Richard L. Reed has nearly 30 years of construction dispute resolution experience, both as a neutral and as a legal advisor to clients. His experience includes working with a broad range of construction industry clients and construction law experts to resolve construction disputes using dispute review board procedures, single neutral procedures, mediations, and binding litigation.
His combined experienced enables him to efficiently understand, evaluate, and consider whether legal arguments under various contracts, and related statutory and equitable claims, may or may not be viable or legally sustainable. We asked him how his expertise informs his approach on the AAA Construction DARB panel.
Q. What types of construction disputes do you typically handle as an arbitrator or mediator?
I have typically handled, and have strong familiarity with, a variety of disputes arising from on construction projects over the course of my career, including claims related to scope and contract interpretation, differing site conditions, unanticipated or changed conditions, damage claims and associated damage waiver provisions like limitations of liability and no-damage-for delay clauses, and payment disputes (including those arising under surety performance and payment bonds).
Q. What drew you to ADR work in the construction space? What do you value most about serving as a neutral?
I was initially drawn to ADR work when AAA’s leadership asked me to become an AAA arbitrator. What I have valued most about serving as a neutral is using my creativity to help party representatives and counsel understand how almost any dispute can be resolved quickly and efficiently, to their clients’ benefit. As an arbitrator, one of my greatest satisfactions was when counsel on both sides expressed sincere appreciation for how I had handled their arbitration case, which settled close to the time of the hearing. This was the result of my always encouraging professionalism on both sides, being highly responsive as issues arose, thorough advance preparation, and prompt issuance of interim rulings to keep the process moving forward efficiently and, through it all, maintaining absolute neutrality. As a dispute board member, I know that the dispute avoidance resolution board (DARB) process can be used to address problems before the horse has left the barn. That is the process that allows for flourishing creativity to avoid disputes.
Q. What advice do you have for parties preparing for arbitration or mediation in complex construction disputes?
If you are already in arbitration or mediation, the “horse is already out of the barn,” and the opportunity for dispute avoidance through use of a DARB has been lost. If that is the case, consider some of the other alternative approaches to achieving early resolution. These include concepts discussed in the paper I co-authored for the Texas Construction Law Foundation, entitled ADR Roads Less Travelled, presented at the Foundation’s 39th Annual Construction Law Conference in March 2026. Also, for any party that has reduced to writing its position based on the facts and law on a pending dispute, consider privately and separately submitting its position to the AAA’s Resolution Simulator to get a non-binding AI-simulated decision of the viability of its position, using the AAA’s AI Arbitrator logic system to test the waters on how well your position might fare in a binding dispute resolution proceeding.
Q. What do you hope to achieve in conflict resolution?
Avoidance of unnecessary legal fees and expenses! I hope to help parties appreciate how the DARB process enables them to recognize early and avoid issues of potential conflict and to address them before they turn into disputes that lead to legal battles with uncertain and undesirable outcomes. The benefits are immense – the project stays on track, DARB costs are nominal, and legal expenses are minimized. I hope to earn the parties’ trust so they will see they can collaborate to use the expertise of their chosen neutrals to prevent disputes.
Q. How has your experience with dispute avoidance resolution boards (DARBs) shaped your approach to managing and resolving construction disputes, and what value do you believe these boards bring to the overall dispute resolution process?
From past experience, I have seen firsthand how the DARB process avoids disputes and litigation costs on large-scale projects. When used properly on large construction projects, DARBs avoid disputes 99.9% of the time when parties consider board members’ informal guidance during the project, at a cost less than ½ of one percent of overall project cost. I have rendered non-binding board recommendations to help end disputes that were not resolved informally, in all cases leading to resolution without further controversy or litigation. Having drafted complex dispute board procedures, I can see that the AAA’s DARB procedures are a very useful tool for the incorporation of dispute board procedures in construction contracts.