<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>PGP Mediation &#187; Mediation Case Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pgpmediation.com/category/mediation-case-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:00:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>SECOND THOUGHTS ON SIGNING</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/12/23/second-thoughts-on-signing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/12/23/second-thoughts-on-signing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mediation Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newsworthy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Evidence Code Section 1119]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Evidence Code Section 1123]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5-100]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stipulation for settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uniform Mediation Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=2472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[           Is a settlement agreement signed by less than all parties at the conclusion of a mediation enforceable? Every once in awhile, this question arises because one of the parties has attended by telephone and is not near a fax machine et cetera to sign the agreement and send it back. Up until now, I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/12/23/second-thoughts-on-signing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CONFIDENTIAL MEANS CONFIDENTIAL</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/08/19/confidential-means-confidential/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/08/19/confidential-means-confidential/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:00:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mediation Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cassel vs. Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Porter vs. Wagner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simmons vs Ghaderi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=2247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[            In my April 16, 2010 blog, I discussed the appellate decision of Porter v. Wyner, Case No. B211398 (April 8, 2010) (“Porter”). In that decision, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal held that mediation confidentiality would not protect attorney-client communications. Thus, the appellate court held that the communications between an [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/08/19/confidential-means-confidential/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ONCE AGAIN – “CONFIDENTIAL” MEANS CONFIDENTIAL!</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/01/21/once-again-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cconfidential%e2%80%9d-means-confidential/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/01/21/once-again-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cconfidential%e2%80%9d-means-confidential/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 14:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mediation Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Evidence Code Section 1119]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cassel v Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation confidentiality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[         Once again, the California Supreme Court has held that the California statutes declaring that mediations are confidential proceedings mean exactly that: mediations are confidential, even at the expense of a potential legal malpractice action.
            In the latest of its decisions on this topic, on January 13, 2011, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2011/01/21/once-again-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%9cconfidential%e2%80%9d-means-confidential/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SPRINGING “SURPRISES” AT MEDIATION</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/11/05/springing-%e2%80%9csurprises%e2%80%9d-at-mediation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/11/05/springing-%e2%80%9csurprises%e2%80%9d-at-mediation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 2010 14:00:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case examples]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation confidentiality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1855</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[            On Monday, November 1, 2010, the California Supreme Court heard argument in Cassel v. Superior Court (Wasserman, Comden Casselman &#38; Pearson, LLP – Real Parties in Interest), Case No. S178914. Therein, plaintiff Michael Cassel alleged legal malpractice against his former attorneys, Wasserman, Comden Casselman &#38; Pearson, LLP, for allegedly forcing him to settle a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/11/05/springing-%e2%80%9csurprises%e2%80%9d-at-mediation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY: ONCE AGAIN</title>
		<link>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/04/16/mediation-confidentiality-once-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/04/16/mediation-confidentiality-once-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mediation Case Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newsworthy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney -client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney-client communications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence Code 958]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence Code Section 1119]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Porter v Wyner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Appellate District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Simmons vs Ghaderi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pgpmediation.com/?p=1495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[       According to the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, mediation confidentiality does not and will not protect attorney-client communications. In Porter v. Wyner, Case No. B211398 (April 8, 2010), (Porter v. Wyner )this appellate court held that communications between an attorney and a client during a mediation are not protected by mediation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pgpmediation.com/2010/04/16/mediation-confidentiality-once-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

