JOHN DERRICK ANSWERS Frequently Asked Questions

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 have handled many personal injury, employment, and trusts and estates mediations as well. And I also have  experience in defamation cases and ones involving privacy and nuisance issues. I am very experienced in appellate mediation, although a large majority  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 my 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.

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

“Calm,” “engaged,” “diplomatic,” “well prepared,” “empathetic,” “civil,” “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 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. Even if the evidentiary hearing is in person, preliminary hearings can be via Zoom.

I offer simple, transparent pricing, emphasizing half- and full-day flat rates without “extras.” Rates are generally the same for Zoom and in-person sessions. They are split equally among the different sides unless otherwise agreed.

Half-day flat rate: My half-day rate is $2,500 (i.e., $1,250 per side in a two-sided case). A half-day mediation lasts up to four hours on the day. Ample preparation time, including pre-mediation calls with counsel, is included in the flat rate.

Full-day flat rate: My full-day rate is $4,500. For this, you get up to eight hours on the day (and an hour or two more if needed — I don’t watch the clock rigidly). Again, preparation is included (except with complex, multi-party cases where an additional preparation charge may apply).

Smaller case special rate: For cases where the claim is below $100,000, I now offer a special half-day, Zoom-only flat rate of $1,500 including preparation. As with my regular half-day rates, this allows up to four hours on the day.

Hourly rate: My add-on rate if sessions extend longer than the half- or full-day booked is $600 per hour. That is also the rate if parties prefer not to go with flat rates.

Extra charges? I don’t charge extra for reasonable amounts of follow-up. There is no administration or case management charge. There is no cancellation charge/penalty. And there are no charges for travel time or expense. The only possible “extra” is booking space for an in-person session when this is necessary.

My standard hourly rate for arbitrations is $600. However, with certain types of cases, rates may be set according to the applicable rules of the forum in which I am arbitrating. I do not charge for travel and there is no cancellation penalty.

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 now entirely on mediation and arbitration. I no longer represent or advise clients as their lawyer.

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.​