JUST RESULTS MEDIATION SERVICES

Keep Your Case under Your Control

Donald B. Cripe, Attorney

Family Law and Civil Mediator, Arbitrator, Litigation Referee, Settlement Officer

FAMILY LAW AND CIVIL CASE MEDIATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Just Results Mediation Services

Business Office

7231 Boulder Ave., Suite 547

Highland, Ca 92346

 

Phone: 909-864-5156

Fax: 909-864-5164

Cell: 951-830-9629

 

www.justresultsmediation.com

justresults@sbcglobal.net

www.dbcripe.com

dcripe@sbcglobal.net

To contact us:

Emily Leyva, Convening Agent

RATED “EXCELLENT” BY AVVO

The Riverside County Dispute Resolution Service and Inland Valleys Justice Center. Special Master for the Superior Courts; Substantial Judicial Training and Experience; Conducted hundreds of Mediations and Arbitrations involving many major legal and complex factual issues.

 

Create a “win-win” situation; Affordable, efficient resolution to legal disputes; Mediation proceedings conducted at the convenience of the parties; The fastest way to resolve your case “out of court;” Each successfully completed mediation will result in a judicially enforceable agreement for Judgment.

 

Self Represented or Attorney Represented parties encouraged to participate.

 

Available in Southern California—Affordable Fees—Efficient Service

Admitted to the California State Bar in 1988; Trained by Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution.  22 years practice experience in Civil and Family Law; Jury and bench trial experience.   Over 15 years experience as a  Mediator, Arbitrator, Settlement Judge and Temporary Judge for the Superior Courts,

Emily Leyva, Independent Convening Agent. Ms Leyva will assist you to get your mediation started and may explain the process to you when you call.  Ms Leyva is an experienced Legal Assistant and has been working as an Independent Mediation Convening Agent with Mr. Cripe for over a year, and before that as his Office Manager and Legal Assistant.  She is experienced with Litigation issues.

GENERAL BACKGROUND/BIO

 

Born:                  1948, Goshen, Indiana

Personal:          Married, Lynn Cripe, 3 children, 3 step children and 3 grandchildren

Interests:          History, Furniture Restoration, Classic Cars and Motorcycles

General:            Raised in Rural Indiana; graduated High School from Venice High School, Venice, California.

Work/

Military:             Vietnam Era Veteran; Nuclear Submarine (FBM) Veteran; Radioman/Electronics Technician; Honorable Discharge 1972.  After the Navy I worked in a factory for a short while and then in construction.  Attended trade school and became a licensed (Hawaii) auto mechanic; eventually became a heavy equipment mechanic.  Entered the Retail field and became a member of the management team for a large national retailer as well as a small retail establishment in Honolulu.  From there worked in Radio as an infrequent on-air person and the General Sales Manager.

 

Education:        UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, West Oahu College - B.A. with distinction Psychology 1985 (Class Rank: #1)

 

             SOUTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW - J.D. 1988 (@ top 25%)

- Wildmon Merit Scholar (Full Scholastic Scholarship)

- American Jurisprudence Award:  Sales

 

Straus Institute Mediation Training;

Dispute Resolution Service Mediation Training;

Formal Training for Temporary Judges, including Judicial Conduct and Ethics;

State and County Bar Training as a Fee Arbitrator

 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

11/87 to

Present:            General Civil Practice, Plaintiff and Defense, in matters including, but not limited to: Business Litigation (i.e, Contracts, Shareholder Litigation, etc); Personal Injury; Civil Rights; Insurance Law; Real Estate—Plaintiff and Defense (Brokers, Agents, Buyers, Quiet Title; Judicial Foreclosure, etc); Construction; Construction Defects; Building Contractor Litigation; Collections; Medical Malpractice (including Medicine, Surgical, Obstetric, Chiropractic, Dental and Oral Surgery) Defense; Medical Malpractice (same areas) Plaintiff; Municipal Law; Commercial Litigation; Adversary Proceedings in Bankruptcy Court and Family Law.  Also significant experience in Unlawful Detainer matters; Small Claims disputes and community/family centered disputes.  Numerous Jury and Bench Trials and literally hundreds of Law & Motion hearings on most Civil and Family Law issues.  I have participated as a Temporary Judge since 1996.  I have substantial experience with “Pro Per” litigants.

