Close Window 

MAP Background Information provided


Name: Eric Ivary
Address: ADR Services, Inc.
  100 First Street, 27th Floor
  San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone:(415) 772-0900Fax:(415) 772-0960  
      

Email: eric@ericivarymediations.com

Fees: $400 per hour  
Other Costs:  ADR Services Administrative fees (contact ADR Services, Dorene Kanoh, for current schedule.)

BAR Number:0050807

Attorney: xNon-Attorney Professional Mediator/Arbitrator:         Retired Judge/Justice:  

Mediation
Experience:


 
Before becoming a full time mediator in 2001, I was a civil trial lawyer, trying all types of personal injury, medical malpractice, employment and insurance cases. In my career I have participated in hundreds of mediations. For the past 6 years, I have served as mediator for well over a hundred cases which include all types of personal injury cases, including medical/hospital malpractice, public entity liability, civil rights, police/fire misconduct. I also have mediated a viariety of employment cases including wronful termination, retaliation, and alleged age and gender discrimination. O have also mediated insurance cases of all types, including coverage denials, failure to defend an alleged bad faith. For the past four years, I have served as an ADR panelist for the Northern District court on diversity cases, which fall in my areas of expertise, federal civil rights cases, handicap access and ERISA cases. I am currently a neutral on the panel of ADR Services for Northern California with principal offices in San Francisco. I conduct most of my mediations there.
Mediation
Training:


 
Initial training through Contra Costa and Alameda County court sponsored ADR Programs (EASE, SMART and TOT Programs).
In 2001, I underwent 40 hrs. Intensive Mediation Training, including role-playing in a course taught by Nancy Yeend. That was followed by multiple continuing education programs on a varitey of mediation topics, which continue today. I also attend regular updates on specific mediation issues of interst to me, including issues of confidentiality and changes in the law affecting the mediation process.
Arbitration
Experience:


 
Have served 10-15 times as a Single Neutral on U.M./UIM cases and contractual disputes involving construction. I have served as party arbitrator approximately ten times for Kaisers's arbitration programs. Over the past 25 years, I have served many, many times as court appointed arbitrator, both binding and non binding.
Neutral
Evaluation
Background:

 
Approximately 10 cases, all for the Alameda, Contra Costa and Federal District Court ADR programs.
Settlement
Conference
Experience:


SubjectPersonal Injury:xEmployment:xBusiness: Real Estate: 
Matter:Legal Malpractice: Public Agency:xProbate: Construction: 
 Medical Malpractice:xEnvironmental: Insurance:xSecurities: 
 Product Liability:xLandlord-Tenant / Neighborhood: Dental Malpractice: 
 Foreign Language(s): Intellectual Property/High Technology:  
 Accoutings:  Conservatorships/Guardianships:  Wills/Trusts: 
 Other:  

Other
Education:


 
B. A , Saint Mary's College of California, 1968
J. D., University of Santa Clara, 1971
Continuing Education requirements met in all fields, including Advanced Mediation Training for both State and Federal Courts
Admitted to State and Federal Courts, 1972
Mediation
Approach:


 
Best description is facilitative. But experience has taught me to do what works and not get too caught up in theory or the academic side of mediation. My goal is to get the case in a position where the parties can see a clear path to settlement. My approach varies because no two cases are alike. For example, an employment case carries a very different charge than a police misconduct case or a medical malpractice case. Probably the best way to describe my approach to mediation is that do evrything in my power to be sure that the parties are dealing with their REAL case, not the one they wish they had. This often involves asking both sides a lot of questions, sometimes uncomfortable ones. (The tough questions are asked in separate sessions). When parties request I will become very active in their negotiation. For a full explanation of my mediation style and philosophy, please download and article I wrote for the SFTLS magazine. It can be found at the ADR website (www.adrservices.org). Althuogh originally written as a practical guide for the plaintiffs' bar, it also tells the defense how I approach mediation. My mediation style is also described in an article published in The Recorder in 2005 entitled "Love Thy Enemy". This article can also be downloaded from the ADR Services website. References, both plaintiff and defense, can also be found at the same site.
Arbitration
Approach:


 
I view arbitration very differently form mediation. I approach arbitration as if I were a real judge/jury. I simply tell the parties that I am going to follow the law. But the proceeding can be as formal or informal as the parties wish.
Neutral
Approach:


 
Very direct and hopefully detailed enough to be useful to the parties as a vehicle for settlement. I prefer doing mediation to neutral case evaluation.
Other
Information:


 
All other information, including references, publications and examples of cases I have mediated can be found at the ADR Services website www.adrservices.org under "Northern California Neutrals/Panels".
Brief
Thumbnail:


My assuption in mediation is that the parties are there to get their case settled, not just have a discussion or use the process as a discovery vehicle. I view the process as a "time out" from the litigation and an apportunity to identify the REAL case, not the one they wish they had. There is no record of course and I work with little formality. As long as the attorneys agree, anyone can speak not just the lawyers. I insist on civility but I am very sensitive ot what the parties themselves want the process to be. I discourage "opening statements" and oral arguments. My theroy is that the briefs should adequately cover the parties" legal positions and opening statements and arguments only reinforce entrenched positions and don't help settle cases. In my opinion, mediation should not resemble what we expereince in court. Trial is always an option if you don't settle your case. I don't try to tell the defense about the "cost of defense" or tell the plaintiffs they "might lose their case".

Close Window 
© 2014 Superior Court of San Mateo County