The practice of law can be summarized in a single word: integrity. A lawyer works his entire career to develop his reputation among his peers and with his clients, without either of whom the lawyer would not have a practice. It is my belief that there is not a single dispute that can be created that is worth compromising my integrity over. Similarly, while I strongly advocate aggressive client representation (as ultimately my duty is to my client to ensure the best result), I even more strongly advocate professional courtesy and cooperation. While there are hundreds of thousands of lawyers nationwide, the litigation community is still relatively small and, simply put, there is more to be gained by maintaining a strong professional relationship with opposing counsel than to unnecessarily create a contentious relationship. At some point in a litigation matter the respective attorneys are going to have to communicate effectively with one another in the best interest of their respective clients. A severed relationship precludes this dialogue, and often leads to unnecessary costs and fees to the client by way of additional court hearings, discovery motions, telephone calls, and letters.
Along the same lines, while every matter needs to be prepared as if it will proceed to trial, each matter at some point should attempt some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The lawyer who sits back on the premise that every case will settle (so why work it up aggressively?) does a disservice to himself and his clients. Discovery is the lawyers’ opportunity to ascertain the merits of their respective cases; oftentimes the facts as you think you know them on day one have morphed into a very different picture several months into the case. However, once a sufficient amount of discovery (interrogatories, document production, admissions, depositions) has been conducted to ascertain the merits of a particular matter, the parties must engage in some form of alternative dispute resolution. Ideally, this takes the form of a mediation, where a neutral third party encourages dialogue amongst the parties in an attempt to informally resolve the dispute. Many times each side has a very different opinion of the value of a case; in such case, binding or non-binding arbitration may make sense to obtain the impartial opinion of a qualified third party.
As a lawyer I have evaluated hundreds of cases, and I pride myself on my ability to accurately ascertain the value of a particular matter. This helps me to properly advise my clients. Having practiced on both sides of the table, as both a plaintiff lawyer and defense counsel, I understand both sides arguments in working up a case and generally know what the other side is going to offer in terms of presenting their case. With my mediation practice, this experience allows me offer insight to each party into the merits of the opposing side’s position, and ultimately to assist in moving the matter toward a successful resolution. I take pride in both facets of my practice and believe that these complementary aspects of the practice of law help me to be a better lawyer for my litigation clients and a better mediator for my mediation clients.
I provide a free initial consultation of 45 minutes, and would be happy to sit down and discuss your matter with you. If I am unable to assist you, I will advise you accordingly and hopefully can direct you to someone who might better assist you. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to working with you.
|Award name||Grantor||Date Granted|
|Best of the Bar||San Diego Business Journal||2016|
|Attorney||The Kindley Firm, APC||2016 - 2018|
|Attorney||TAYLOR | ANDERSON LLP||2014 - 2015|
|President||Leucadia Law & Mediation||2006 - 2014|
|Senior Associate||Shifflet Kane & Konoske LLP||2003 - 2006|
|Associate||Levinson Bright & Roberts, LLP||2003 - 2003|
|Associate||Clements & Knock, LLP||2001 - 2003|
|Attorney||San Diego County District Attorney||2000 - 2001|
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|San Diego County Bar Association, Fee Arbitration Committee||Mediator||2008 - Present|
|San Diego Superior Court - Mediation Panel||Mediator||2007 - Present|
|San Diego County Bar Association||Officer||2000 - Present|
|Consumer Attorneys of San Diego||Member||2007 - 2009|
|Univ of San Diego SOL||JD - Juris Doctor||1998|
|Univ of California at Los Angeles||undergraduate||1993|
|Brachmanis v. Fire Insurance Exchange||Plaintiff jury verdict: $134,450 + interest + fees|
|Syntec Diamond Tools, Inc. v. Tecnomel International Corp., et al.||Judgment for Client|
|DLS Constructors, Inc. v. B.B.O., et al.||Settlement: over $1.8 million|
|Gaffney-Terry v. AMEX Assurance Co.||Successful settlement - insurance bad faith|
|Johnson v. B.E.S.C.R.||Judgment for over $150,000|
Posted by Steve & Jody
December 24, 2009
Posted by Donna Lee Sieverding President
December 18, 2009
Posted by Suzanne
December 17, 2009
Posted by anonymous
November 19, 2008