Subject – Alternate Dispute Resolution

CONFIDENTIALITY V. PUBLIC
INTEREST IN MEDIATION

SUBMITTED BY: ARVIND SRINIVAS

I.D. NO. 1555
3 YEAR, B.A. LL. B. (HONS.)
RD

DATE OF SUBMISSION: 5 AUGUST, 2010.

TH
Table of Contents
Research Methodology...................................................................................................................4
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................5
What is Mediation...........................................................................................................................7
Origin of mediation....................................................................................................................7
Approaches to mediation............................................................................................................9
Outcomes of mediation..............................................................................................................9
Importance of Confidentiality in Mediation.................................................................................11
Normative analysis of mediation..............................................................................................11
Mediator-party confidentiality.................................................................................................12
Party-party confidentiality........................................................................................................13
Public Interest v. Confidentiality in Mediation.............................................................................14
Modes of protection of confidentiality.....................................................................................14
Exclusion..................................................................................................................................15
Privilege...................................................................................................................................16
Areas of concern.......................................................................................................................17
Conclusion....................................................................................................................................18
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................20
 Research Methodology
1. Aim:
This paper aims to make a study of and examine the importance of confidentiality for
successful mediation and the limits to which this confidentiality can and should be protected.

2. Scope and Limitations:

The scope of the paper extends to examining the importance of confidentiality in mediation
and the dilemma that exists when this confidentiality comes into conflict with public interest.
As mediation is most developed in the United States examples from that country have been
used.

3. Research Questions:
The following research questions are answered in this paper:
1. What is mediation?
2. What is the importance of confidentiality in mediation?
3. In the event of a conflict between confidentiality and public interest, which one
prevails?

4. Data Sources:
Secondary sources of data such as books and articles have been used in the compilation of this
paper. All sources of data have been duly acknowledged.

5. Style of Writing:
A uniform and analytical mode of writing has been employed throughout the paper.

6. Mode of Citation:
A uniform and approved mode of citation has been used in this paper.
 Introduction

Mediation is an alternate form of dispute resolution in which a third party mediator facilitates
the settlement of issues between two disputing parties though a process of constructive
dialogue. Mediation can be broken down into three different phases. The first phase deals with
the decision of the disputing parties to opt for mediation and the third party to agree to act as a
mediator. A number of factors known as the determinants of mediation, such as the culture
from which the parties originate and the benefit to be obtained from opting for mediation over
other forms of dispute resolution, influence the decision of the parties. The third party too is
influenced in his decision by these factors. The second phase of mediation deals with the
approaches to mediation. The approaches adopted depend on the determinants of approaches
which range from the environment in which the mediation takes place to the past relationship
shared by the disputants and the mediator. Thirdly the outcomes of mediation are specific to
the disputants in the form of satisfaction, the mediator in the form of satisfaction and n
enhancement of reputation and the third parties who also benefit from the benefits that accrue
to the disputing parties.

The importance of confidentiality in mediation can be broken down into two aspects. The first
aspect is based on the relationship between the disputing parties and the mediator. It is
imperative that the mediator builds up an atmosphere of trust during the mediation. He can do
this only if he can assure the parties that any communication between him and the parties and
between the parties themselves will remain confidential and not be used in concurrent or
subsequent litigation. It is also import that confidentiality be maintained as in the absence of
confidentiality the parties will be reluctant to divulge all information fearing that this
information will be used in later litigation, which ultimately leads to an undesirable decrease in
the efficacy of the mediation. The second part of confidentiality is based on the relationship
between the disputants. Here, apart from the reasons mentioned above, confidentiality is also
important because issues that would normally not be brought out in the open, will be disclosed
in an atmosphere of trust, which could contribute to the parties reaching a settlement
successfully.

Protection of confidentiality in mediation is ensured through the means of exclusions and

privileges. Exclusions primarily exempt communications made during the mediation from
being considered as evidence in subsequent litigation. Federal Rule of Evidence 408, in the
United States, is a good example of such an exclusion. While an exclusion deals only with the
exemption of information from testimony, a privilege may deal with a wider range of situations
such as disclosure of the communications made during the mediation to the press.

