- Associate Attorney, Law Office of Alred R. Naphan 1972-1978
- Co-Founding Partner, Gwilliam, Ivary, Chiosso, Cavalli & Brewer (1978-2000), Oakland, California, Managing Partner 1988-2000
Tried all types of personal injury cases, employment cases, medical and hospital negligence as well as insurance bad faith.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Experience
In the past 15+ years, Mr. Ivary has mediated over 1,000 cases involving:
- Personal Injury / Products Liability
- Employment (wrongful termination, retaliation, age & gender discrimination)
- Public Entity Liability, including school districts
- Civil rights, discrimination of all types, police misconduct
- Insurance, including arbitration of UM/UIM cases
- ERISA, both disability claims and employer contribution liability
- Served 12 years’ on the Northern District panel for ADA cases involving disability access, architectural barriers for all types of commercial establishments, including nationwide corporate policy for institutions such as hospitals, and also cases involving service animal access and related issues.
Served as Judge Pro Tem for the Superior Courts for three Bay Area Counties since
Mediator for the United States District Court ADR Program in the fields of Employment, Federal civil rights, Medical Malpractice, ERISA, ADA, Maritime and Federal Tort
Panelist for all the Alameda County Settlement Programs (since 1985).
Panelist for the Contra Costa County Courts programs (since 1991).
Panelist for San Mateo County Courts MAP Program (since 2008).
Panelist for Santa Clara County Court
- B.A., Saint Mary’s College of California, 1968
- J.D., University of Santa Clara, 1971
- Admitted to State and Federal Courts, 1972
- Continuing Education requirements met in all fields, including Advanced Mediation Training for both State and Federal courts
- Initial training through San Mateo, Contra Costa and Alameda County court sponsored ADR Programs (MAP, EASE, SMART and TOT programs)
- 40 Hour Intensive Mediation Training course taught by Nancy Yeend (2001)
- 20 Hour US District Court training program
- Multiple CLE programs on a variety of topics, as well as regular updates on specific mediation issues on interest (including confidentiality, changes in the law,)
Past & Present Professional Associations
- American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA), inducted 1989
- American Inns of Court, Wiley Manuel Chapter, Senior Mentor, 1999-2000
- Association of Trial Lawyers of America, (Advocate, National College of Advocacy)
- Alameda-Contra Costa Trial Lawyers Association
- Board of Governors, 1975-1990
- Editor of The Verdict, 1986
- President, 1990
- Alameda County Lawyer’s Club
Awards & Honors
- Lawyer of the Year, Alameda County Lawyer’s Club,
- Selected as Evaluator by the CEB Trial Advocacy
- State Bar Commendation for Outstanding Contributions to Pro Bono and Voluntary Legal
- Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review Rating “ AV PREEMINENT ”
- Mediating with the Difficult Plaintiff
- Medical Malpractice Jury Instructions
- Punitive Damages in Employment Cases
- Invited Panelist and Speaker to Employer Groups and Panelist for Employment Law
- 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 can be very sensitive to the parties involved as can a police misconduct case or a medical malpractice case. Probably the best way to describe my approach to mediation is 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 questions, sometimes uncomfortable ones. (The tough questions are asked in separate sessions).
- When parties request I will become very active in their negotiations. For a full explanation of my mediation style and philosophy, please download an article I wrote for the SFTLA magazine. It can be found at the ADR website (www.adrservices.org). Although originally written as a practical guide for the plaintiff’s bar, it also tells the defense how I approach mediation.
- My assumption 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 opportunity to identify the REAL case.
- 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 to what the parties themselves want the process to be.
- I discourage “opening statements” and oral arguments. My theory 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 experience 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 that they “might lose their case”.