Hon. Gregory Keosian (Ret.) brings a distinguished background in law and dispute resolution to his role as a neutral at ADR Services, Inc. With an impressive 22 years of judicial experience and 16 years of civil litigation expertise, Judge Keosian is uniquely positioned to navigate complex legal matters and steer parties toward resolution as a mediator, arbitrator, and referee.

Beginning his legal career as an associate at Scolinos, Slater & Sweetman in Pasadena, Judge Keosian honed his litigation and negotiation skills before co-founding Keosian & Keosian in 1988. As a partner at the firm until 2002, he specialized in civil litigation handling a diverse range of cases, with a focus on personal injury matters.

In 2002, Judge Keosian’s career took a pivotal turn when he was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by Governor Gray Davis. Over the next 22 years, he presided over hundreds of jury and bench trials, mandatory settlement conferences, and law and motion matters. While assigned to a General Jurisdiction Independent Calendar Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judge Keosian deftly handled civil actions across nearly all areas of law, including catastrophic injury, medical malpractice, employment disputes, civil rights cases, business litigation, and more. His judicial service also includes assignments to the Personal Injury Hub and the Appellate Division.

Grounded in a steadfast commitment to fairness and impartiality, Judge Keosian now draws upon his extensive legal background to facilitate effective dispute resolution as a neutral at ADR Services, Inc.


  • Business/Contract
  • Employment
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Civil Rights
  • Entertainment
  • Construction
  • Insurance & Bad Faith
  • Personal Injury
  • Elder Abuse
  • Inverse Condemnation
  • Premises Liability
  • Eminent Domain
  • Landlord/Tenant
  • Sexual Abuse


Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court   2002-2024

  • General Jurisdiction Independent Calendar Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 2015-2024
    Handled civil actions, consisting of catastrophic injury, medical malpractice, employment, civil rights, police misconduct, business litigation, contract, wrongful death, construction defect, and product liability. Conducted hundreds of jury and bench trials, as well as mandatory settlement conferences.
  • Personal Injury Courtroom (PI Hub), Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 2014-2015
    Presided over law and motion matters, discovery disputes, case management, final status conferences, and ex parte applications.
  • Appellate Division, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 2011-2014
    Reviewed misdemeanor and limited civil matters on appeal, as well writs of mandate, writs of supersedeas, habeas corpus, and various motions. Wrote several hundred opinions arising from these appeals.
  • Limited Jurisdiction Civil Courtroom, Van Nuys Courthouse, 2002-2011
    Presided over dozens of jury and bench trials, mandatory settlement conferences, and law and motion matters.
  • Los Angeles Superior Court Committees: Civil/Small Claims, Bench/Bar, Access and Fairness, Temporary Judge (Pro Tem) Committee.

Attorney and Litigator   1986-2022

  • Keosian & Keosian, Century City & Encino, 1988-2002
    Partner, specialized in civil litigation and personal injury matters.
  • Scolinos, Slater & Sweetman, Pasadena, 1986-1988


  • J.D., University of West Los Angeles, School of Law   1986
  • B.A. in Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles   1983


Judge Keosian has participated in numerous panel discussions with the students of Loyola Law School and Southwestern Law School addressing issues facing new lawyers and courtroom practices, and has presented to various local bar associations. He is a founding member of the Armenian Bar Association, an international organization consisting of law students, attorneys, and judges of Armenian descent. In 2018, he was honored with the Armenian Bar Association’s Judge of the Year award. He is a member of the California Judges Association.


“Jury Instructions Front and Center,” Advocate Magazine, Journal of Consumer Attorneys Associations for Southern California, July 2020.


Judge Keosian has been a guest lecturer for the University of California, Los Angeles, undergraduate communications class on First Amendment issues on several occasions. He has also presented lectures to the Beverly Hills Bar Association, as well as the San Fernando Valley Bar Association.

Representative Cases


  • Plaintiff sought payment of invoices for goods delivered. Defendant filed cross-complaint contending goods were defective and sought off-set.
  • Plaintiff invested proceeds from a personal injury recovery with Defendant in a house-flipping business. After several successful flips, the next few are unsuccessful, resulting in the total loss of Plaintiff’s investment.
  • Owners of a successful restaurant chain filed suit against their children for fraudulently siphoning money and assets from the business. Defendants contend that they were running the business and Plaintiffs had ceded all authority to them.


  • Police Officers, who were responding to a call of a man with a weapon, shot and severely wounded Plaintiff after he pointed his arms in the direction of the police officers in a shooting stance, was told to drop the weapon, and refused.
  • Plaintiff alleges unreasonable force used to restrain her after police officers responded to a report of a stabbing at her residence. Plaintiff allegedly refused to allow the officers entrance to the residence but told them she knew where the perpetrator was.


  • World-renowned apparel company contracted with landowner builder for the construction of a multi-million-dollar state-of-the art photography studio. Plaintiff contended defects in workmanship and delays caused substantial damages. Defendant contends Plaintiff was the cause of the delays.
  • Plaintiffs were real estate agents and developers who purchased a home and spent significant sums to remodel it. Solar panels were improperly installed on the roof, which led to leaks and hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage to the floors, drywall, and doors.
  • Plaintiff homeowners of a tract of homes contended defective workmanship resulting in leaky windows and other defects in a suit against the general contractor and numerous subcontractors.