Undoubtedly confidentiality is integral to the success of mediation. However there may arise
situations where this confidentiality becomes problematic. With the expansion of the use of
mediation as a preferred form of dispute resolutions the questions as to where this
confidentiality should stop. When the issue of mediation is of a public nature and likely to
affect hundreds of people who cannot be present at the mediation, will confidentiality still
prevail over public interest. Similarly when the testimony of the mediator is the difference
between a conviction and an acquittal, will the courts still protect the confidentiality of
mediation? Obviously a balance has to be found between the interests of the disputants and that
of the public. These questions are sought to be answered in this research paper.
 What is Mediation

The process of mediation may be defined as the facilitation of interaction by a third party who
is designated for this purpose and who in the normal course of events would not have any
authority to find a solution to the dispute to be resolved.1 As a form of dispute resolution,
mediation has been employed since times immemorial. Instances of its use have been found in
China, Korea, Malaysia, Poland, Azerbaijan, Israel, Norway and Japan.2 In India the system of
panchayats is an excellent example of the use of mediation for dispute resolution. In the
modern era, mediation is used in diverse fields. The most widespread use of mediation is in the
field of international relations, labor management issues and family matters.

Origin of mediation
Mediation can be broken down into three distinct phases, which are, its origin, the approaches
used during the mediation and the outcome of the mediation. The origin of mediation can be
found in the decision of two or more disputing parties interacting with the help of a third party
in the hope that the relationship between them can be improved in this manner. Different
circumstances induce these disputing parties to opt for mediation. These factors are known as
the determinants of mediation. Once the parties decide that they have to seek the help of the
third party mediator in order to find a solution to their dispute, it is left to the mediator to
decide whether he or she wants to provide such help or not. Thus for the process of mediation
to take place two basic requirements must be satisfied. Firstly the disputing parties must ask for
third party assistance, in the resolution of the dispute, in the form of a mediator and secondly
this mediator must agree to provide such assistance.

The determinants of mediation are in the forms of firstly norms and laws and secondly
expected benefits. These two factors are influential in the satisfaction of the two requirements
needed for the mediation to begin. Norms are generally deeply ingrained in the culture of the
parties. When these norms warrant the use of mediation as the preferred form of dispute
resolution, they act as a powerful influence on the parties' decision to opt for mediation. The
cultural efficacy theory explains this influence by saying that disputants in cultures with such
norms have repeatedly witnessed the resolution of disputes through mediation and hence are

1 G.K Kwatra, Arbitration and Alternate Dispute Resolution,(International Trade Centre, New Delhi; 2004), p.41.
2 J. A. Wall, Jr., A. Lynn, “Mediation: A Current Review”, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 37, No. 1
(Mar., 1993), p. 160.
comfortable and familiar with mediation.3

Cultures shape decisions not only at the national but also at the community level. Communities
in most cases have their own set of norms and laws. Thus the decision of the parties to opt for
mediation or not to do so depends on the specific communities to which the disputants belong.
An example of this phenomenon is seen in the United States. Many states in that country have
adopted laws which provide judges with the power to order the disputing parties to participate
in mandatory mediation. In contrast to this, when the norms and laws favor other forms of
dispute resolution, unfamiliarity with the process causes the parties not to go for mediation.4

Apart from the influence wielded by the norms and laws of the culture to which the parties
belong to, expected benefits are the other factor which act as an incentive for the disputants to
choose mediation to solve their dispute. Third party intervention can have a number of positive
effects which the parties see as expected benefits. A mediator might have specialized skills in
the area of dispute, his intervention might overcome any stalemates, the relationship between
the parties could be kept cordial and the dispute itself could be kept quiet and confidential.
These benefits induce the parties to select mediation as their preferred form of dispute
resolution. When deciding whether to opt for mediation, the parties carry out a cost benefit
analysis. This is done by comparing the possible results of mediation with those of other forms
of dispute resolution such as litigation, which generally is slow, expensive and in most cases
reaches sub optimal solutions.5

Coming to the second requirement needed to start mediation, that is the acceptance of the
mediator to assist in the resolution of the dispute, it is seen that the same factors that influence
the disputants' decision with regard to mediation, also influence the mediator's decision on
whether or not to facilitate the dispute resolution. Norms, laws and expected payoffs are the
factors instrumental in shaping the third party's decision making process. Personal benefit or in
the case of international relations, benefit to ones country, can be powerful considerations in
any such decision making process. From the point of norms in numerous cultures the elders are
expected to mediate all disputes, ranging from the basic family level to whole villages and
communities. Thus like the disputing parties the third party also accepts to be involved in the

