be severely compromised. Indeed, the very foundation on which the mediation process is based would be broken. Parties would no longer be able to confide in the mediator, knowing that their “confidential remarks” to the neutral and impartial third party could later be used against them by the same individual, who is now wearing the hat of “lawyer/adversary” at trial. MQAP 94-002 (January 19, 1995). In a similar MQAP opinion, one more closely aligned with the facts in this case, the panel opined, “it is inappropriate for the mediator to represent either party in any dissolution proceeding or in any matter arising out of the subject mediation.” MQAP 94-003. Other courts are in accord with the panel’s reasoning. See McKenzie Constr. v. St. Croix Storage Corp., 961 F.Supp. 857 (D.Vi.1997)(<HOLDING>); Poly Software Int'l, Inc. v. Su, 880 F.Supp.
holding that plaintiffs law firm was subject to disqualifica tion when after unsuccessful mediation the plaintiffs firm hired the mediator appointed to settle the case holding that law firm who was plaintiffs adversary in foreclosure proceeding owed no duty to plaintiffs as law firm could not have expected that plaintiffs would rely on law firms representations about payoff amounts holding that where law firm had reason to believe that the information provided to it by the company was materially different from the truth firm could not escape liability merely by stating that its opinion was based solely on information provided to it holding that the plaintiffs met their burden by highlighting the experience and qualifications of plaintiffs counsels firm and the firms long history of practice in this area of law holding that a firm offer under the fcra really means a firm offer if you meet certain criteria