul 2025 16:00:32 +0000

You might consider this a strange question since the definition of “mediation” is “a process in which a neutral person or persons facilitate communication between the disputants to assist them in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement” (California Evidence Code 1115(a)). Notice that the operable words are “neutral” and “facilitate.” These imply that the mediator neither advises nor advocates but simply assists the disputants in deciding what is best for them.

While some states agree that mediation is not the practice of law, California disagrees. Many years ago, the State Bar enacted Rule 2.30, which provides:

“(A) …

“(B) No licensee practicing law, or occupying a position in the employ of or rendering any legal service for an active licensee, or occupying a position wherein he or she is called upon in any capacity to give legal advice or counsel or examine the law or pass upon the legal effect of any act, document or law, shall be enrolled as an inactive licensee. “

(C) Notwithstanding (A) and (B) a licensee serving for a court or any other governmental agency as a referee, hearing officer, court commissioner, temporary judge, arbitrator, mediator or in another similar capacity is eligible for enrollment as an inactive licensee if he or she does not otherwise engage in any of the activities listed in (B) or hold himself or herself out as being entitled to practice law.”

Consequently, a lawyer who happens to be a mediator, even one who is facilitative or transformative, is engaged in law practice and must maintain active membership in the State Bar.

As you might expect, this did not sit well with everyone. Someone finally sued. In Morris S. Getzels vs The State Bar of California, Case No. B338089 (filed June 26, 2025), the plaintiff, Mr. Getzels, appealed from a judgment dismissing his complaint by the trial court. In his complaint, he challenged the constitutionality of this bar rule because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution. He argued that it treated inactive licensees differently from everyone else and impinged on his right to contract. He also claimed there was no rational reason for the rule. The Plaintiff had been a part-time arbitrator and mediator while also practicing law. He wished to retire from law practice yet continue to mediate and arbitrate. Thus, like so many others, he wanted to go “inactive” but was told he could not. (Id. at 6-7)

The appellate court agreed with the trial court, finding that there was a rational basis for Rule 2.30(b). The Court discussed a staff report prepared for the State Bar in 2005, which noted that the annual fees paid by active members are used to administer the regulatory functions of the State Bar (i.e., discipline). Truly inactive members no longer associate with the practice of law and thus will not cause the regulatory functions of the State Bar to come into play. (Id. at 3-4.)

The staff report went on to note that mediators and arbitrators do not “… distance themselves from the practice of law” (Id. at 3-4) Rather, they may be called upon to “give legal advice or counsel” or “to examine the law or pass upon the legal effect of any act, document or law. “ (Id. at 4.) Because of their close relationship with the law, the report noted that there may well be complaints to the state bar, or other aspects of the State Bar’s jurisdiction may be called upon.

Thus, the appellate court held that the rule has a rational basis and that mediators and arbitrators should be required to maintain an active status and pay dues. (Id. at 4, 9-18.)

Many of us believe that the real reason behind this rule is simply to allow the State Bar to raise revenue. In light of the many non-attorney mediators and arbitrators, the rule makes no sense. Are they then engaging in the unauthorized practice of law? Many would argue “no”

So, the debate will rage on and be food for thought the next time you appear before a mediator or arbitrator: Is he/she practicing law? Is he/she licensed to practice law? Or is he/she engaging in the unauthorized practice of law?

…. Just something to think about.

Ps. I will be on vacation next week and so look for a new post in 2 weeks!

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post Is Mediation the Practice of Law? appeared first on PGP Mediation.

HAPPY JULY 2nd!

Phyllis Pollack — Fri, 04 Jul 2025 16:00:21 +0000

(Spoiler alert: I had so much fun putting this together several years ago that I feel a reprint is in order !)

No, that is not a misprint. It is the date that John Adams (in a letter to his wife Abigail, dated July 3, 1776) predicted would be the date celebrated as the country’s independence since it was on that date that the Second Continental Congress voted to sever ties with Great Britain. (Our population was 2.5 million!) ***

It was on July 4^th that the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration. The Pennsylvania Evening Post was the first paper to publish it on July 6, 1776. The first celebration occurred in Philadelphia on July 8, 1776 when it was first read in public. While the Liberty bell was rung on July 8, 1776, it cracked and so now on every July 4^th, it is simply tapped thirteen times in honor of the thirteen original colonies.

(Considering all the serious stuff going on in the world, a break is very much needed and so hopefully some fun facts about July 4^th will provide a smile or two.)