  • Use of expert deposition testimony in a motion for summary judgment is prohibited if party seeking admission of testimony failed to timely designate the expert pursuant to the discovery statutes. (Perry v. Bakewell (2017) 2 Cal.5th 536.)
  • Deposition testimony is not admissible against a party to subsequent litigation under Evidence Code, Section 1291(a)(2) unless the party against whom the testimony is offered had the “right and opportunity” to cross-examine the declarant with an interest and motive similar to tht which the objecting party would have in the later trial. Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Cal.5th 867.


  • Plaintiff sought damages for elder abuse and wrongful death after her mother, a resident of a skilled nursing facility, choked on a sandwich when she had been placed on dietary restrictions requiring a liquid diet by her doctor. Plaintiff alleged the facility attempted to cover up the incident and notified Plaintiff that her mother had died of natural causes.
  • Plaintiffs, son and daughter of deceased, alleged elder abuse and wrongful death when their mother, who had incurred severe pressure sores at the hospital, was transferred to an assisted living facility. The pressure sores went untreated, ultimately leading to infection and ultimately death.


  • Plaintiff, a former electrical mechanic with the DWP, was allegedly discriminated against due to an injury sustained on the job, was not provided accommodation, and was terminated when he sought medical leave.
  • Plaintiff, a customer service manager at a major department store, was terminated after he assisted another employee in preparing a claim for sexual harassment and retaliation against the company.
  • Plaintiff alleged age discrimination when a new supervisor of a county facility reorganized responsibilities and delegated some of Plaintiff’s duties to younger and newly-hired employees and denied her overtime, which was offered to the younger employees.
  • Plaintiff, a county employee, alleges religious discrimination. After sustaining an injury at work, he alleges he was singled out, and denied accommodations which were routinely granted to others, not of his religious persuasion.
  • Whistleblower Plaintiff, a 911 emergency operator, sought psychological treatment after handling a traumatic suicide call. After seeing the County psychologist, a co-worker asked her questions regarding her treatment. Convinced the City had violated her right to privacy under State and Federal law, she reported the breach. Plaintiff was later denied promotions which she alleged were retaliatory.
  • Whistleblower Plaintiff, a police officer, claims he was removed from his position as a training officer and retaliated against for threatening to complain to State agencies that the department was violating various training regulations.

view all


  • News magazine reported that a public figure was transitioning from male to female. In granting the Anti-SLAPP motion, the court found that alleging one to be transgender is not defamation per-se, and there was no evidence of damages.
  • Models filed suit against a nightclub and public relations agency for misappropriation of likeness for using the models’ photographs in their advertisements without authorization.
  • Published author in the entertainment industry submitted his analysis of Defendant’s IPO to the entertainment company through its website and an email to the CEO. Plaintiff contends that Defendant adopted his proposal; however, no implied contract was found as the website prohibited the emailing of proposals to the company or its executives, and further stated any such proposal would not be considered.


  • Plaintiff alleged a series of breaches of the warrantee of habitability, including gas leaks, mold, and the landlord illegally living in the basement, as well as several violent confrontations with the landlord and her agent.
  • Plaintiff alleged mold growth in her unit, limited to the bathroom and shower area, as well as bird droppings on her patio. Defense expert found that there were more allergens outside the unit than inside and that the issue had been remediated years earlier and was no longer existent, and that the bird droppings were of no significance.
  • Plaintiff resided in an apartment unit with her minor children. They claimed the unit was uninhabitable as roaches were present and would crawl on them at night, that the plumbing was nonfunctional, and that garbage was not collected, magnifying the rodent problem, and lead paint existed in the unit.
  • Over 30 units in an apartment building held a rent strike due to uninhabitable conditions. Several tenants were successful while others were not. Defendant filed a cross-complaint for the rents owing.


  • A disgruntled tenant in an apartment building opened a water hose on the roof of the apartment building causing severe water damage to the building. While the insurance company paid substantial amounts for reconstruction, several items were denied resulting in a Plaintiff’s verdict.


  • Plaintiff, a start-up restaurant, rented space on Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles along the proposed metro line path. Plaintiff contended the road closures, construction, and limited access caused the restaurant to fail. The inverse claim was in favor of the Defendants, but a jury found in favor of Plaintiff on a negligence theory and awarded substantial damages.


  • Plaintiff claimed she was kidnapped and held against her will and sexually assaulted for years. Though the claims were beyond the statute of limitations, the court held that Plaintiff’s memory had been repressed and thus the case was allowed to proceed.


  • Plaintiff, suffering from terminal cancer, alleged his contact with various stains, paints and other solvents used over his years working as a painter and employee at various facilities caused his illness. Numerous defendants resolved the matter informally.
  • Plaintiff, who was employed by a manufacturer of kitchen countertops, developed a fatal illness due to his contact and working with material.