1. After we all agree that I am the right mediator for you, I will send each party some paperwork and schedule a pre-mediation session call for each party. 

2. After the pre-mediation calls, we will schedule our first Mediation Session that will last 2 to 6 hours
   The Mediation Session will start with Opening Statements from the mediator and parties.
   Then we will follow with an Exploratory Joint Session. After that joint session, we will have other Joint Sessions or Individual Sessions (“Caucuses”).
   We will then start the Negotiation Stage and hopefully conclude with an MOU or Memorandum of Understanding.
   If not, an additional Mediation Sessions may be scheduled. 

3. After a successful Mediation Session, the MOU is converted into a formal, legally binding contract agreement by an attorney and is finalized and signed, and all parties get their signed copy of the agreement.

I believe that every case is unique because every person is unique, and every circumstance is different. But I also believe that having experience on a type of cases can make a huge difference. It helps me better understand the parties, ask the right questions, and better frame the core issues at stake. This specialized understanding is crucial in guiding parties toward effective and lasting resolutions.
Here are some of my areas of expertise:

• Workplace & Employment Disputes (wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, wage disputes, Team or Departmental Conflicts, etc…)

• Business & Commercial Disputes (Contract Disputes, Customer/Client Complaints, Vendor Disputes, Construction Conflicts, etc…)

• Real Estate Disputes  (Landlord-Tenant Issues, Neighbor Disputes, HOA Conflicts, etc…

• Personal Injury & Civil Disputes (Motor Vehicle Accidents, Small Claims Cases, Interpersonal Disputes) 

It depends… Wiling parties can settle a simple case in less than 2 hours. But a complex case with multiple unprepared parties can take days and never come to an agreement. Once I hear more about your case, we will have an individual pre-mediation call. I will make sure I properly understand the case and that all parties are well-prepared. After the pre-mediation sessions, we'll agree on our first mediation date and the number of hours reserved for it.
If the first session doesn't result in a complete agreement, we'll discuss other options, including scheduling more sessions. 

Our rates are clearly explained here

We are striving to keep mediation affordable while giving our best.

My mediation style is about finding a balance in the midst of conflict. I focus on separating the objective facts from the personal perceptions of each party. I carefully listen to translate viewpoints, not just the words being said, helping each side truly understand the other.

Furthermore, I maintain a delicate equilibrium between being empathetic to emotions and staying completely neutral. My goal is to create a safe space where people can be vulnerable without fear of being hurt. While I give each party the time needed to feel heard, I also ensure we keep the momentum moving forward, guiding the conversation away from past grievances toward a future-oriented resolution. I work to shift the mindset from “win-lose” to a mutually beneficial “win-win”, with the goal of not only resolving the immediate conflict but also preserving the relationship for the future, when possible.

Absolutely! For straightforward matters, online mediation can be significantly faster and more cost-effective.

However, when dealing with more intricate situations, in-person sessions often prove beneficial. In such cases, a hybrid approach—alternating between online and in-person meetings—can offer the best of both worlds.

We cover this on our Resources page/ After Mediation

Confidentiality is a cornerstone of mediation, designed to create a safe space for parties to speak openly and candidly without fear that their statements will be used against them later. It is what makes the process “non-binding” until a formal agreement is signed.

Here's a breakdown of what that means in practice:

1. The General Rule of Confidentiality

In mediation, “confidential” means that:

• Communications are privileged. Anything said, written, or created specifically for the purpose of the mediation cannot be used as evidence in a subsequent court case or legal proceeding. This includes offers, admissions of fault, settlement proposals, and even the “vibes” of the session.

• The mediator is a neutral third party. The mediator is legally and ethically bound not to disclose information from the mediation to a court or any outside party, with very few exceptions. They cannot be subpoenaed to testify about what happened in the session.

• The process is private. Mediation sessions are not open to the public, and no official record (like a court transcript) is made of the proceedings.

This principle allows parties to explore potential solutions, admit weaknesses in their case, and compromise without worrying that these actions will harm them if the mediation fails, and they end up in court.

2. Non-Binding and Exceptions

While the discussions are non-binding, there are important exceptions to the rule of confidentiality:

• The Final Agreement: If you reach a settlement, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) you sign, and the subsequent legally binding contract are specifically an exception to the confidentiality rule. The entire purpose of these documents is to be enforceable and used in court if one party breaches the agreement.