 

ADR:                 Superior Court Judicial Arbitrator since 1996—having conducted several hundred Arbitrations; “Settlement Judge” since 1996; Family Law Mediator with the Riverside Superior Court Mandatory Dispute Resolution Conference Program; General Mediator with Dispute Resolution Services, Riverside; Mediator with the Riverside County Superior Court; Member of the Riverside Superior Court Mediation Panel; Member of the Inland Valleys Justice Center’s Mediation Panel.  Have conducted in excess of 1000 mediations on a wide variety of matters, including most of those indentified in my professional experience section, above.  I conduct Fee Arbitrations for the Riverside County Bar Association.  I am also on the Panel of Independent Arbitrators for Kaiser Health Plans.

 

Mediation/

ADR Philosophy:          Even as a litigator I consistently tried to move my cases to resolution through Alternative Dispute Resolution, preferably by way of mediation.  I am a very active mediator trained and able to employ a variety of approaches from the extremes of Facilitative and Evaluative.  I am able to tailor my approach to mediation to the desires of the parties and counsel.  When I conduct a mediation, it is for the purpose of resolving the matter and not “pro forma.”  I take this process and my conduct, as well as my professional reputation as a conflict resolution professional, very seriously.  I want the parties to any mediation I conduct to leave feeling as if they had accomplished something of value even if the case does not settle.  I am willing to work with the parties as long as it takes to come to a resolution.

 

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

California Bar 1988- Present;

Riverside County Bar Ass=n: 1991 - Present

San Bernardino County Bar Ass=n: 1991 - 1995; 2005 - Present

1994 California Bar Association Award for Pro Bono Work

1994 Recognized by RCBA for Pro Bono Volunteer Work

1995-2007: Riverside Mock Trial Volunteer

1996-Present: Judicial Arbitrator, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties

1996-2001: Settlement Judge (acting) San Bernardino Family Court

1999-Present: Temporary Judge for Family Law, Civil and Criminal Departments

1999-Present: Mediator with Riverside Dispute Resolution Service

1999-Present: Mediator with Riverside Superior Court

1998-Present: Attorney Fee Dispute Mediator, RCBA

2003-Present: Mediator with Riverside Family Court

2006-Present: Special Master, Riverside County Superior Courts

2009-Present: Mediation Panel-Riverside Superior Court

2009-Present: Mediator/Arbitrator/Settlement Officer for Inland Valleys Justice Center

2009-Present: Panelist, Kaiser Health Plan Independent Arbitrator

2009-Present: Riverside Superior Court Family ADR Subcommittee

2009-Present: Speaker Loma Linda University Graduate School of Psychology—Mediation and Family Law

2009:                Certified Mediator, Mediate.com Certification Program*

2009:                Presenter: Riverside Superior Court “Minors’ Counsel” certification program, ‘Mediation’

2010-Present: San Bernardino Courts Mediation “Triage” program developer for IVJC

2010-Present: IVJC: Mediation Trainer for Staff, Interns and Novice Mediators

 

Published Articles:  MEDIATION IN CIVIL & FAMILY CASES: The Care and Feeding of Trial Counsel; MEDIATING THE CIVIL CASE:  Great Expectations or Reality Check

 

References upon request. 

 

*After a review of experience, credentials and training by Peer Mediators, Certification is granted.

WHAT IS MEDIATION?

 

Mediation is a form of "alternative dispute resolution" (ADR). ADR is a general term for methods of resolving a dispute (whether family, civil or otherwise) without going through the formal court process but, at the same time, providing an opportunity for a complete resolution. ADR can save you time, money, and increase your overall satisfaction with the outcome of your case.

 

ADR can be used at any point in a case to resolve a number of issues including property division, child support, spousal support (alimony), paternity, child custody, parenting plans, and many other issues.

