Rule 3.865. Application and purpose
The rules in this article apply to each superior court that makes a list of mediators available to litigants in general civil cases or that recommends, selects, appoints, or compensates a mediator to mediate any general civil case pending in that court. A court that approves the parties' agreement to use a mediator who is selected by the parties and who is not on the court's list of mediators or that memorializes the parties' agreement in a court order has not thereby recommended, selected, or appointed that mediator within the meaning of this rule.
(Subd (a) amended and lettered effective January 1, 2010; previously adopted as part of unlettered subd effective July 1, 2009; effective date extended to January 1, 2010.)
These rules are intended to promote the resolution of complaints that mediators in court-connected mediation programs for civil cases may have violated a provision of the rules of conduct for such mediators in article 2. They are intended to help courts promptly resolve any such complaints in a manner that is respectful and fair to the complainant and the mediator and consistent with the California mediation confidentiality statutes.
(Subd (b) lettered effective January 1, 2010; previously adopted as part of unlettered subd effective July 1, 2009; effective date extended to January 1, 2010.)
Rule 3.865 amended effective January 1, 2010; adopted effective July 1, 2009, effective date extended to January 1, 2010.
Advisory Committee Comment
As used in this article, complaint means a written communication presented to a court's complaint coordinator indicating that a mediator may have violated a provision of the rules of conduct for mediators in article 2.
Complaints about mediators are relatively rare. To ensure the quality of court mediation panels and public confidence in the mediation process and the courts, it is, nevertheless, important to ensure that any complaints that do arise are resolved through procedures that are consistent with California mediation confidentiality statutes (Evid. Code, §§ 703.5 and 1115 et seq.), as well as fair and respectful to the interested parties.
The requirements and procedures in this article do not abrogate or limit a court's inherent or other authority, in its sole and absolute discretion, to determine who may be included on or removed from a court list of mediators; to approve or revoke a mediator's eligibility to be recommended, selected, appointed, or compensated by the court; or to follow other procedures or take other actions to ensure the quality of mediators who serve in the court's mediation program in contexts other than when addressing a complaint. The failure to follow a requirement or procedure in this article will not invalidate any action taken by the court in addressing a complaint.