## Facts

- An attorney represented a taxpayer in a District of Columbia tax appeal that was referred to court-ordered mediation under the Superior Court’s Multi-Door ADR program.
- The mediation was confidential and unrecorded; no transcript or tape was made.
- The mediation’s purpose depended substantially on participation by the attorney’s tax expert, who became physically unavailable shortly before the session.
- The attorney sought to have the expert participate by telephone; the mediator refused after the District objected.
- At the session, the attorney requested postponement so the expert could attend in person; the District did not oppose rescheduling.
- The mediation ended without substantive negotiations.
- The trial judge found the attorney had “unilaterally aborted” the mediation, concluded he failed to participate in good faith, and imposed a $200 sanction under Super. Ct. Tax R. 13(b).
- On appeal, the District conceded the record did not support a finding that the attorney unilaterally terminated the mediation.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court had an adequate factual basis to find that counsel failed to participate in good faith in court-ordered mediation under Super. Ct. Tax R. 13(b).
2. Whether imposing a monetary sanction based on an unsupported finding of “unilateral” termination was a proper exercise of discretion given the confidential, unrecorded mediation setting.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the $200 sanction.
- The court held that the finding of bad faith lacked the required firm factual foundation.
- The District’s concession that the record did not support “unilateral” termination undermined the key predicate for the sanction.

## Legal Principles

- A court may impose sanctions for bad-faith conduct in proceedings, including ADR, only when the finding of bad faith rests on a firm factual foundation sufficient to support informed discretion.
- Authorization to sanction for failure to participate in good faith in ADR (Super. Ct. Tax R. 13(b)) does not eliminate the requirement that sanctionable misconduct be supported by the record.
- Where ADR proceedings are confidential and unrecorded, courts must avoid speculative findings and ensure the sanction determination is grounded in reliable facts.

## Conclusion

The court vacated the ADR sanction because the trial judge’s bad-faith finding—premised on an allegedly “unilateral” termination of mediation—was not supported by a firm factual foundation, particularly given the opposing party’s concession and the lack of a formal mediation record.


In re Bolden, 719 A.2d 1253 (D.C. 1998)