3 J. A. Wall, Jr., J. B. Stark, R. L. Standifer, “Mediation: A Current Review and Theory Development”, The
Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Jun., 2001), pp. 376
4 Id.
5 L.G. Terris, Z. Moaz, “Rational Mediation: A Theory and a Test”, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 42, no. 5,
2005, p. 564
mediation on the basis of norms, laws and possible benefits.6

Approaches to mediation
Once the mediation gets going, the mediator has to decide on a specific approach that has to be
adopted during the mediation. In this, he or she is influenced by factors known as the
determinants of approaches. There are various kinds of approaches that can be employed.
However they can be broadly categorized based on their focus. Three such broad categories
exist which focus on the disputants, the relationship between the disputants and the relationship
between the disputants and the third party. They may also be classified as facilitative r
evaluative. In the former the mediator merely facilitates whereas in the latter the mediator
evaluates the situation and expresses an opinion.7 The approach that is adopted depends on the
determinants of approaches. The main determinant is the feasibility of the approach itself
which can be determined by examining the facts and circumstances of the case. Secondly the
environment in which the mediation is being held influences the choice of approach.
Sometimes the disputants insist on a certain approach as the use of this approach will maximise
the benefit for them. If the third party performs mediation services regularly then the mediator
develops his own style and approach depending on his personality and standing in society. The
economic feasibility of the approach also has to be examined before its adoption. Lastly the
past relationship between the mediator and the parties also influences the approach that is
adopted.8

Outcomes of mediation
When the approaches are applied, they yield outcomes for the parties, the mediator and other
related parties. The outcome of the mediation depends upon the gravity of the dispute, the
bargaining power held by each party and the type of issue that is being mediated. Apart from
the settlement of the dispute, the primary disputant specific outcome is satisfaction. This
satisfaction is present because mediation is less taxing both emotionally and financially when
compared to litigation. In addition to this the solutions are also tailor made to suit the needs of
the disputants. For mediators the outcome is in the form of satisfaction, remuneration and a
move up in the hierarchies of society. For third parties the outcomes are incidental to those of
the parties.9
6 Supra note 3 at p.377.
7 Bernstein et al., Handbook of Arbitration Practice (Sweet and Maxwell, London; 1998), p.585.
8 Supra note 3 at p. 378
9 Supra note 3 at p.380
 Importance of Confidentiality in Mediation

As mediation gains importance as an alternate form of dispute resolution, the importance of

confidentiality to the process of mediation and the extent to which confidentiality can be
maintained with regard to the information divulged by the disputants, need to be defined. The
need to protect both mediator-party and party-party communications and to grant the mediator
a testimonial privilege has been recognized since the last century in the United States.
Historically, communications made during the mediation process have been granted protection
through statutes, especially in disputes regarding labour and family matters. As the expansion
of the employment of mediation for the resolution of disputes took place more and more
statutes afforded protection to these communications, for example, in the resolution of small
criminal issue

The protection accorded by these statutes is principally in the form of two separate privileges.
The first privilege deals with the sanctity of any communication made during the mediation by
exempting the same from the compulsory processes of litigation. The second privilege is with
respect to the immunity granted to the mediator from testifying during any subsequent
litigation. Checks and balances are imposed on these privileges to retain the integrity of
mediation and to protect third party interests. Thus various statutes grant these privileges in
different degrees. However, the important point to note here is that however limited these
privileges might be they are still immensely important for successful mediation.10

Normative analysis of mediation

Though the process of mediation has been described in the previous chapter, it is imperative
that mediation and the role of the mediator be analyzed here, normatively, to form a foundation
for the analysis of the importance of confidentiality to the process of mediation. A normative
view of mediation will automatically lead us to the answer that is sought with respect to the
essentiality of confidentiality in mediation. In its essence, mediation can be said to be a
contractarian process11. This contractarian process of mediation aims to achieve the twin goals
of dispute settlement through effective negotiation and the structuring of future relationships.
Since the essence of mediation is that of two disputing parties exercising their right to settle the
dispute though negotiation, the process of mediation clearly differs from that of adjudication as

10 Anonymous, “Protecting Confidentiality in Mediation”, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Dec., 1984),
p.441
11 Id.
the parties enter into the dispute settlement voluntarily and unlike in adjudication retain control
over both the direction and the outcome of the process of dispute resolution.

