Rules Governing the Utah State Bar

Petition. Petition to amend the bar’s fee dispute rules governing mediation. Revisions requested to Utah State Bar’s Fee Dispute Rules (formerly Fee Arbitration Rules) to further clarify the mediation process approved by the Supreme Court last year. The proposed amendments provide additional details, such as what qualifies for mediation, how mediation can be requested, how mediators are selected, confidentiality, mediation procedures.
USB 14-1103. Exclusions. Amend.
USB 14-1112. Request and agreement to mediate fee dispute, answer. New.
USB 14-1113. Selection of mediator. New.
USB 14-1114. Matters entitled to mediation. New.
USB 14-1115. Mediation is voluntary. New.
USB 14-1116. Conduct of the mediation. New.
USB 14-1117. Confidentiality. New.
USB 14-1118. Ex parte communications with the mediator. New.
USB 14-1119. Exemption from future testimony. New.
USB 14-1120. Mediation agreement. New.

This entry was posted in -Rules Governing the State Bar, USB14-1103, USB14-1112, USB14-1113, USB14-1114, USB14-1115, USB14-1116, USB14-1117, USB14-1118, USB14-1119, USB14-1120.

Leslie Slaugh

July 22, 2008 at 10:27 am

Rule 14-1112(b). Is “request” too strong? Perhaps the Committee should “invite” the respondent to sign. Granted, mediation is encouraged, but a “request” may imply to a client that he or she is required to sign and must participate in mediation.
Rule 14-1114(b). The following should be added at the end of line 8: “unless the agreement expressly so states.” If the parties to a mediation know there is a malpractice claim, why should they be prohibited from resolving that during the same mediation? I am not aware of any reason an attorney should not be able to agree to a reduced fee (or perhaps no fee) in exchange for a waiver of any malpractice claims.
Rule 14-1116. In line 9, “use” would be more appropriate than “utilize.” See, e.g., http://www.mtannoyances.com/?p=265; http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/agcomm/letscomm/0208.shtml; http://everything2.com/title/The%2520difference%2520between%2520use%2520and%2520utilize
Rule 14-1118. Is this intended to prohibit the parties from submitting mediation briefs to the mediator? If so, it should be eliminated or modified to specifically allow mediation briefs. Such advance briefs are very helpful to a mediator and should be encouraged. There is no reason to require they be sent to the Committee first. That just increases the lead time required for preparing the briefs, and increases the number of people that will see an otherwise confidential document.
Rule 14-1120. In line 3, the word “execute” should be replaced with “sign.” There is a difference between the two words: “There is a very subtle difference here. As you can see, you can execute a deed by signing it to make it valid. Or you can execute the terms of a will by doing what is required in the will. No signing involved here.” The rules should use simple terms, not legalistic terms. If the rule is asking the parties to sign the agreement, then use the word “sign.”

One thought on “Rules Governing the Utah State Bar”

Leslie Slaugh

July 22, 2008 at 10:27 am

Rule 14-1112(b). Is “request” too strong? Perhaps the Committee should “invite” the respondent to sign. Granted, mediation is encouraged, but a “request” may imply to a client that he or she is required to sign and must participate in mediation.
Rule 14-1114(b). The following should be added at the end of line 8: “unless the agreement expressly so states.” If the parties to a mediation know there is a malpractice claim, why should they be prohibited from resolving that during the same mediation? I am not aware of any reason an attorney should not be able to agree to a reduced fee (or perhaps no fee) in exchange for a waiver of any malpractice claims.
Rule 14-1116. In line 9, “use” would be more appropriate than “utilize.” See, e.g., http://www.mtannoyances.com/?p=265; http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/agcomm/letscomm/0208.shtml; http://everything2.com/title/The%2520difference%2520between%2520use%2520and%2520utilize
Rule 14-1118. Is this intended to prohibit the parties from submitting mediation briefs to the mediator? If so, it should be eliminated or modified to specifically allow mediation briefs. Such advance briefs are very helpful to a mediator and should be encouraged. There is no reason to require they be sent to the Committee first. That just increases the lead time required for preparing the briefs, and increases the number of people that will see an otherwise confidential document.
Rule 14-1120. In line 3, the word “execute” should be replaced with “sign.” There is a difference between the two words: “There is a very subtle difference here. As you can see, you can execute a deed by signing it to make it valid. Or you can execute the terms of a will by doing what is required in the will. No signing involved here.” The rules should use simple terms, not legalistic terms. If the rule is asking the parties to sign the agreement, then use the word “sign.”