Faithful, strong, generous, smart, caring, witty, honest, interested and interesting – these are only some of the qualities I admired in the man who is my hero.

He would laugh when I would tell him he was my hero. He would reply, “Many people have it much worse than I do.” But I’m not sure that’s true. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when he was 30 and it took a relentless toll on his body. His eyes ceased to coordinate; for decades now, each permanently goes in a different direction. As his left side weakened, his left leg became as helpful as a sack of potatoes that he dragged around. He walked with a cane, then a walker. He fell often. His falls at work caused his employer to place him on disability while still in his 50’s. Unable to exercise, he developed arteriosclerosis, and had a heart attack. Before that, he had a bout with bladder cancer, forcing him to submit to the indignity of regular cystoscopies for the next thirty years. The MS led to poor circulation, causing peripheral neuropathy that caused nightly pain. That led to leg ulcers that wouldn’t heal, and hospital procedures to prevent infection. For years, a nurse had to change the dressing on his leg ulcers every one or two days, a painful process that took an hour.

This went on for decades. But, with quiet determination, he resisted. Most of us would have long since given up trying to walk or stand, and sunk into a wheelchair, but he was determined to retain the ability to walk, even if it was painfully slow. Many of us (at least, me!) might have slipped into bitterness, or self-pity, or depression. But there was not a hint of that. He rarely complained, and he revealed his challenges only when asked. That’s one of the reasons he was my hero.

Instead, he was interested in everyone and everything. He read widely, and used the internet to stay informed. Who needs Siri? We could ask him a question on just about any topic, and he’d have an answer. He loved history, politics, astronomy, languages, geography. He enjoyed good food, good wine, good music, and a good cigar. He loved to travel. He was an excellent photographer, until his vision and coordination made that impossible. He was a pilot in the Navy and never lost his love of aviation. He loved words, and wrote well; many a government representative has received one of his pointed letters.

When he was a freshman in college, he met the woman of his dreams, and he never looked at another woman after that. They’ve been married 62 years now. That’s another reason he’s my hero: he’s been faithful through all the ups and downs of married life, including her recent dementia.

Another person might take employment termination at the peak of his career as an invitation to seek revenge, sue for compensation, or disparage the employer. But that’s another characteristic of my hero: he didn’t carry grudges, he was quick to forgive, he saw the best in people – as long as they were trying. He had little patience with people he saw as lazy, or immoral, or cheaters. He loved the truth, and he revered honesty.

Really, the only way to explain his cheerful disposition in the face of his daily suffering is his faith. A devout Catholic, he attended daily Mass for much of his life, even when it took him a half hour to drag his limping body from his car into the pew. He didn’t blame or question God about the trials in his life. He was quick to express gratitude. He exemplified St. Paul’s observation, “To live is Christ, to die is gain.”

My hero: my father, who passed away last week at age 86. He’s exchanged his cross for a crown.

How much must a mediator disclose to the parties about the mediator’s social relationship with one party’s attorney? That question is at the heart of a complaint filed by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission against an attorney-mediator in a divorce case who failed to disclose to the husband’s attorney during the course of their year-long mediation/arbitration that she had made vacation plans with the wife’s attorney.

The divorce case, Hartman v Hartman, was filed in Oakland County in 2009, and went to mediation in 2010. The neutral appointed to the case is an experienced domestic relations mediator who served as the parties’ mediator and then as their arbitrator. She issued several arbitration awards, but the case did not resolve and the husband retained new counsel. Just before the final arbitration hearing  occurred, the neutral went on vacation with her husband at the Florida home of the wife’s attorney. The husband’s attorney learned of this the day before the neutral departed on vacation.

Whether the neutral’s arbitration awards should stand was the subject of litigation, and both the trial court and the Court of Appeals (Hartman v Hartman, Case No. 304026, decided August 7, 2012) upheld them.

Whether the mediator acted unethically – i.e., acted contrary to the Mediator Standards of Conduct – is regularly discussed in mediation trainings. We have used this case the last few years in teaching ethics in mediation trainings, as a clear example of a conflict of interest. The Michigan Mediator Standards of Conduct have always recommended that a mediator should avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest by promptly disclosing actual and potential “conflicts of interest reasonably known to the mediator.” They now explicitly state that a “mediator should resolve all doubts in favor of disclosure.”  We have even suggested in trainings that, based on Standard II.E., she should have declined to serve at the outset. Standard II.E. provides, “If a mediator’s conflict of interest could be reasonably viewed as undermining the integrity of the mediation process, a mediator shall withdraw from or decline to proceed with the mediation regardless of the express agreement of the parties to the contrary.”

This provision is not unlike its predecessor in effect in 2010, “After disclosure, the mediator shall decline to mediate unless all parties choose to retain the mediator.”

Whether the mediator’s failure to disclose a conflict of interest amounts to attorney misconduct seems to be the essence of the complaint. The complaint refers to Michigan’s Standards of Conduct for Mediators as they existed in 2010, when the alleged offense occurred; the Standards were revised in 2013, but the provisions regarding conflicts of interest are essentially the same. Unfortunately, the complaint calls them “Standards of Misconduct,” and cites the attorney for “failing to adhere to and conduct the arbitration” in conformity with the Standards—yet these Standards pertain to mediation, not arbitration. Since the attorney conducted both mediation and arbitration without disclosing the relationship, it’s not clear whether the grievance is based on the conflict of interest during the mediation, or during the arbitration, the latter being more serious; it appears to include both.

Since Michigan has no state-level enforcement of mediator ethics (in contrast with states like Florida), parties and mediators must rely on other procedures such as litigation and attorney misconduct proceedings to ensure ethical behavior from mediators. If this mediator were not an attorney, the worst sanction would be removal from the court’s roster of mediators, unless the husband could prove actual damages (and there are virtually no U.S. cases where a party has prevailed against their mediator for damages). Citing an attorney for professional misconduct for violating the Standards of Conduct for Mediators would send a strong message to all attorney-mediators to heed those Standards when mediating.