Proposed Amendment to Commercial Division Rules Aims to Make Mediation More Effective
July 05, 2018
Commercial Division litigators often hope that mediation will lead to a negotiated settlement, but their expectation – based on their prior experience – is that it will not. In this sense, mediation seems to have significant unrealized potential as a settlement tool in the Commercial Division.
A new proposal of the ADR Committee of the Commercial Division Advisory Council, put out for public comment on June 22nd by OCA, seeks to tap into some of that unrealized potential in a relatively simple way: by encouraging parties to Commercial Division litigation who are going to mediation to select jointly their preferred mediator. Could this simple idea make a difference? Evidence cited by the ADR Committee- both anecdotal and statistical – suggests that mediation is much more likely to be successful when the parties agree on their mediator.
In its proposal, the ADR Committee noted that joint selection of a mediator is a factor consistently cited by Bar Associations for enhancing the effectiveness of mediation in Commercial Division cases but noted that because of the current language of Commercial Division Rule 3(a) – that “[a]t any stage of the matter, the court may direct or counsel may seek the appointment of an uncompensated mediator” (emphasis added) – the process of some court annexed mediation programs is for a mediator to be appointed from a roster instead of first giving the parties the opportunity to agree upon their neutral. The proposal quoted the analysis by the former Co-Chairs of the New York State Bar Association’s Dispute Resolution Section’s Committee on ADR in the Court on the benefit of party-appointed mediators, which explained that historically, settlement rates from the EDNY (67%) and WDNY (72%) mediation programs, which afford the parties the initial opportunity to jointly choose their mediator, are significantly higher than in the New York County Commercial Division (34%) where mediators are selected for the parties by the ADR Coordinator.
The ADR Committee proposal would modify Rule 3(a) to include the following sentence: “Counsel are encouraged to work together to select a mediator that is mutually acceptable, and may wish to consult any list of approved neutrals in the county where the case is pending.” The ADR Committee also pointed out that Nassau and Westchester County Commercial Divisions currently give parties five business days to attempt to agree on a mediator before the process of appointment reverts to the court and suggested that including such a time period in Rule 3(a) “would be optimal.” Recognizing that there are local rules governing ADR administration, the ADR Committee further recommended that instead of proposing an immediate change to the Commercial Division Rules, OCA and the Statewide ADR Coordinator consult with the ADR Administrators in each Commercial Division location to determine whether their ADR Rules can be revised to include an initial five-day period for the parties to jointly select a mediator.
For those interested, the public comment period is open until August 20, 2018, and comments are to either be: emailed to firstname.lastname@example.org; or sent to John W. McConnel, Esq., Counsel, Office of Court Administration, 25 Beaver Street, 11th Fl., New York, New York 10004.