• Information Relayed to the Court: When a court orders mediation, the mediator will send a report back, but this report is brief and focuses on the session's outcome, not the details. The report will include the following information: Date and Time of the session(s), Attendance of all required parties and their attorneys, and the Outcome (Full Agreement, Partial Agreement, Impasse/No Agreement).

• Threats of Violence or Criminal Activity: Confidentiality is not a shield for illegal acts. If a party makes a threat of serious bodily harm or discusses a crime, a mediator may report it.

• Abuse or Neglect: In cases involving child custody or family disputes, mediators might disclose credible allegations of child abuse, neglect, or harm to a vulnerable adult.

• To Prove a Breach of a Legal Duty: In rare circumstances, confidentiality may be pierced to address a claim against the mediator or the mediation program, such as allegations of fraud or coercion during the process.

3. Extra Confidentiality in Caucuses

A “caucus” is a private, individual meeting between the mediator and one of the parties (and their legal counsel, if any). This is a crucial element of mediation and has an extra layer of confidentiality.

When a mediator meets with you in a caucus, you can speak even more freely. The mediator will ask for your permission before sharing any information with the other party. The default rule is that nothing you say in a caucus can be shared with the other side unless you specifically give permission. This allows you to discuss sensitive issues, your “bottom line,” or confidential business information that you would never want the other side to hear directly.

4. Discoverability During a Trial

This is a critical distinction: while information discussed in mediation is generally not admissible in court, information that exists independently of the mediation is still discoverable.

For example:

• If you admit in a mediation session that you were negligent in an accident, that admission cannot be used against you in court.

• However, if during the mediation, you mention that you have a specific document (like a police report or a receipt) that is relevant to the case, that document itself can be subpoenaed and used in court. Its existence is a fact that is discoverable, even though it was mentioned in a confidential setting.

In essence, mediation protects the conversation and the statements you make, but it doesn't protect the underlying facts or evidence that existed before the mediation began.

The Agile method from software development can be adapted to mediation by making the process flexible, iterative, and focused on quicker resolution. Instead of a single, long session, it involves a series of shorter, adaptive meetings designed to address specific issues as they arise, prioritizing open communication and collaboration to find practical solutions efficiently. This approach helps the parties reach a resolution faster and keeps the process moving forward. 

The Agile Method revolves around 4 principles:

1. Individuals and interactions over processes and tools:
   This emphasizes the unique needs, emotions, and communication styles of the parties involved. A good mediator prioritizes building rapport, active listening, and facilitating direct, open dialogue between individuals, rather than strictly adhering to a predetermined sequence of steps or relying heavily on standardized forms and templates. The human element and dynamic interaction are paramount. 

2. Working agreements and shared understanding over comprehensive documentation
   While the goal is to leave mediation with a Memorandum of Understanding, the parties' genuine understanding and commitment to their common solution are more valuable than leaving mediation with an attorney-drafted, legally dense document created without their full buy-in.
   “Working agreements” refer to the ongoing, iterative development of mutual understanding and consensus during the mediation process. This can include informal understandings, partial agreements, or a clear grasp of each other's perspectives and interests, even before a MoU is drafted. The focus is on clarity and shared meaning, which can evolve. 

3. Client collaboration over rigid contract negotiation
   This highlights the importance of the parties actively participating in crafting their own solutions. Instead of the mediator or attorneys dictating terms or engaging in a traditional, adversarial negotiation dance, collaboration means empowering the parties to brainstorm options, weigh consequences, and collectively construct an outcome that meets their needs. The mediator facilitates this collaborative problem-solving, rather than acting as an arbiter or solely focused on getting signatures on a pre-written Memorandum of Understanding. 

4. Responding to change over following a plan
   Mediation is often an unpredictable process. New information, shifts in emotions, or emerging interests can alter the landscape at any moment. An agile mediator is prepared to adapt their approach, reframe issues, or explore new avenues as circumstances evolve, rather than rigidly adhering to an initial agenda or pre-conceived strategy. This allows for flexibility and responsiveness to the dynamic nature of conflict resolution. 

My role as a mediator is to help parties reach a mutually agreeable settlement. I cannot enforce laws, issue judgments, or determine guilt or innocence. Therefore, I cannot mediate a case involving criminal charges or fraudulent activity.