Facilitation is the principal function of the mediator, unlike in the process of adjudication in
which the judge decides the outcome of the dispute. No preordained rules exist apart from
those agreed upon by the parties. The facilitatory functions of the mediator are primarily with
regard to the identification of issues existing between the parties, recognizing possible areas of
agreement and convincing both the parties to accommodate the other party's interests 12. As the
parties are not restricted by the strict adherence to legal issues in the courts, other hidden issues
which in most cases prove to be important causes of the dispute, are discovered. Thus at an
optimal level, mediation can convert conflict into a constructive process and at its very
minimal levels mediations provides the parties with an opportunity to prevent existing
relationships from deteriorating to the point of no return, which is seen in most cases which are
solved using the processes of adjudication.13

Mediator-party confidentiality
Now that a normative view of mediation and the role of the mediator has been taken a
definition of the importance of confidentiality to mediation can be laid down, while keeping
the normative view in mind. The mediator's role as seen before is merely facilitatory and any
form of coercion is absolutely out of the question. To compensate for this the mediator has to
issues promises of confidentiality. Though the mediator might be helped in his endeavors by
numerous other factors such as the force of his personality, his stature in society and the need
of the parties to conduct the mediation in a successful manner, ensuring confidentiality is the
only method by which the mediator can fully assess the possibilities of successful resolution .
In order to make such an assessment , the mediator needs to be apprised of all the motives,
intentions, positions and interests of the disputing parties. The degree of efficiency that can be
brought about in the process of ascertaining the motives, intentions, positions and interests of
the parties, reaches optimal level only when the parties are convinced that strict confidentiality
will be maintained throughout and after the mediation.

Neutrality is an attribute that any mediator should possess. In order to achieve this neutrality
the privilege of not testifying in subsequent litigation, with regard to the communications

12 C. J. Greenhouse, “Mediation: A Comparative Approach”, Man, New Series, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1985), p. 96
13 Supra note 10 at p.442.
between him and the parties to the dispute, should be recognized. There are two situations
when this privilege would apply. Firstly when protection of the mediator's interest in neutrality
is warranted and secondly when the party's expectations need to be upheld. The rationale
behind protecting the image of the mediator as a neutral party is that this image is vital to the
creation of an atmosphere of trust required for successful mediation. By according to the
mediator the privilege of not testifying, the image of the neutrality of the mediator will be
strengthened due to the assurance that the mediator will not be an adversary in subsequent
litigation which in turn leads to the parties believing more strongly in the integrity of the
mediation process.14

Party-party confidentiality
Apart from the need for an honest and frank relationship between the mediator and the parties,
there is an equally important need for such a relationship to exist between the parties Mere
shuttle diplomacy cannot form the basis for fruitful mediation. Mediation requires that the
disputing parties meet at one place and thrash out the issues out of which the dispute has
arisen. In the absence of confidentiality, it is well nigh impossible for the mediator to generate
the atmosphere of trust required for the parties to abandon their reluctance to confide in each
other. In turn, this reluctance will lead to any form of agreement becoming impossible. Thus
for effective mediation to take place it is imperative that the privilege to not testify with regard
to the communication exchanged by the parties, be accorded to them.15

The preceding paragraphs point out the need for confidentiality in mediation. The question that
arises now is with respect to what happens when this need for confidentiality comes into
conflict with any form of public interest. Ideally there should be a clear demarcation as to
where the need and importance of confidentiality stop and the importance of upholding public
interest starts. The existence of such a demarcation, or the possibility of it in case of its non
existence, is examined in the next chapter.

