Mediation: A Little History

You didn't expect to be here, but yet here you are -- stuck in a lawsuit over which you seem to possess little control. Now, your lawyer says he wants to "mediate" your case and wants a response from you soon. Unfamiliar with the process, you wonder if you should say "yes." Maybe a little history will help you to make your choice. Mediation arrived on the scene in Louisiana in the early 1990s. It offered an alternative to protracted litigation and the ordeal of trial. The theory was that mediation offered an efficient, cost-effective means of resolving a case and allowed the outcome to be determined by the litigants as opposed to the judge or jury.

In a state court trial, the outcome of your case rests in the hands of twelve unknown jurors or the judge. For all intents and purposes, once the case is submitted to the judge or jury, a litigant loses control of his or her destiny. Although judges and juries often get it “right," sometimes they do not. All you have to do is consider how many of the convicted are subsequently exonerated through a DNA analysis; how many cases get reversed on appeal; or, for a specific example, the O. J. Simpson acquittal which is often cited as an improper verdict. Mediation can put the decision-making back in your hands.

Mediation is generally an informal proceeding. The first step is for the parties to agree to mediate. The next, and very important step, is to select the mediator. You want a mediator familiar with your type of case. Then, you pick a date. Meditations usually last between a half-day to a full day. The mediation is attended by the mediator, the litigants and their attorneys in a confidential setting. It is important to understand that the mediator is simply the facilitator who “manages” the mediation. The “shots” are called by the parties through their attorneys. The decision as to whether to settle is solely in the hands of the parties. At the end of the day, cases are often resolved, perhaps most of the time. Even if the case does not settle at mediation, follow-up by the mediator often results in a settlement in the days and weeks that follow.

The process of mediation can be extremely valuable for these reasons: it can greatly reduce costs, fees and expenses; it gives the parties greater control over the outcome; it eliminates risk; and it allows closure and ends the distraction and emotional baggage clients often experience when in litigation. So now, when you are asked to mediate, you might let history be your guide.

By: Gracella Simmons, partner with Keogh Cox. As a mediator, she has successfully resolved a wide variety of cases over the past 15 years.

Louisiana law favors the settlement of disputes. With a settlement, both sides agree to avoid costly litigation and obtain a certain, negotiated result. While neither side is completely happy with the result in a typical settlement, the case is at least closed and the financial and emotional drain of litigation is ended. But the recent decision in The Marietta Trust and The Warren Trust v. J.R. Logging, Inc., Fair Hills Farm, LLC, Jerry Avants, Jr., Thomas Keaty, Jr. and XYZ Insurance Company, 2016 CA 1136 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/11/17) shows what can happen when one of the parties change their mind. This case is important because it calls into question whether an exchange of emails is sufficient to reach a final settlement.

The Marietta Trust case involved a dispute regarding the wrongful cutting of timber and the parties seemingly came to a resolution. Via email, the case was negotiated and the terms were agreed upon. Formal settlement documents were drawn up and money was exchanged. However, when the time came to execute the final documents, one set of defendants refused to sign the paperwork. This refusal to sign came after the attorney for these defendants directly stated in an email that his "clients have agreed to the settlement." Id. at *4. In response to the refusal to sign, the other parties filed a Joint Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement which was denied by the Trial Court.

Settlement agreements are governed by the Louisiana Civil Code art. 3071 which provides that litigation can be resolved via settlement or compromise. A settlement agreement can take two forms: 1) recitation in open court; or 2) a writing. “The purpose of the writing requirement is to serve as proof of the agreement and the acquiescence therein.” Marietta Trust, 2016 CA 11336, Id. at *3. The writing must be signed by the parties or their agents. “Until the parties sign a written document or documents evincing their consent to the terms of the proposed agreement, a party is free to change his or her mind.” Id. at *3. Prior courts have found that emails meet the "writing" requirements. See, Geer v. BP America Production Co., 2014-450 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/5/14), 150 So. 3d 621; Dozier v. Rhodus, 2008-1813 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/5/09), 17 So. 3d 402.

The appellate court in Marietta Trust refused to enforce the "settlement." The court found that the exchange of emails was insufficient to meet the "writing" requirement of Civil Code article 3071 because neither the emails nor any other evidence showed that the attorney possessed "the express consent necessary to accept the terms of the settlement." Id. at *3.

When is a settlement not a settlement? Maybe when it came to you through your inbox. So, if an email from the attorney is not sufficient to perfect a settlement, what can we do? The answer offered by the 1st Circuit is to either: 1. Recite in open court; or 2. Obtain a writing that includes the client’s express consent given to the attorney to settle the case (presumably for the amount in the writing).

Preparing for a trial is a tense and stressful process for attorneys and their clients. Sometimes, during trial preparation, a crucial piece of evidence can come to light that may push a case from a path towards trial to a path towards a settlement agreement. A “settlement” or “compromise” under Louisiana law is just that – an agreement between the parties to settle the dispute raised in the lawsuit, usually with the exchange of a sum of money. Often, settlements are reached in the weeks leading up to trial or even on the courthouse steps.

This type of scenario occurred in Nola Title Company, LLC v. Archon Information Systems. While in the thick of trial preparation, audio recordings from one of the parties were discovered. That party concluded this evidence would be prejudicial to its case at trial, which spurred settlement negotiations. The parties eventually agreed to a compromise and notified the court of the settlement via an email to the judge’s law clerk. The next day, the attorneys reported to court and verbally outlined the terms of the settlement agreement on the official court record.

Two weeks later, the defendants hired new counsel. Two months after that, counsel for the plaintiff forwarded the formal settlement documents to memorialize the agreement that was made between the parties and entered into the court’s record. However, the defendants refused to sign the paperwork and did not timely make the payments that previously were agreed upon. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

In opposition to the motion to enforce, the defendants argued: 1) that their prior counsel did not have authority to enter into the settlement agreement; and 2) that the agreement on the record of the court was invalid because it did not include a provision about the audio recording, which the defendant claimed was a key element of the agreement between the parties. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the settlement that was stated on the record was an enforceable settlement agreement.

The Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court. In its opinion, the appellate court includes a summary of the law governing settlements in Louisiana. After a thorough review of the applicable law, the court came to the following conclusions:

• The settlement agreement on the record of the court was a binding settlement agreement, even if the parties contemplated a future formal written agreement;
• When a compromise is placed on the record, the recital must include full disclosure of the material terms;
• Any “missing terms” from the recorded settlement agreement were not a material element of the settlement; and
• The defendants’ prior counsel had authority to enter into the settlement as written.

Based upon the court’s ruling, if the parties have a meeting of the minds and settlement terms are entered on the trial court record, there are no “do-overs” or “take-backs.” It is important to “make sure you are sure” when entering the crucial courthouse steps settlement agreement.

References:

Nola Title Company, LLC v. Archon Information Systems, et. al., 2022-CA-0967 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/13/23), 360 So. 3d 166.