Believe it or not, only two of the 56 men (sorry, no women allowed!) who signed the Declaration of Independence, did so on July 4, 1776. They were John Hancock and Charles Thompson. The remaining Founding Fathers signed over the course of the next month, with most of them signing on August 2, 1776. One of the signers, Richard Stockton, a lawyer from New Jersey, later recanted his support for the new country after being captured by the British in November 1776 and thrown into jail. Seven of the signers had Harvard educations.

The average age of the signers was 45 years old with Benjamin Franklin being the oldest at 70 years and Thomas Lynch, Jr and Edward Rutledge of South Carolina being the youngest at 26 years. Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old at the time. (How many of us have helped start a new country at 26 or 33 years of age?)

The original draft of the Declaration of Independence was lost. But the back of the Declaration does say ‘Original Declaration of Independence dated 4^th July 1776.” (Imagine the tedium of having to hand write out a copy! Where is the copying machine or word processor when you need it! Or did they use Franklin’s printing press!) In 1989, another early printed copy later turned up hidden in a frame of a painting bought at a flea market for $4.00 It was later sold for $2.4 million.

At the time Benjamin Franklin proposed that the turkey be our national bird. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson overruled Adams in favor of the bald eagle

Although Massachusetts was the first state to declare July 4^th an official holiday on July 3, 1781, it is Bristol, Rhode Island that claims to have the oldest July 4^th celebration as it started celebrating in 1785. The White House started celebrating in 1801.

Independence Day became an official unpaid holiday for federal employees in the District of Columbia only in 1870. It became a paid federal holiday in 1938.

The stars in the original flag were in a circle to show the colonies to be equal. The present 50-star flag was designed by Robert G. Heft, 16 years old in 1958, as part of a school project assigned by his history teacher in Lancaster Ohio. Although his teacher initially gave him a B-minus on the project, the grade was changed to an A after his design was selected to be the new national flag. In 2012, most imported flags were from China ($3.6 million worth!)

And what would July 4^th be without hot dogs. According to the National Sausage and Hot Dog Council, Americans are expected to consume about 150 million hot dogs over the holiday. Joey Chestnut has won Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating competition 16 times including every year since 2016. In 2023, he won eating 62 hot dogs. But due to his endorsement of a vegan competitor, he will NOT be competing in this year’s -2024- competition! (And don’t forget the chicken- 700 million pounds are consumed as well.)

Yet, New England does it differently. The tradition there is to eat salmon and green peas with perhaps some turtle soup as an appetizer.

And fireworks…! The United States imported $227.3 million worth of fireworks from China in 2012. In 2017, there were about 15,000 different firework displays throughout the country. While small towns spent approximately $8,000-$15,000 on a display the Boston Pops Fireworks Display cost over $2 million.

Our national anthem? The tune originates as an English drinking song called, “to Anacreon in Heaven.”

As we all know, Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe each died on July 4^th with Adams and Jefferson passing away on July 4, 1826 within hours of each other and James Monroe passing away in 1831. Our 30^th President- Calvin Coolidge was born on July 4, 1872.

What else happened on July 4^th? On July 4, 1862- Henry David Thoreau started living at Waldon Pond. In 1862- Alice Liddell first listened to “Alice in Wonderland” while on a boat trip down the Thames. The story was not published until three years later- July 4, 1865. On July 4, 1918, the Friedman twins were born. They later became known as Dear Abby and Ann Landers. And… on July 4, 1939, Lou Gehrig gave his famous retirement speech at Yankee stadium after being diagnosed with ALS also known as Lou Gehrig disease. And on that date, George Steinbrenner who later became owner of the Yankees was nine years old having been born on July 4, 1930.

Happy July 4^th! I hope you have a healthy and happy holiday!

Stay Safe and Healthy!

… Just something to think about!

***To put together this blog, I used the following sources:

https://blog.hocking.edu/15-fun-facts-about-the-fourth-of-july

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/502369/fourth-july-facts

https://cudoo.com/blog/american-independence-day-4th-of-july-fun-facts/

https://www.rfdtv.com/story/32328872/4th-of-july-fun-facts

https://acei-global.blog/2013/07/03/20-fun-facts-about-the-4th-of-julyindependence-day/

https://www.google.com/search?q=winners+of+hot+dog+eating+contest&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS947US947&oq=winneras+of+hot+dog+eaating+contest&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMggIBhAAGBYYHjIICAcQABgWGB4yCggIEAAYDxgWGB4yCAgJEAAYFhge0gEJMTE4ODJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

-------------------------------------

Do you like what you read?

If you would like to receive this blog automatically by e mail each week, please click on one of the following plugins/services:

and for the URL, type in my blog post address: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ and then type in your e mail address and click "submit".

The post HAPPY JULY 2nd! appeared first on PGP Mediation.