Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Foundations, Scope, and Implications of Confidentiality in Family Dispute Mediation: A Comparative Study of Iran and the United States

Articles in Press

Document Type : scientific research paper

Authors
sahebeh Maleki Azaraki 1
Morteza Shahbazinia 2
Javad Hoseinzadeh 3
1 PhD Student, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Tarbiat Modares, Tehran, Iran
3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran
10.22034/law.2025.2074261.1720
Abstract
The effectiveness of the mediation process and the establishment of trust in honest negotiations regarding family disputes depend fundamentally on the disputing parties' absolute confidence in the safety and security of the mediation environment. This security specifically entails the rigorous protection of sensitive information and private disclosures shared by parties in the hope of achieving a desirable, efficient, and sustainable agreement. Confidentiality is not merely a theoretical legal principle, but an indispensable practical tool providing the necessary foundation for candor, mutual trust, and the overall efficiency of the mediation process. Conversely, a lack of confidentiality or any weakness in its enforcement can directly and negatively impact the quality and durability of agreements, ultimately preventing mediation from achieving its intended dispute resolution goals. However, defining the precise contours of confidentiality, categorizing the types of information requiring protection, and determining applicable exceptions face significant challenges in the legal systems of both the United States and Iran. In the Iranian context, although scattered legal provisions exist to support confidentiality, the notable absence of a comprehensive mediation law and the lack of explicit legislative protection act as major barriers. This legal ambiguity hinders public trust in mediation and discourages parties from selecting this effective method for resolving complex family disputes. In the United States, while the Uniform Mediation Act has formally recognized confidentiality, ambiguities remain regarding the distinction between related concepts like confidentiality and evidentiary privilege, as well as the scope of their exceptions. Adopting a comparative and descriptive-analytical approach, this study examines these legal challenges through a detailed analysis of statutes, judicial practice, and relevant case studies to propose robust solutions for protecting confidentiality. Findings indicate that the U.S. legal system, by explicitly recognizing mediation privilege, has taken effective steps toward information protection, with some states providing broad safeguards. However, the study concludes that Iran requires a comprehensive mediation law clearly defining confidentiality, its scope, and exceptions. Furthermore, establishing strict enforcement mechanisms such as the inadmissibility of mediation communications as evidence in court is essential to strengthen trust in the process.
Keywords
Mediation
confidentiality
family Disputes
Uniform Mediation Act

