Professional Background
I come to the role of mediator after over twenty years as counsel in large international law firms, followed by several years as a full-time, independent arbitrator. My focus has always been on complex commercial disputes—often with a tech, IP, or engineering focus—and frequently involving cross-border parties or projects. I’m fluent in English and Spanish and reasonably proficient in French and Portuguese, and many of my cases call on those language skills. Before my law practice, I served as law clerk to two amazing federal judges, first in the Central District of California and then at the Ninth Circuit. From then on, I knew my long-term future would be working as a dispute-resolution neutral.
Path to Mediation
As an arbitrator, I love the analytical rigor of working through difficult legal problems and often uncertain and conflicting evidence to arrive at the “right” answer and to issue an articulate, persuasive award. But, even more, I enjoy using my perspective as an arbitrator to work as a mediator and to help parties reach common-sense, consensual solutions to their problems. Those solutions can balance legal correctness against pragmatic business needs. And they can adjust the outcome to account for all the inherent uncertainties in the evidence and in the law. While arbitration appeals to my analytical mind, mediation appeals to my extraversion and my genuine enjoyment of people. It ignites my passion.
Role as a Neutral
The AAA-ICDR is a unique institution in the national (and even global) ADR landscape: there is no comparable provider of ADR services—including mediation services—for such a wide range of disputes, big and small. For me, it is extremely exciting to serve that user community—the consumers, businesses, and industries of America (and their international counterparts)—to achieve sound settlements that let all sides get back to their lives and their businesses on fair, speedy, and reasonable terms.
Legal/Professional Experience in Mediation
As counsel, I’ve seen some approaches to mediation that work and many that, in my view, do not. As an arbitrator, I’ve gained an even keener appreciation of just how adjudications are really made—often in the face of significant uncertainty. As mediator, I bring those perspectives to bear when working with parties and counsel. While striving to connect at a very human level, I focus on the business issues, and I try to help both sides better understand the strengths and weaknesses of their cases—both legally and from the standpoint of the real-world consequences of prolonged (and uncertain) litigation or arbitration proceedings.
Mediation Philosophy
Every case is different, and I am open to whatever approaches inspire the most confidence and trust by the parties and their counsel. As a rule, however, I’m skeptical of the traditional model of mediation where an exchange of mediation briefs is followed by a kind of “hearing” where the parties are expected to hammer out a solution in a single day. I prefer to caucus separately and repeatedly with the parties and their counsel almost from the outset and to orchestrate a process of shuttle diplomacy early on. I’m not interested in pressuring parties to reach a settlement. I want them to have the time to consider the issues and the options and to consult with all necessary stakeholders.
Memorable Mediation Experiences
I recently handled—over a six-month period—a series of on-again/off-again settlement discussions between two entrepreneur scientists from China, each of whom had competing claims to a business partnership in the PRC (and its IP). I was told that, if I could not get the dispute settled before the Lunar New Year, all the emotional energy favoring settlement would flag and that settlement would be nearly impossible. Still, I persevered, and ultimately brokered a successful settlement—without ever asking for a mediation statement, and without ever having the counsel or the parties in the same room (or even on the same continent)!
Advice to Advocates & Parties
I recommend that counsel not treat mediation as another forum for legal advocacy. Of course, in any negotiation—and mediation is essentially a facilitated negotiation—leverage is important. And the merits of the dispute (as gauged by the facts and law) are obviously one important leverage factor. But too many counsel treat mediation as another forum to argue the merits of their cases. Instead, I encourage them to change hats completely: come prepared to discuss (confidentially) the real levers of the deal—including what they really hope to achieve—so that I can help both sides reach an outcome that leaves them both better off (and or least more satisfied) than if they had put the merits to the ultimate (costly) test of a judge, a jury, or an arbitrator.
Personal Qualities & Skills
For me, it’s essential that a mediator really like people—combined with directness, a sense of humor, and realism. I pride myself on being a straight shooter who can help parties see the strength and weaknesses of their cases (and their business situations) and can help them reach genuinely sensible deals. Candor is essential. And part of that candor is also leveling with the parties when you can tell they just aren’t ready to settle—yet. Hence, I have no qualms about encouraging them to fight out the next phase when it’s clear to me that that’s what it will take make settlement an attractive option. Finally, I make a real effort to bring personal credibility (and empathy) to bear and to help insulate the parties from some of the interpersonal conflicts that usually make settlements harder to achieve.
Beyond Mediation
At UC Davis, I teach arbitration, meditation, negotiation, and an array of ethics-related courses—both Western and cross-cultural. And I’m active at my parish where I serve in a number of roles. I love international travel, languages, food, and drink.