Mediation Case Law Teaching Videos
Subject Area
Ethics/Malpractice
Loading...
Media is loading
Document Type
Video
Publication Date
7-2025
Recommended Citation
Coben, James, "Mediation: Sanctions and Mediator Response to Boorish Behavior (Wohnberger v. Lucani, 214 A.D.3d 615, 616–17, 186 N.Y.S.3d 618, 619 (2023))" (2025). Mediation Case Law Teaching Videos. 54.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/dri_mclvideo/54
Additional Files
Teaching Note-Mediation-Sanctions and Mediator Response to Boorish Behavior.pdf (203 kB)PPT-Wohnberger-Sanctions and Mediator Response.pptx (397898 kB)
Wohnberger Entire.srt (7 kB)
COinS
Comments
In Wohnberger v. Lucani, 214 A.D.3d 615, 616–17, 186 N.Y.S.3d 618, 619 (2023) (2023), a court-ordered Zoom mediation involved the plaintiff (Wohnberger), her attorney, and a non-party representative (her business partner and fiancé, Goldstein). The mediator permitted Goldstein to participate at the request of the plaintiff. During the mediation, Goldstein became increasingly belligerent: he allegedly interrupted repeatedly, spoke over the mediator, raised his voice, issued verbal threats, and refused to allow his client or counsel to speak. His behavior severely obstructed the ability to engage in meaningful settlement discussions. After multiple failed efforts to regain control, the mediator muted Goldstein in the Zoom session while continuing discussions with the remaining participants. Goldstein eventually left the session voluntarily. However, post-mediation, he allegedly made threats to the mediator and defendant’s counsel. (NOTE: For detailed explication of the allegations, see Defendant-Respondent’s Brief on Appeal, available on Westlaw). The mediator later reported Goldstein's disruptive behavior to the court's ADR coordinator, who in turn forwarded the report to the trial judge. The court ultimately dismissed the plaintiff's case, partly based on the mediator's report of noncompliance with ADR rules. The dismissal was reversed on appeal because the party was not “apprised of any ADR rule or related court rule(s) that she purportedly violated [and was not provided] opportunity to refute or otherwise respond to the allegations.”