JOHN DERRICK ANSWERS Frequently Asked Questions

With the exception of American Arbitration Association (AAA) cases, and certain court-ordered settlement conferences and mediations, all of my cases are scheduled and administered through Alternative Resolution Centers (ARC).

ARC is one of California’s longest-established ADR providers, with a panel of almost 70 experienced mediators and arbitrators, both retired judges and former litigators. ARC provides its clients with an outstanding roster of neutrals and excellent case management services. Its state-of-the-art Los Angeles facilities — located in Westwood and Downtown — are convenient and conducive to resolution. These centers feature large, high-tech hearing rooms with beautiful views, ample caucusing space, and catering options. In addition, ARC has a Ventura location. I also have access to spaces in other locations, including Santa Barbara.

I mediate a wide range of cases. But I have a particular specialization in ones involving business/commerce, partnerships, contracts, real estate, homeowner associations, and consumer matters. I also have considerable experience in defamation cases and ones involving privacy and nuisance issues. I am very experienced in appellate mediation, although most of my cases are ones being litigated in trial courts.

However, another specialization is not so much in the subject matter of the case, but in the dynamic. Even if the resolution may involve a monetary payment — which is not always the case — getting to the point where settlement is possible can involve working through tough human issues. Often the underlying dynamic involves personal, emotional, reputational, anger, or resentment issues. Many of John’s breakthroughs are in those types of cases, whatever the subject matter.

As for the “size” of cases, I try to set my mediation rates at a reasonable level, so that my services are affordable to a wide range of litigants. I don’t rank the “importance” of a case by the sums involved. In many cases, there are issues at stake that could have very important — even life-changing — consequences to those involved, regardless of the amount of money at stake.

“Diplomatic,” “well prepared,” “empathetic,” “persistent.” 

I avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. I try to get under the skin of every case, to understand the real interests of the parties. In some cases, the parties are looking for a somewhat evaluative approach, although that’s not always the best way to bring about a settlement. In many cases, what’s needed is a facilitator of communication. And some call for a creative approach, helping to identify interests that may have been overlooked. Most really require a subtle blend of techniques.

Ultimately, my role as a mediator is to lead a conversation about making difficult decisions, often in the face of uncertainty, to identify solutions that are better than continued litigation.

I am available to arbitrate a wide range of business/commercial and consumer cases.

I conduct mediations and arbitrations both in person and over Zoom. There are pros and cons to each:

In-person mediations: Traditional mediations involve having everyone in the same building, usually in separate conference rooms. The mediator shuttles between them, sometimes gathering everyone together for a joint session.

Some people are more comfortable talking in person than over video. And the physical immediacy of everyone being in the same building can focus the mind and help create a dynamic toward resolution. There can be something compelling about the knowledge that by the time the participants leave the building and breathe fresh air, the dispute could be settled.

Zoom mediations: During the pandemic, mediations using Zoom and similar video conferencing platforms grew out of necessity. But they have remained popular even after the pandemic ended.  

Mediations via Zoom can be very effective. They can replicate the essence of an in-person mediation, with “virtual breakout rooms” for each side and “rooms” for joint sessions and other caucusing. The task of the mediator is to ensure the settlement dynamic that can build when everyone is in the same building carries over into the virtual arena. 

Zoom mediations can have advantages over in-person ones. They can be easier to arrange, and less costly and burdensome if they avoid the need for travel. Sometimes, parties are more comfortable taking part from their home or office. And this can help keep everyone engaged in the process and willing to stay the course. So some people have come to prefer Zoom mediations to the traditional variety. 

Hybrid mediations: Some mediations end up as a hybrid. For example, if a case does not settle at an in-person session, but significant progress has been made, a follow-up Zoom session on another day might be what it takes to get it resolved. Sometimes, some participants can be present at an in-person mediation, with others taking part remotely.

Arbitrations: Similar considerations apply to arbitrations. And even if the evidentiary hearing is in person, preliminary hearings can be via Zoom.

My hourly rate is $500. I do not charge for travel time or expense. 

I generally bill for one hour of preparation time for mediations, which includes pre-mediation phone conferences with counsel. I do not generally charge extra when mediation preparation takes longer — which it usually does — or for follow-up check-ins. However, there may be exceptions if there are multiple separately represented parties or if parties want me to review unusually lengthy materials before the mediation. When that does happen, I will advise counsel ahead of the mediation.

Unless otherwise agreed, mediation fees are split between the parties; the allocation of arbitration fees depends on the rules in effect and other factors.

There are mediators and arbitrators who charge more than me, and others who charge less. I handle cases throughout Southern California (and beyond). And prevailing rates for ADR are higher in some areas than in others. Some neutrals vary their rate, but I prefer to charge the same regardless of the venue in which a case is being litigated.

I am based in Santa Barbara. But I mediate and arbitrate cases throughout Southern California and beyond. As noted above, I do not charge for travel time or expense, so location is really not an issue even with in-person sessions.

I have always been plaintiff/defendant-neutral. My law practice as an advocate consisted only of appeals. And in appeals, there are no “plaintiffs” or “defendants.” There are “appellants,” the parties bringing the appeals — who might have been plaintiffs or defendants in the trial court. And there are “respondents” or “appellees” — the parties defending the appeal, who, again, might have been on either side of the case in the lower court. As a lawyer, I always represented both appellants and respondents/appellees — and parties who were previously both plaintiffs and defendants.

So unlike trial lawyers, who often do have a distinct “plaintiff” or “defendant” background, I have absolutely no subliminal bias caused by my type of practice as a lawyer.

Cases that go up on appeal are the ones that did not settle at the trial court level. So I am very aware of the full cost — financial, human, and emotional — of litigating to the bitter end. And I am very familiar with the processes parties will have to go through if they do not settle. Sometimes, reviewing an appellate record is like watching a slow motion video of events moving to a bad outcome, and wishing one could do something to help — except the outcome has already occurred.

Appellate practice also provides a strong foundation for arbitration. I am used to analyzing complex fact patterns and assessing the relevant legal issues. 

My focus is on mediation and arbitration. I no longer take cases as an attorney of record. However, I consult on a limited basis with other lawyers on appellate matters.

Yes. But — contrary to what people in the U.S. sometimes tell me — this does not make what I say more erudite. Brits are capable of talking “rubbish” (as they would put it) as much as anyone else. So judge me on the substance of what I say, not on the accent that delivers it. Maybe, perhaps, the fact I’m obviously originally from somewhere else somehow helps bolster me as a “neutral.” But I’ve lived in Southern California for over 30 years. And my kids were born and raised here. So I think I understand the place, even if I sound like I just got off the plane from London.​