Cassel v. Superior Court
244 P.3d 1080, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 437, 51 Cal.4th 113 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California's mediation confidentiality statutes protect all communications made "for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation," including private communications between a client and their own attorney. These communications are inadmissible in a subsequent legal malpractice action against the attorney unless all participants involved in the communication, including the attorney, expressly waive confidentiality.
Facts:
- Michael Cassel retained the law firm WCCP to represent him in a business dispute with Von Dutch Originals, L.L.C. (VDO) over rights to the 'Von Dutch' clothing label.
- Cassel and his WCCP attorneys agreed prior to mediation that he would not accept a settlement of less than $2 million in the VDO suit.
- A mediation for the VDO suit was scheduled for August 4, 2004, and Cassel met with his WCCP attorneys on the preceding days to discuss mediation strategy.
- During the 14-hour mediation session, VDO's highest settlement offer was $1.25 million.
- Outside the presence of the mediator or any opposing parties, Cassel's WCCP attorneys allegedly harassed, coerced, and threatened to abandon him at trial to induce him to accept the $1.25 million offer.
- The attorneys also allegedly made false assurances about negotiating a separate side deal and discounting their legal fees if he accepted the settlement.
- At midnight, feeling exhausted and pressured, Cassel signed the settlement agreement for $1.25 million.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Cassel sued his former attorneys, Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson, L.L.P. (WCCP), in a California superior court (trial court) for legal malpractice, fraud, and other claims.
- Before trial, the defendant attorneys filed a motion in limine to exclude all evidence of their private communications with Cassel that were related to the VDO mediation.
- The trial court granted the attorneys' motion, ruling the communications were protected by mediation confidentiality.
- Cassel, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the California Court of Appeal to vacate the trial court's order.
- The Court of Appeal granted the writ, reversing the trial court and holding that mediation confidentiality did not protect private attorney-client communications in a malpractice suit.
- The attorneys, as real parties in interest, sought review from the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do California's mediation confidentiality statutes (Evidence Code § 1119 et seq.) render inadmissible the private communications between a client and his attorney that occurred for the purpose of, or pursuant to, a mediation in a subsequent legal malpractice action brought by the client against that attorney?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes, California's mediation confidentiality statutes render these private attorney-client communications inadmissible. The plain language of Evidence Code § 1119 is clear and absolute, protecting all communications made 'for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation.' This broad protection is not limited to communications between opposing parties but extends to private discussions between a client and their own counsel regarding mediation strategy and settlement. The court reasoned that the Legislature intended to provide maximum confidentiality to encourage candor and the use of mediation, and creating a judicial exception for legal malpractice would undermine this statutory purpose. The court also rejected the argument that an attorney and client constitute a single 'participant' for waiver purposes; rather, the attorney is a separate participant who must also consent to the disclosure. While this outcome may hinder a client’s ability to prove malpractice, it is a policy choice for the Legislature, not the courts, to resolve.
Concurring - Chin, J.
Yes, the statutes render the communications inadmissible, although this result is reached reluctantly. The plain statutory language compels this outcome, which will effectively shield an attorney’s actions during mediation from a malpractice action. While the consequences are harsh and may not have been fully considered by the Legislature, they do not rise to the level of absurdity that would permit the court to ignore the statute’s literal text. The Legislature remains free to reconsider this issue and create a specific exception to balance the competing interests of mediation confidentiality and attorney accountability.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the absolute nature of California's mediation confidentiality, extending its shield to cover attorney-client communications in subsequent malpractice suits. It reinforces the principle that courts will not create judicial exceptions to the statutory scheme, even in the face of compelling policy arguments for accountability. This ruling significantly impacts legal malpractice litigation arising from mediated settlements, making it very difficult for clients to prove their claims if the key evidence consists of confidential mediation-related discussions. It places the onus squarely on the Legislature to carve out any exceptions, such as for malpractice claims.