Subjects

1.       American Bar Association (ABA), Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR), & American Arbitration Association (AAA). (2005). Model standards of conduct for mediators.
2.       American Bar Association. (2020). Model rules of professional conduct. American Bar Association.
3.       Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), American Bar Association (ABA), & Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR). (2025). Model standards of practice for family and divorce mediation.
4.       Brown, K. L. (1991). "Confidentiality in mediation: Status and implications". Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1991(2), 307–336.
5.       Cassel v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 113 (2011). Cobb, S., & Rifkin, J. (1991). "Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation". Law & Social Inquiry, 16(1), 35–62.
6.       Cobb, S., & Rifkin, J. (1991). "Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation". Law & Social Inquiry, 16(1), 35–62.
7.       Darvishi Hoveida, Y. (2014). Alternative dispute resolution methods. Tehran: Mizan Legal Foundation. (In Persian)
8.       Deason, E. E. (2001, May). "Enforcing mediated settlement agreements: Contract law collides with confidentiality". SSRN Electronic Journal.
9.       Farajiha, M., & Mollaparvari, M. (2018). "The situation of victim women of family violence in the traditional mediation processes". Legal Research Quarterly, 21(82), 131–152. (In Persian) doi: 10.22034/jlr.2018.113058
10.    Firestone, G. (2024). "Legal, ethical, and practical considerations in family dispute resolution". In P. Salem & K. B. Olson (Eds.), Family dispute resolution: Process and practice (pp. 545–567). Oxford University Press.
11.    Firestone, G., & Press, S. B. (2020). "Privadentiality: Developing a coherent framework for establishing communication protections in family and child protection dispute resolution methods". Family Court Review, 58(2), 319–344.
12.    Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). Penguin Books.
13.    Foroughi, F., Borji, M. N., & Moslehi, J. (2014). "Foundations of civil liability for the violation of privacy in cyberspace in Imamiyyah jurisprudence and Iranian law". Legal Studies, 6(3), 161–182. (In Persian) doi: 10.22099/jls.2014.2553
14.    Fouladi Nejad, F., Rajabi, A., Almasi, N., & Nahrini, F. (2024). "A study of two evidentiary approaches in Iranian and American civil procedure: Evidence-based approach and narrative-based approach". Private Law, 21(1), 1–12. (In Persian) doi: 10.22059/jolt.2024.365110.1007228
15.    Gholami, H., & Moghadam, A. (2018). "Confidentiality in the criminal mediation process". Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, 4(2(9)), 179–202. (In Persian) doi: 10.61838/kman.lsda.3.4.13
16.    In re Marriage of Kieturakis, 138 Cal. App. 4th 56 (2006).
17.    In re Marriage of Rosson, 178 Cal. App. 3d 1094 (1986).
18.    Karimi, A., & Shokoohizadeh, R. (2009). "Hearsay rule and its exceptions in common law with a comparative view to Iranian law". Private Law Studies Quarterly, 39(1), 288-309. (In Persian) dor: 20.1001.1.25885618.1388.39.1.10.4
19.    Kasowitz, B. (n.d.). Mediation Q&A: United States (New York). Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP.
20.    Katouzian, N. (1998). Civil liability (Vol. 1). Tehran: University of Tehran. (In Persian)
21.    Landau, B., Bartoletti, M., & Mesbur, R. (1987). Family mediation handbook. Butterworths.
22.    Mohajeri, A. (2010). Civil Procedure Code in the current legal order. Tehran: Fekrsazan. (In Persian)
23.    Mohseni, F. (2010). Information privacy: Criminal law study in Iran, the United States, and Islamic jurisprudence. Tehran: Imam Sadiq University. (In Persian)
24.    Mohseni, H., & Najafi, A. (2022). "Declaration of third parties in proceedings and its exceptions". Private Law Studies Quarterly, 52(1), 127–148. (In Persian)
25.    Moradi, M. (2014). "A view of the Hadith Al-Majalis bi-al-Amanah". Ulum-i Hadith, 18(67), 3–27. (In Persian)
26.    Nekonam, V. (2023). "Differential procedure of child victims in the pre-trial stage". Contemporary Comparative Legal Studies, 14(31), 255–285. (In Persian)
27.    New York City Bar Association. (2024). Mediation confidentiality in New York State: Overview of the current regulatory and institutional landscape and subcommittee recommendations. New York City Bar Association.
28.    Oberman, S. (2012). "Confidentiality in mediation: An application of the right to privacy". Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 27(3), 539–566.
29.    Rezaee, S. A., Maboudi Neishabouri, R., Ansari, A., & Khodabakhshi, A. (2022). "Iranian law approach about online mediation". Private Law, 19(1). (In Persian) doi: 10.22059/jolt.2022.329365.1007023
30.    Roberts, M. (2014). Mediation in family disputes: Principles of practice (4th ed.). Ashgate Publishing.
31.    Schepard, A. (2001). "An introduction to the model standards of practice for family and divorce mediation". Family Law Quarterly, 35(1), 1–25.
32.    Shams, A. (2013). Fundamental course of civil procedure (Vol. 3). Tehran: Derak. (In Persian)
33.    Spencer, D., & Brogan, M. (2006). Mediation law and practice. Cambridge University Press.
34.    Tavakoli Kia, O., & Asghari, Z. (2024). "Innovations and defects of the Dispute Resolution Councils Act (September 13, 2023)". Journal of Research and Development in Private Law, 1(2), 79–107. (In Persian). doi: 10.22034/jpl.2024.2042094.1113
35.    Tavakoli, M. M. (2024). "The background and challenges of conciliation courts in the latest legislative developments". Journal of Research and Development in Private Law, 1(2), 47–78. (In Persian). doi: 10.22034/jpl.2024.2039488.1108
36.    Tetunic, F. L. (2017). "The irony of mediator as problem maker: Mediator misconduct setting aside mediated agreements". Family Court Review, 54(2), 255–269.
37.    Tetunic, F., & Firestone, G. (2020). "Confidentiality and privilege for family and child protection mediation: A roadmap for navigating the innovation, inconsistency and confusion". Family Court Review, 58(1), 44–67.
38.    Uniform Law Commission. (2003). Uniform Mediation Act.
39.    Van Arsdale, S. (2015). "User protections in online dispute resolution". Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 21(1), 107–152.
40.    Warren, S. D., & Brandeis, L. D. (1890). "The right to privacy". Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193–220.
41.    Welsh, N. A. (2001). "The thinning vision of self-determination in court-connected mediation: The inevitable price of institutionalization?". Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 6, 1–96.
42.    Wilson v. Wilson, 285 Ga. 48 (2007).
43.    Wilson-Evered, E., & Zeleznikow, J. (2021). Online family dispute resolution: Evidence for creating the ideal people and technology interface. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
44.    Zera'at, A. (2007). Annotated Civil Procedure Code: Second edition of Civil Procedure Code in the Iranian legal system. Tehran: Qoqnoos. (In Persian).
Journal of Research and Development in Comparative Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 01 December 2025