Georgia Commission on Dispute Resolution responds to Wilson v. Wilson

At its March 22 meeting, the Commission on Dispute Resolution voted to make a change to the state's ethics rules in response to the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling in Wilson v. Wilson.

The change adds a 10th element to a mediator's explanation of the mediation process: Appendix C, Chapter 1, Section A, Part 1A

“In order for parties to exercise self-determination they must understand the mediation process and be willing to participate in the process. A principal duty of the mediator is to fully explain the mediation process. This explanation should include:
. . .
10. An explanation that the parties, by their participation, affirm that they have the capacity to conduct good-faith negotiations and to make decisions for themselves, including a decision to terminate the mediation if necessary.”

This change addresses just one of the concerns raised by the Georgia Supreme Court's Wilson v. Wilson decision and emphasizes, both for the parties and the mediator, the importance of party capacity in mediation. The Ethics Committee is studying other possible rule changes in the wake of Wilson, including the issue of whether mediators have an ethical obligation to fight a subpoena. The Rules Committee is also studying proposed changes to the Model Mediation Rules. The updated ADR Rules, marked with a 3/28/08 date, are now posted on the GODR website .