Additionally, I will not mediate cases with a:

• Possible Coercion: Like threats, bullying, domestic violence, power imbalance, etc.
  Ultimately, for a mediated agreement to be durable and successful, it must be the product of the parties' free will and genuine collaboration. If I am unable to create a safe, neutral space where parties can freely explore options and negotiate, I will stop the process.
  I will only take a case with a language barrier or a mental incapacity if we can remediate the power imbalance (with an interpreter or a Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for example). 

• Lack of Willingness: Mediation must be voluntary. Mediation is a not a strategy to delay court. For cases that are required to go through mediation, I will evaluate during the pre-mediation call if both parties are ready to negotiate in good faith.

• Lack of Authority: The parties must be able to make decisions or agree to a settlement.

Remember that illegal acts may be exceptions to the Confidentiality of mediation. If a party makes a threat of serious bodily harm or discusses a crime, I will stop the mediation and may report it. Same thing related to Abuse and Neglect. 

A lawyer's primary role is to act as your advocate, providing legal advice and representing your best interests. A mediator, by contrast, is a neutral third party whose job is to facilitate communication and empower all sides to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. 

For this reason, it is crucial that your lawyer and your mediator are two different people. A mediator cannot give you legal advice, and a lawyer who represents you cannot be a neutral party.

The best mediators are either experienced non-attorneys with strong legal knowledge or lawyers with extensive mediation training. This ensures they can balance legal awareness with true neutrality. They will help you find a practical and fair solution without crossing the line into giving legal advice or compromising their neutral role.

Personally, for a client seeking mediation, I would recommend a skilled non-attorney mediator with a strong grasp of the law. They are often more affordable.

Hiring an attorney-mediator can be counterproductive. They are trained to be advocates, and those with less mediation experience may struggle to set aside that adversarial mindset. This can lead to a focus on rigid contract drafting rather than the creative problem-solving and relationship repair that are central to successful mediation. Ultimately, you may be paying for skills—like courtroom advocacy and legal advice—that a mediator is not permitted to use during mediation.

Ultimately, seek an experienced mediator who will facilitate open communication, demonstrate empathy, and maintain neutrality to help parties not only reach financial settlements but also improve their relationship and communication for the long term. 

Free mediation provides an excellent, cost-free option for resolving disputes, making it highly accessible for those with limited financial resources. I proudly volunteer for a Justice Center.
However, these services may be limited in scope, time, vary in the experience of the mediator, and may have long wait times due to high demand. While it can be an effective way to repair relationships and solve simple cases, it may not be suitable for more complex issues.

A mediator shouldn't write the binding contract after a successful negotiation; they should instead draft a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Doing so maintains their neutrality and mitigates several risks associated with unauthorized legal practice and conflicts of interest.
Even an attorney acting as a mediator should also refrain from drafting the final contract for the same reason—it blurs the line between facilitator and legal representative.

Instead of a binding contract, I will write a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). An MoU is a written summary of the key points agreed upon by the parties. It outlines the terms of the settlement, but it is not a legally binding document. It serves as a roadmap for the parties and their legal counsel to use when drafting the final, legally enforceable contract. This approach ensures the mediator's neutrality remains intact, while still providing a clear record of the negotiated terms. 

No, mediation is an ancient practice; In Mesopotamia, a “mashkim”, a court official, would try to help parties resolve disputes before a formal trial. In ancient China, influenced by Confucianism, social harmony was highly valued, and mediation was the preferred method of conflict resolution over litigation. In India, mediation has a long history, with village councils (panchayats) acting as local mediators to resolve disputes. In Medieval Europe, certain days, known as “lovedays,” were set aside specifically for mediating conflicts.

Mediation in the United States:
Mediation gained traction in the US in the late 19th century in response to labor disputes and industrial unrest. Early government efforts focused on mediating conflicts between labor unions and management to prevent strikes. In the Mid-20th Century, the modern mediation movement gained significant momentum largely as a response to the growing dissatisfaction with the formal court system, which was seen as slow, expensive, and ill-suited for resolving many interpersonal and community conflicts. The civil rights movement also spurred the need for new methods to address community and racial tensions.

In the 1970s, many courts began to encourage and even require alternative dispute resolution (ADR), including mediation, to ease congested court dockets. This led to the proliferation of community mediation centers and the integration of mediation into the legal system. At the end of the 20th century, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 further solidified mediation's role by requiring all federal district courts to offer an ADR program. Today, the vast majority of courts in the United States, both federal and state, offer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) programs. The push for ADR has become a central part of how courts operate, driven by a desire to reduce case backlogs, lower litigation costs, and provide parties with more control over the resolution of their disputes.