14 Supra note 10 at p.444.

15 K. K. Kovach, Mediation Principles and Practice, (West Publishing Co, St. Paul, Minnesota; 1994) p.143
 Public Interest v. Confidentiality in Mediation

From the previous chapter it can be easily inferred that confidentiality carries a high degree of
importance in the process of mediation. The reasons for this are that confidentiality builds up
an atmosphere of trust which facilitates the full disclosure of issues without the fear of them
being used adversely in subsequent litigation. However what happens when the very same
confidentiality poses serious problems. There are instances, which become more and more
common with the spread of mediation as a preferred method of dispute resolution, where the
assurance of confidentiality in mediation becomes problematic. Examples of such instances are
when the parties misuse this confidentiality to put forward litigation, when there is no
regulation of the mediator's conduct and when the issue of the mediation is such that it affects a
large number of people who have no connection whatsoever with the mediation.16

The third example, which is an instance where the outcome of the mediation will affect a
number of people not related to the mediation, is what concerns us here. The public nature of
the issue being resolved in the mediation poses the question as to whether public interest or
confidentiality take precedence. For example what happens when the mediation is between the
Government and a company whose activities have adversely affected the environment, hence
affecting hundreds of people who cannot be present at the mediation. The answer to this
dilemma lies in finding a balance between public interest. This balance will in turn
manufacture a demarcation where the importance of confidentiality is outweighed by the need
to protect public interest. This demarcation by necessity has to be dynamic in nature. Where
the dispute is essentially private in nature, for example in divorce proceedings, the need for
confidentiality must necessarily outweigh the need for disclosure of the substance of the
mediation. On the other hand when the mediation falls into the public domain, for example in
labour matters, the need for disclosure must take precedence.

Modes of protection of confidentiality

From a layman's perspective, there are two interpretations of confidentiality possible. Firstly it
may be interpreted as something secret and which will not be known to persons outside the
mediation. The second possible common interpretation may be that the information divulged in

16 Id.
a mediation is confidential only with respect to court proceedings and can be revealed outside
these proceedings. A via media of sorts is also another interpretation in which only those
persons who are related to and directly affected by the mediation are made privy to the
information that is divulged in the course of the mediation. Form a legal perspective there are
two aspects to confidentiality and mediation. These two aspects can be termed as exclusion and
privilege. These two aspects have often not been distinguished between by both lawyers and
courts but will be examined but have to be examined separately for a clear understanding of the
issue.

Exclusion17
To study an exclusion in general, Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence can be taken as an
example. Though the rule covers all settlement mechanisms, it needs to be examined here only
from the point of view of mediation. The exclusion provided under this rule is evidentiary in
nature. The rule provides that an offer of compromise is not admissible to prove liability for or
invalidity of the claim or its amount. It also provides that evidence of conduct or statements
made in compromise negotiations is likewise not admissible. What Rule 408 does not specify
is whether the information disclosed during mediation can be discussed with institutions such
as the media.

Application of this rule is, however, limited as it does not extend the exclusion to all statements
made during the process. Though this limitation exists courts tend to extend the rule to all
statements made, thus extending the scope of the rule itself. The rationale behind this extension
is that if limits were placed on the types of statements hat would be exempt from disclosure
during subsequent litigation, then there would be no incentive for the parties to divulge
information that would fall outside the exemption which would ultimately lead to an
undesirable decrease in the efficacy of the mediation process.

Practically it is not advisable to rely only on an exclusion such as that provided by Rule 408.
Courts in the United States have construed the rule narrowly by using a rule known as the
relevancy rule. Under this rule, evidence of a proposed compromise is excluded because it is
generally considered not to be reliable evidence of the value of the offeror's claim.18 Exclusions
similar to the one contained in this rule protect only statements that are made to prove the

17 Supra note 15 at p.147

18 Supra note 10 at p.449
veracity of claims made by the parties. Statements which are made incidental to these are not
covered by the scope of the exclusion. They are not contingent to the claims made and if the
mediator interacts with the parties separately and these interactions are exclusively confidential
then, the statements made are not exempt. Exclusions, such as the one made in Rule 408, only
prohibit the use of statements made during mediation in subsequent or concurrent litigation.
Though all parties to the mediation are prevented from testifying, disbursement of information
in other circumstances is not prohibited by the exclusion.

Privilege19
Coming to the second aspect of confidentiality, which is privilege, it can be seen that unlike an
exclusion a privilege extends to all situations and is aimed at preventing a specific individual
from revealing information conveyed during the mediation. Thus, even if legally a privilege
operates to exclude evidence from trial or discovery, it can operate in numerous other
circumstances. Incidentals of the mediation, such as records and minutes, may also come under
the purview of the privilege. The rationale underlying any privilege, is to protect any
relationship based on trust by by recognising the legal right to non disclosure of information.
Privileges originated in common law but now have largely been codified.

