Coleman now on Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center Tech List

Deborah has been admitted to the Tech List of the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center. 

The Center works with businesses, law firms and universities to promote the resolution of technology disputes and related complex business disputes through mediation or arbitration by knowledgeable and experienced neutrals.  Membership on the Tech List is by invitation only, after peer review, and is evaluated annually.  Members of the Center's Tech List have assisted parties throughout the U.S. and the world to negotiate practical business solutions or to secure the efficient and private adjudication of their claims. 


WIDR Directory a National Resource to Find Arbitrators and Mediators

The Women in Dispute Resolution (WIDR) committee of the American Bar Association's Dispute Resolution Section, of which Deborah is a member,  recently published its searchable directory.    The benefits of bringing diverse perspectives to decision-making have been widely recognized. e.g. D. Burt and L. Kaster, "Why Bringing Diversity to ADR is a Necessity."  The WIDR Directory can help you find a knowledgeable mediator or arbitrator for a variety of cases throughout the country and internationally.  


Appointment to CMBA Professionalism Conciliation Panel

I’m honored to have been appointed to the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar’s new 9 member Professionalism Conciliation Panel, formed to help improve how lawyers in Cuyahoga County deal with each other and with the courts.  The Panel uses the Statement of Professionalism issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio in 1997 and the Lawyers' Creed of Professionalism adopted by the CMBA in 2013 as the guiding principles for the program.  

Sweating the Small Stuff

You've heard "Don't sweat the small stuff", but that's exactly what lawyers have to do daily.  A misplaced comma or missing "not" can make a sentence mean the opposite of what you intended.  One day makes the difference between filing a complaint that will be heard, and one that is time-barred.  In re Application of Jia, a recent Ohio disciplinary case, reminds lawyers and those who aspire to the bar that details matter.

Lingya Jia was a 2013 law school grad who sat for the 2014 Ohio bar exam.  On the second day, two others taking the exam saw her twice filling in answers after time was called.  Jia may only have completed two more answers than time permitted, and she passed the exam despite the 16.7% penalty that the bar examiners assessed.  The character and fitness board recognized that the stress of the bar exam might account for her denying that she broke the rules. Yet the Supreme Court of Ohio held that Jia's failure to honor the testing deadline demonstrated that she lacked the requisite character, fitness and moral qualifications to become a lawyer at the time of the bar exam.   Jia was disciplined by requiring her to wait two years before reapplying for bar admission.

While Jia will get a "do over" with respect to her bar application, a lawyer cannot count on that opportunity in the practice of law.  The Jia case reminds lawyers to manage their work to comply with deadlines and time constraints, and always to act in a way that merits the trust of clients, courts and others, and the privileges we have as members of the bar.

Deborah Coleman included on 2016 "Best Lawyers" and "Super Lawyers" lists

Once again, Deborah has been honored to be recognized for her work in dispute resolution by inclusion in the 22nd edition of The Best Lawyers in America and Super Lawyers® Magazine/Ohio & Kentucky 2016.  Deborah brings all that she learned in years of litigating complex commercial and other cases to her work as an arbitrator and mediator.

New York appellate court broadens common interest privilege.

To establish that communications between lawyers with different clients are protected by  “common interest privilege”, pending or reasonably anticipated litigation is not a required element, a New York appellate court has held.  Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08510 (N. Y. App. Div. Dec. 4, 2014).   

The “common interest” or “community of interest” privilege may protect, from third party discovery, otherwise privileged information shared by counsel for separately represented parties whose clients share a common legal interest.  This “privilege” is best described as an exception to the rule that privilege is lost when attorney-client privileged information is disclosed to a stranger to the relationship.  The "community of interest privilege" is most often invoked to protect communications made under a joint defense agreement, where the participants’ common legal interest is successfully defending pending claims.  Some courts have recognized legal interests other than defense of pending or threatened litigation that can support a claim of common interest privilege.  E.g. In re Regents of the Univ. of California, 101 F.3d 1386, 1390-91 (Fed Cir. 1996), cert denied sub nom Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, 520 U.S. 1193 (1997)( common-interest doctrine "is not limited to actions taken and advice obtained in the shadow of litigation" and applies to parties’ common interest in securing the broadest possible patent). On the other hand, it is clear that for the privilege to apply,  parties’ common interest must be legal, and not solely commercial.  Duplan v. Deering Milliken, 397 F. Supp. 1146, 1172 (D.S.C. 1975).

Notwithstanding the recent Ambac decision,  counsel must be cautious in disclosing privileged information in a transactional context.  In Ambac itself, the appellate court ruling reduced but did not relieve the burden of Countrywide and Bank of America to show that a common interest privilege protected pre-closing communications that they and their counsel made pursuant to the institutions’ merger agreement.  The case law on “common interest privilege” varies by jurisdiction and by context.   One must consider carefully whether the overlapping interests of parties to a transaction are in fact identical, legal and not solely commercial.  Disclosures of privileged information should be made only under authority of a confidentiality agreement, and the extent necessary to advance an identified and truly common legal  interest.