An interview with John Derrick

“What are some terms that describe you as mediator?”

“Diplomatic,” “well prepared,” “empathetic,” “persistent.” 

“What sorts of cases do you mediate?”

Appellate lawyers tend to be subject matter generalists. The specialization is in the art of the appeal. And the same goes with appellate mediation. So I can mediate cases involving a wide range of subject matters.

As for the “size” of cases, as in my practice as an appellate lawyer, I try to set my mediation rates at a reasonable level, so that my services are affordable to a wide range of litigants caught up in the appellate system. In many appeals, there are issues at stake that could have life-changing consequences to those involved. So I do not measure the “importance” of a case simply in terms of the amount of money at stake or the fame of the parties.

Some people have an impression that appellate litigation is some sort of an ivory tower, shielded from the human dynamic of litigation. I am very aware that this is not the reality and that in many appeals, there are people facing an issue hugely important to them at a personal level.

“What is your approach to mediation?”

I avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. I try to get under the skin of every case, to understand the real interests of the parties. In some cases, the parties are looking for a somewhat evaluative approach, although that’s not necessarily the best way to settle a case on appeal. In many cases, what’s needed is a facilitator of communication. And some call for a creative approach, helping to identify interests that may have been overlooked. Most really require a subtle blend of techniques. Ultimately, my role as a mediator is to lead a conversation about making decisions, often in the face of uncertainty.

“In your law practice, have you generally represented plaintiffs or defendants?”

I have always been plaintiff/defendant neutral. My law practice as an advocate has long consisted only of appeals. And in appeals, there are no “plaintiffs” or “defendants.” There are “appellants,” the parties bringing the appeals — who might have been plaintiffs or defendants in the trial court. And there are “respondents” or “appellees” — the parties defending the appeal, who, again, might have been on either side of the case in the lower court. As a lawyer, I have always represented both appellants and respondents/appellees — and parties who were previously both plaintiffs and defendants.

So unlike trial lawyers, who often do have a distinct “plaintiff” or “defendant” background, I have absolutely no subliminal bias caused by my type of law practice.

“Do you handle regular mediations involving cases not on appeal?”

While appellate mediation started as my principal focus, I now also handle other types of mediations, too (mostly in and around my home base of Santa Barbara).

“Do you still litigate appeals as a lawyer?”

Yes, I still handle selected cases. I have a separate website for my practice as an appellate lawyer: www.californiaappeals.com. 

“Is it true that you have a British accent?”

Yes. But — contrary to what people in the U.S. sometimes tell me — trust me that this does not make what I say more erudite. Brits are capable of talking ”rubbish” (as they would put it) as much as anyone else. So judge me on the substance of what I say, not on the accent that delivers it. Maybe, perhaps, the fact that I’m obviously from somewhere else somehow helps bolster me as a “neutral.” But I’ve lived in California for 30 years. And my kids were born and raised here. So I think I understand the place, even if I sound like I just got off the plane from London.
​