1. Do I allow Summary Judgments

a. My guiding principal is to provide both sides a complete and fair opportunity to have their cases heard. Within that parameter, if one side can convince me that a summary judgment is a “slam dunk” that will narrow the issues, I’ll give it a try. Otherwise, my experience is that filing summary judgments, pro forma, merely adds an unjustifiable layer of cost and unproductive time for both parties.

2. Discovery

a. The amount and kind of discovery, of course, is dependent upon the needs of a particular case and the parties’ agreement. Generally, I encourage parties to significantly limit discovery only to what is directly relevant and I ask them to convince me of the necessity of the request.

b. For international cases, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing, I follow Rule 21.

3. Do I “split the baby?”

a. Never. As a former Judge, I’m decisive, use to “picking a winner,” and not concerned with making an “unpopular” decision.

4. Do I conduct and Arbitration like court?

a. I recognize and abide by the differences between a judge and an arbitrator and between a judicial proceeding and an arbitration.

5. How do I conduct Arbitration proceedings?

a. Between the preliminary conference and the Evidentiary Hearing I like to “check-in,” periodically to make sure everything’s on track and that there are no problems that need my assistance. And the case managers will tell you that I’m always accessible and approachable.

b. My hearings are informal and flexible but professional and efficient. I’m open to tailoring it to best fit the needs and circumstances of a particular case and, within reason and fairness to both sides, I relax the rules of evidence.

c. Arbitration is the parties’ process.

6. How long do my Arbitration cases take?

a. From the preliminary conference to the Hearing, I do my best to move the process along, much faster than court, but with sensitivity to a litigator’s busy and stressful schedule.

b. As a former judge, I quickly learned how to efficiently manage and expedite a heavy docket.

c. In many respects, I think of Arbitration as a process which “cuts through the red tape” of court proceedings, gets to, and resolves the “heart” of matter rather quickly.


1. What style do I use?

a. I’m versed in all 3 types of mediation, so it’s your choice which one suits you best.

b. As for Evaluative, having been on the other side of the bench, I have an advantage, as I have insight into how many judges approach issues.

2. What is my approach?

a. I determine the parties’ preferences and am guided by that, and this usually changes throughout the process. Flexibility, patience, and “stick-to-itiveness” go a long way to resolution.

Fact Sheet

Questions I am frequently asked about Arbitration and Mediation: