Innovation in Our Courts: Getting People Talking and Cases Moving

When we talk about improving our courts, we often focus on what happens inside the courtroom: more judges, more courtrooms, better technology and more resources.

Those things matter. But innovation also means asking a simple question:

Is there a better way to resolve some disputes before they require a trial?

The Los Angeles Superior Court is answering that question with innovation in Alternative Dispute Resolution, including its Mediation Volunteer Panel.

I am proud to have been appointed to the Court’s Mediation Volunteer Panel and to have completed the training required to serve as a volunteer mediator.

For me, this is about much more than adding another credential to my résumé. It is about understanding, firsthand, how we can help people resolve disputes rather than allowing cases to sit unresolved on crowded court calendars.

The Court’s mediation program gives litigants an opportunity to sit down—virtually—and actually talk. A trained, neutral mediator helps the parties identify what is really keeping them apart, explore possible solutions and, when possible, reach an agreement that works for everyone. The Court provides this as a low- or no-cost resource for eligible cases.

That matters because a case that can be resolved through mediation does not need to consume the same judicial resources as a case that must proceed through trial.

And the need is real. The Los Angeles Superior Court reported more than 98,000 unlimited civil filings in 2025, a 38% increase from 2022, and more than 195,000 limited civil filings, an 87% increase from 2022. In 2025, the Court processed more than 10,000 referrals to ADR programs, with those programs reporting an average resolution rate of approximately 50%.

Those numbers demonstrate something important: innovation is not an abstract concept. It can produce practical results for real people.

I have spent my career as a trial lawyer. I know how important it is to prepare a case for trial and to be ready to fight for a client. But I also know that not every dispute needs to end with a winner and a loser.

Sometimes people need someone to help them be heard.

Sometimes they need a neutral person to help them understand the other side.

Sometimes the best outcome is an agreement that allows everyone to move forward rather than years of litigation that leaves everyone exhausted and financially depleted.

That is the promise of mediation.

It is also an example of the kind of thinking I would bring to the bench: respect the importance of the courtroom while looking for every lawful, fair and efficient way to keep cases moving.

Being appointed to the Mediation Volunteer Panel and completing the Court's training means I have already begun developing those skills. If elected, I will not be starting from scratch on day one. I will bring to the bench not only decades of trial experience, but also direct experience with one of the Court's innovative approaches to resolving cases.

I believe a judge should be willing to ask:

Can we solve this problem differently? Can we get the parties talking? Can we reduce unnecessary delay? Can we preserve judicial resources for the cases that truly require a judge and a trial?

Those are not questions about being soft on litigation. They are questions about being smart with our courts.

Our justice system should be fair, accessible, timely and efficient. Mediation can be one important tool in achieving all four.

I am proud to be part of that effort now.

And if I am elect

ed, I will bring that same spirit of innovation, preparation and problem-solving to the bench.

I want to be a judge who doesn't just manage a calendar—I want to help make the justice system work better for the people who depend on it.