This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Perspective

Apr. 27, 2010

New Cases Suggest 'Wimsatt Warnings' Are a Better Practice

Max Factor III of PMA and Alice Graham of Graham Law Corp. discuss three common public policy reasons for the expansive evidentiary exclusions in our mediation statutes.

By Max Factor III and Alice M. Graham

Attorney Alfred has gotten himself in a pickle. His client, Lucy, is unhappy with his performance at mediation in a case he handled for her, even though the mediation resulted in millions of dollars for Lucy. Now she is suing him based on representations she claims he made to her privately during the mediation. But Alfred cannot introduce statements made in front of the mediator or other party to the mediation because...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up