Published in Daily Journal

Described by one attorney as having the “mediator’s magic,” Greg Derin employs his knowledge of entertainment, intellectual property and employment law to mediate cases.

“You’re sitting there in that room, waiting to hear how the other side’s going to respond to your proposal, and you’re saying to yourself, there’s no way they’re going to come down to the number you want,” said entertainment attorney Michael E. Weinstein, for whom Derin has settled seven cases. “Somehow, Greg comes walking in with a smile on his face. That’s his signature thing – when he’s got that smile, you know he got them to make a big move.”

Derin is far less mystical in describing his approach to mediation. In addition to his requisite legal knowledge, Derin said he finds it necessary to have a healthy respect for the emotional aspects of the work.

Published in The Advocate

Next April will mark the 40th anniversary of the birth of the modern mediation movement. In April 1976, Harvard Law Professor Frank Sander shared his vision of what came to be known as the “multi-door courthouse.” In his speech, Varieties of Dispute Processing, at the National Conference on the Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice – commonly known as the Pound Revisited Conference – Sander shared a proposal for remodeling the American system of dispute resolution. (Frank E.A. Sander, Varieties of Dispute Processing, 70 F.R.D. 111, 131 (1976).) The litigation world would never look the same again.

When Sander addressed the conference in 1976, nearly all courts offered a single form of dispute resolution: adjudication by judge and/or jury. Sander conceived of a process in which disputes would be channeled through a screening clerk who would direct parties to the process, or sequence of processes, most appropriate to their dispute.

Published in Gimme 5 Column of the Los Angeles County Bar Update

I love baseball. As a child, I admired the rhythm of the game, its deceptive simplicity, requiring remarkable proficiency and accuracy. It is on one level an unforgiving game, judging those guilty of imperfection as having committed an “error.” Yet on another, yesterday’s goat is forgiven as today’s hero. As I have matured, I have come to appreciate more of baseball’s lessons. While facilitating mediations, I have watched these lessons play out again and again.

To relieve their over burdened dockets, courts regularly attempt to squeeze square pegs into round holes. While access to public institutions, including dispute-resolution mechanisms, is an ideal, resources are not available to achieve this without compromising other client interests, such as timely disposition with its ancillary benefits.

In appropriate cases, parties should weigh the cost of the full range of private dispute-resolution mechanisms against the losses incurred by waiting for access to the limited public options available. The cost of the private dispute resolution mechanisms discussed below is minimal compared with the expenses and client time that will be dissipated by extended litigation.