A test, commonly known as the Wigmore test, is employed by the courts while determining the
veracity of a claim for privilege against disclosure. This is a four part test. Firstly the test
requires that the communications must originate in confidence that they will not be disclosed.
Secondly, the element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory
maintenance of the relationship between the parties. Thirdly the relationship must be such that
it is desirable that it be carefully nurtured and lastly the harm done to the relationship by the
disclosure of information must outweigh the benefit to be availed through the correct disposal
of litigation.20

The question here is whether the relationship between the disputants and the mediator satisfy
the requirements of the test. The first requirement of the test is easily satisfied as all mediators
claim that the proceedings that they conduct are confidential. The second requirement too can
be said to be satisfied as it is obvious that the parties will reveal all information to the mediator
if they are assured of the confidentiality of the process. Assuming that it is desirable to resolve
disputes by mediation the third requirement too is satisfied. The fourth requirement contains

19 Supra note 15 at p. 149.

20 Supra note 15 at p.150.
the essence of the problem that is faced when determining the extent to which protection
should be accorded to the communications made to the mediator by the parties. The general
approach by courts, especially in the U.S., is to find a balance between public interest and
confidentiality of these communications on a case to case basis.

Areas of concern
As mediation has not reached the stage where it can be compared to a doctor patient
relationship or a client lawyer relationship, many questions as to the nature of the privilege to
be granted remain unanswered. The extent of the privilege is a major area of concern21. There
are instances where this privilege may lead to a serious miscarriage of justice. For example the
mediator's testimony can be the difference between the conviction and acquittal of an accused.
There may exist two solutions to this quandary. The first solution would be to formulate a
qualifying test which would basically involve a cost benefit analysis on the part of the courts. A
second possible solution could be to make confidentiality conditional upon the success of the
mediation. This not only gives the disputants an added incentive to arrive at a settlement but
also ensures that there is no miscarriage of justice in subsequent litigation.

21 Supra note 15 at p. 156.

 Conclusion

The aim of this research paper was to examine the importance of confidentiality for successful
mediation and to determine the order of precedence in a situation where the interests of the
disputing parties served through the maintenance of confidentiality comes into conflict with
any form of public interest. To achieve this aim the research paper, in its first chapter,
examined the process of mediation itself. On doing so it was found that mediation is basically a
form of dispute resolution where a third party mediator facilitates the resolution of the dispute
through a process of constructive interaction.

It was also found that the parties opt for mediation due to a variety of factors known as the
determinants of mediation which range from the culture to which the parties belong to the
benefits of choosing mediation over more taxing forms of dispute resolution. The approaches
adopted during mediation depend on the determinants of approaches such as the general and
economic feasibility of the approach and the type of issue that is being mediated upon.
Ultimately the approaches lead to an outcome for the parties in the form of settlement and
satisfaction, for the mediator in the form of satisfaction and growth in reputation and for other
related parties in the form of incidental benefits.

The second chapter of the research paper focused on the importance of confidentiality to the
process of mediation. It was found that confidentiality is integral to carry out mediation
successfully as it forms an atmosphere of trust between the mediator and the parties and
between the parties themselves. It also eliminates the fear that any information divulged during
the mediation will be used in subsequent litigation. This ultimately leads to the complete
disclosure of the issues, facts and circumstances of the case which in turn leads to the
achievement of optimal levels of efficacy in the mediation.

The modes and extent of protection of confidentiality were examined in the third chapter. It
was found that confidentiality is protected though exclusions, mostly evidentiary in nature, and
privileges, which cover numerous other situations as well. The core issue of the research paper
was reached in this chapter with an examination of these modes of protection. In conclusion, it
was found that in most cases where the private interest of the individuals conflicted with the
interests of people who could not be at the mediation, a balance had to be sought in each case
depending on the facts of the case. Another solution could be to make confidentiality
contingent on the success of the mediation which would also act as an added incentive for
settlement.
 Bibliography

kimberlee k kovac, mediation principles and practice west publishing co st. Paul Minnesota
1994.