Paid $3,525.00 for mediation services each party paid that amount. Total for the day was $7,050.00. JAMS is the world's largest ADR provider. First if we had known that JAMS supports the California Law that Arbitrators have immunity we never would have used them for any service. That is an open door for collusion and corruption between Arbitrators and Attorneys. California's Arbitrator Immunity Law violates United States Code 241: Conspiracy Against the Rights of Others. How the California Legislature passed that into law and then a Governor signed it, knowing it was in violation of USC 241 is terrifying.
At least we were only there for Mediation (Mediators don't have immunity in California). JAMS also doesn't explain to consumers/customers that Arbitrators also work as Mediators which is a "Conflict of Interst" and prohibited by the California Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The following events took place in December 2013 at JAMS in Downtown Los Angeles. CA Rules of Evidence, CA Rules of Court, JAMS Mediation Guidlines, JAMS Mediation Ethics, and the American Bar Associations Adopted Rules for Mediation were violated:
The Mediator a retired Judge never spoke to us (the Plaintiff's) the entire day only our former attorneys.
All participants/parties weren't introduced prior to the mediation beginning as required.
The CA Mediation Confidentiality Agreement wasn't signed by all parties and explained,as required by CA Rules of Court. Signing this prohibits any form of dishonesty, fraud, duress, or illegality from taking place, since it informs all parties that if any of those do occur, any settlement agreement reached isn't enforcable and or is voidable per California Rules of Evidence 1123 and 1124.
JAMS and the Mediator failed to inform all parties that there is a 30 day window to return to JAMS with any potential issues should they occur.
The required CA-200 Notice of Settlement not filed with the court as required.
The Mediator not explain the process and inform us was voluntary. Violation of JAMS Mediation Guidelines and CA Rules of Court.
The Stipulated Settlement Agreement was not Notarized and explained by the Mediator as required by JAMS own Mediation Guidlines.
The Mediator fail to inform us "how many times each attorney for both sides had been in front of him or her?" Violating JAMS own "Conflict of Interest" guidelines and the American Bar Associations Adopted Rules for Mediation.
Mediator and Defendants attorney we later learned are members of the same private club (Chancery) and that JAMS knew about this "conflict of interest" from a previous case invovling another case, yet continues to proper inform the public and customers as required by CA Business and Professional Codes.
The Stipulated Settlement Agreement claimed it was valid under CCP 664.6 but failed to include in writing that "the court retains jurisdiction". We later found out failure to include the correct "court jurisdiction language" makes CCP 664.6 not enforceable and under CCP 473.1 any dismissal can be undone for reasons of dishonesty, fraud, illegality, mistake of fact, and duress.
Mediator failed to inform us a Dismissed Defendant was present and that Two out of the Four remaining defendants weren't present and not participating as required.
Two of the defendants didn't sign the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Mistake of Fact under California Law making the agreement not valid.
JAMS is in Downtown Los Angeles, yet the Mediator and Attorneys for both sides didn't follow the Los Angeles County Bar Association rules for mediation.
We weren't allowed to speak with the defendants liability insurers and they were available and we requested them. The mediator knew they were available and we received a letter from them explaining that. LA Count Bar Association Mediation Rules and CA Court Rules require participation either in person or over the phone during mediation.
The Mediator leave early at which point the mediation actually ended. Of course the attorneys for both sides forgot to tell their clients.
The settlement checks were paid from law firm to law firm instead of from Defendants to Plaintiffs Law Firm and Plaintiff's jointly. Violating the pay structures in the agreement.
JAMS Reviews
Paid $3,525.00 for mediation services each party paid that amount. Total for the day was $7,050.00. JAMS is the world's largest ADR provider. First if we had known that JAMS supports the California Law that Arbitrators have immunity we never would have used them for any service. That is an open door for collusion and corruption between Arbitrators and Attorneys. California's Arbitrator Immunity Law violates United States Code 241: Conspiracy Against the Rights of Others. How the California Legislature passed that into law and then a Governor signed it, knowing it was in violation of USC 241 is terrifying.
At least we were only there for Mediation (Mediators don't have immunity in California). JAMS also doesn't explain to consumers/customers that Arbitrators also work as Mediators which is a "Conflict of Interst" and prohibited by the California Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys. The following events took place in December 2013 at JAMS in Downtown Los Angeles. CA Rules of Evidence, CA Rules of Court, JAMS Mediation Guidlines, JAMS Mediation Ethics, and the American Bar Associations Adopted Rules for Mediation were violated:
The Mediator a retired Judge never spoke to us (the Plaintiff's) the entire day only our former attorneys.
All participants/parties weren't introduced prior to the mediation beginning as required.
The CA Mediation Confidentiality Agreement wasn't signed by all parties and explained,as required by CA Rules of Court. Signing this prohibits any form of dishonesty, fraud, duress, or illegality from taking place, since it informs all parties that if any of those do occur, any settlement agreement reached isn't enforcable and or is voidable per California Rules of Evidence 1123 and 1124.
JAMS and the Mediator failed to inform all parties that there is a 30 day window to return to JAMS with any potential issues should they occur.
The required CA-200 Notice of Settlement not filed with the court as required.
The Mediator not explain the process and inform us was voluntary. Violation of JAMS Mediation Guidelines and CA Rules of Court.
The Stipulated Settlement Agreement was not Notarized and explained by the Mediator as required by JAMS own Mediation Guidlines.
The Mediator fail to inform us "how many times each attorney for both sides had been in front of him or her?" Violating JAMS own "Conflict of Interest" guidelines and the American Bar Associations Adopted Rules for Mediation.
Mediator and Defendants attorney we later learned are members of the same private club (Chancery) and that JAMS knew about this "conflict of interest" from a previous case invovling another case, yet continues to proper inform the public and customers as required by CA Business and Professional Codes.
The Stipulated Settlement Agreement claimed it was valid under CCP 664.6 but failed to include in writing that "the court retains jurisdiction". We later found out failure to include the correct "court jurisdiction language" makes CCP 664.6 not enforceable and under CCP 473.1 any dismissal can be undone for reasons of dishonesty, fraud, illegality, mistake of fact, and duress.
Mediator failed to inform us a Dismissed Defendant was present and that Two out of the Four remaining defendants weren't present and not participating as required.
Two of the defendants didn't sign the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Mistake of Fact under California Law making the agreement not valid.
JAMS is in Downtown Los Angeles, yet the Mediator and Attorneys for both sides didn't follow the Los Angeles County Bar Association rules for mediation.
We weren't allowed to speak with the defendants liability insurers and they were available and we requested them. The mediator knew they were available and we received a letter from them explaining that. LA Count Bar Association Mediation Rules and CA Court Rules require participation either in person or over the phone during mediation.
The Mediator leave early at which point the mediation actually ended. Of course the attorneys for both sides forgot to tell their clients.
The settlement checks were paid from law firm to law firm instead of from Defendants to Plaintiffs Law Firm and Plaintiff's jointly. Violating the pay structures in the agreement.