Listen. . . Communicate. . .
Move to Solutions.
Margaret Huff Mediation PO Box 121951 Nashville TN 37212-1951
Margaret M. ("Marnie") Huff
- Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31 Listed General Civil Mediator
- custom designed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) services for businesses, organizations, and individuals in Tennessee
- client-centered conflict resolution services: mediation, arbitration, collaborative problem solving, and consulting on workplace conflict management
ADR News and Reports, a selection of national, state and local news of interest to Tennessee attorneys, mediators and arbitrators.
- On October 3, 2018, the Tennessee Supreme Court ordered significant amendments to Rule 31 governing Tennessee mediators, adopted Rule 31A, and posted certain forms on the Tennessee Administrative Office of the Court's website. The Court filed an Appendix detailing the changes.
- The Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility has addressed confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements. Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6(b) provides, "A lawyer shall not participate in offering of making: (b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy." Accordingly, if it restricts a lawyer's representation of other clients, it is improper for a lawyer to propose or accept a settlement agreement with a confidentiality provision that prohibits a lawyer from future use of information learned during the representation of a client, disclosure of publicly available information, or disclosure of information available through discovery in other cases. Formal Ethics Opinion 2018-F-166.
- In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16–285, ___ U.S. ___ (May 21, 2018), an employment contract provided for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties. The employees tried to litigate Fair Labor Standards Act and related state law claims through class or collective actions in federal court. They argued that the Federal Arbitration Act’s “saving clause” enabled them to pursue their suits because the arbitration agreement violated federal law. That is, by requiring individualized proceedings, the employment contracts violated the National Labor Relations Act. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the FAA, arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings must be enforced. The FAA’s saving clause and the NLRA do not suggest otherwise.
- Public Service Announcements on mediation: Check out these ABA Section of Dispute Resolution public service announcements on "Mediation. Efficient. Effective. Economical." - "Play Nice" and "Equal Levels."