 

Studies have shown that the vast majority of cases filed in court (95-98%) do not go to trial. Most cases are settled or decided in some other way. But in many cases, the settlement comes only after considerable resources have been expanded. This is why ADR is strongly recommended and, in some courts, is a court policy. Even though the parties are generally responsible for the fees for the mediator or arbitrator, in most cases what the parties will save in the costs of litigation will more than compensate them for the costs of the arbitrator or mediator. Additionally, instead of waiting six months, a year, or more, for a trial, the parties can have their case resolved through ADR many times within a few weeks.

 

Simply put, mediation is a strictly voluntary, confidential means by which parties to civil or family law litigation can resolve their case far more quickly, efficiently and less expensively than pursuing a judgment through the ordinary course of litigation at trial.

 

The parties may resolve a single issue or their entire case. The agreements reached through mediation are not limited by the results available under the law so mediated solutions can more easily accommodate the circumstances of individual cases. It is said that when mediating a case the parties retained control of their case. In trial, however, the judge and the law controls. An agreement reached in mediation is binding when prepared by an experienced mediator under appropriate circumstances. The mediated agreement will become an order signed by the court. The difference between having a matter decided at a hearing by a judge in mediation is as day and night. In a hearing the court will apply the law of the parties have very little to say about how the order is created. In mediation neither party can be forced to accept a decision. Also, participating in mediation does not impact the party’s right to a court hearing if it is desired. If an agreement is not reached through mediation the parties have a right continue through the court system. However, a skilled, experienced mediator can generally bring most issues to a final resolution.

 

WHAT IS A MEDIATOR?

 

A mediator can be almost anyone the parties agree upon to act as a neutral participant to assist the parties with resolution of their case. Most of the time a mediator is a professional who is trained in the process of mediation and, ideally, who is familiar with the law involved in the issue presented. Most mediators have a background as a lawyer or judge, but many do not.

 

A mediator is not a judge while mediating. The mediator cannot make orders nor can mediator give what is commonly thought to be legal advice. The appropriate mediator is truly neutral and while the mediator may provide simple explanations of specific legal elements or regarding forms or format, by its nature, a mediator may not offer legal advice to either party.

 

Ideally a mediator should be engaged jointly by the parties. Mediators who are professionals in the field agree to practice according to very strict ethical guidelines similar to those to which lawyers and judges are held. Before the mediation begins, the mediator does not typically meet with the parties individually though the mediator may have an individual known as a "convening agent" or "convener" meet with the individual parties to make the arrangements for the mediation and to have mediation agreements, etc., signed by the parties. Generally, mediators consider discussions on the elements or facts of the case with an individual before the case is convened to be improper. Just as one must not discuss a case with a judge outside of the presence of the other party, at least before the mediation is convened, so is the case with a mediator. Therefore, parties seeking the services of a professional mediator should not expect to discuss the case directly with the mediator before it is convened.

 

A mediator is a professional whose business it is to mediate cases. Consequently, fees will be charged by a mediator. However, in most cases the fees charged by the mediator will be offset by the savings in court costs and other costs of litigation such as protracted attorney's fees. The faster a case can be resolved the less it will cost. A professional mediator who is familiar with the courts and the law at issue in a given case can assist the parties through the maze of procedures and documents that are required by the courts.

 

Most of the time mediation conducted by and experienced mediator will result in a judicially enforceable agreement or judgment.

 

MORE DETAILS ABOUT MEDIATION:

 

The process of mediation is held in very high regard by the legal system in California. Consequently, the mediation process is strictly confidential and is governed by very specific and special rules of evidence and conduct. Before the mediation commences, the parties will probably be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement stating that they understand the process and that the facts and any "evidence" that may be revealed during the process of mediation, is inadmissible at trial or subsequent hearing if the case does not settle. Furthermore, the mediator's role is a highly privileged and protected one in that the mediator cannot be called as a witness, asked were compelled to prepare a report regarding the mediation (other than to state that a mediation took place) nor to report to anyone anything about the mediation except that the mediation resulted in an agreement or not.

