Today the California Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Cassel v. Superior Court, holding that statutory mediation confidentiality extends to attorneys whose clients sue them for committing legal malpractice related to mediations.
In so doing, the high court reversed a decision by the 2/7. The Court of Appeal had held the confidentiality statutes protect the mediation clients, not their allegedly negligent attorneys.
But the reversed decision was not unanimous. As the high court noted, a “dissenting justice urged that the majority had crafted an unwarranted judicial exception to the clear and absolute provisions of the mediation confidentiality statutes.” And “[t]hough we understand the policy concerns advanced by the Court of Appeal majority,” the court continued, “the plain language of the statutes compels us to agree with the dissent."
Who was this dissenting judge with whom the Supreme Court agreed?
Our very own Short Lister, 2/7 PJ Dennis Perluss.