 

Depending upon the demeanor of the parties, during the mediation session(s) the mediator will most likely meet with the parties separately for some of the process. This is to allow the mediator to assist all parties in coming to a resolution. It also helps the parties to express themselves more freely to the mediator. Generally speaking whatever is shared with the mediator during these private sessions can be shared with the opposition unless the mediator is asked to keep it confidential. Most mediators do not communicate settlement terms suggested to them by a party unless given the authority to do so by the party making the suggestion. Sometimes the process of the mediator seems unusual to the parties but a mediator who has been trained in the process and has experience with mediation generally conducts the mediation in a manner that he or she has determined will work best with the individuals involved. There are a number of mediation styles and philosophies. Most trained mediators will very quickly determine which style and philosophy will work best in a given situation.

 

The mediator will probably encourage the parties to think "outside the box" for the purpose of settling difficult issues. There are a number of ways to resolve difficult problems as long as the parties want to settle. One of the benefits of mediation is that most of the time the parties would not select mediation if they were not anxious to settle the case.

 

Mediation is most effective when the parties are able to communicate and solve problems without fear or intimidation. For this reason when there is a history of domestic violence in a relationship, ADR/Mediation may not be appropriate.

 

FAMILY LAW ARBITRATION

 

The parties may also wish to have their cases decided by a neutral arbitrator. Arbitration is private and less formal than a court trial. In arbitration, an arbitrator (most frequently an experienced attorney or retired judge) makes a decision based upon the information presented by both sides. The arbitrator typically applies the rules of evidence pursuant to the California Evidence Code and has the discretion to control the evidence and rule on objections.

 

There are generally three types of arbitration from which parties can choose. The first is Judicial Arbitration pursuant to Family Code §2554. A court may order a case to nonbinding arbitration under this code section. The arbitration award may be "appealed" or allowed to stand and become the judgment at which time it becomes binding. This selection applies most typically in estates where the net amount in controversy (i.e., the dispute over property values has a net difference of $50,000 or less) is under $50,000. In some courts this form of arbitration may be provided at no cost by the court.  Once this type of arbitration is completed, if a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Arbitrator, that party may ask that the case proceed to trial.

 

The Judicial Arbitration under this statute may not be covered by the court because of the severe budget issues in California.  Nevertheless, if the parties choose to pursue their case through the court system and want to save time and money, the parties should ask the trial judge to be referred under this process.

 

The second type of arbitration is nonbinding arbitration by agreement of the parties. This is the same as the above, only the parties will agree in writing to have an arbitrator make the decision (a private mini-trial) irrespective of the amount in controversy. An award resulting from nonbinding arbitration may be rejected by either party or accepted by all. If accepted, it becomes a judgment or the basis of a judgment. This form of arbitration usually demands a fee by the arbitrator to be paid equally by the parties.

 

The third general type of arbitration is "binding" arbitration. This type of proceeding requires the written agreement of the parties and, under most circumstances, is not appealable nor is it correctable by a trial court. This proceeding is somewhere between a nonbinding arbitration and a trial as far as formality. In binding arbitration the arbitrator typically will try to conduct the case more formally and very similar to the procedures followed in trial. The award that is issued from this type of arbitration is typically more detailed than either of the above. This form of arbitration also requires a fee paid equally by the parties.

 

THE BENEFIT OF ADR

 

As this is being written, California is in a terrible financial situation. Our courts are desperately overcrowded with Riverside and San Bernardino counties having the highest caseloads per judge in the entire state. Entire courthouses are being closed one day a month which is caused court schedule to be scrambled and building even more delays into the system and making the daily calendars even heavier. Though this does not seem to be something that a litigant should be concerned about, the litigant ultimately pays the price. Court fees are being increased rate that is unprecedented. Delays in getting civil and family cases to trial have never been as long. Even for parties who have little money, the litigation process in the courts can still be very expensive. Furthermore, because of the crowded court calendars, matters are routinely postponed or continued which requires the parties to take time off of work. On the other hand, ADR gives the parties the exclusive attention of the arbitrator or mediator who has scheduled a time especially to handle a given case. The delays are fewer and almost no matter what the mediator or arbitrator may charge, the expense is less. Parties can get their cases completed in a fraction of the time it will take to try to navigate the court system.

 

Just Results Mediation Services is experienced in civil and family law and has the tools and knowledge to help parties get their cases resolved quickly and efficiently.