Steven, please provide a brief overview of your legal career prior to joining JAMS.

Before joining JAMS, my legal career spanned more than three decades of complex litigation, counseling and dispute resolution, with a particular focus on intellectual property, technology and life sciences matters. I represented clients in high-stakes patent, trade secret, licensing and commercial disputes in federal courts, arbitrations and mediations, often involving cutting-edge technologies and international parties. Over time, I increasingly gravitated toward mediation and arbitration, drawn by the opportunity to help parties resolve their disputes efficiently and thoughtfully, rather than simply prolonging them through litigation. 

How would you describe your approach and style as a mediator and arbitrator?

My style is pragmatic, analytical and engaged. I work hard to understand the technical, legal and business realities driving a dispute. As a mediator, I encourage candid, forward-looking discussions rather than positional posturing, and I focus on helping parties reassess risk, uncertainty and opportunity. As an arbitrator, I emphasize procedural fairness, clarity and disciplined case management so that parties feel heard and confident in the integrity of the process. I take an active role in trying to formulate a discovery and case management plan proportionate to the issues in the case.

What types of disputes or practice areas are you most passionate about resolving, and why?

I am most passionate about resolving complex disputes involving intellectual property, life sciences and advanced technologies. I hold an engineering degree from MIT, and that background allows me to engage comfortably and seriously with complex technical issues and expert testimony. In mediations and arbitrations, that technical fluency helps me focus discussions on risk, uncertainty and practical outcomes rather than abstract disagreement. These cases often involve significant investments, innovation and business strategy, and unresolved disputes can slow progress or damage important relationships. Helping parties navigate those tensions and reach durable resolutions that allow them to move forward is deeply satisfying.

What qualities or traits do you believe have been most important to your success as a neutral?

Curiosity, preparation and credibility have been essential. I take the time to truly understand the technology and the industry context, which helps parties trust that they are being heard. I also believe intellectual humility matters; many disputes are not about a single “right” answer, and resolution requires dealing with uncertainty when trying to make an informed decision.

What are some of the professional highlights or milestones that have been most meaningful to you throughout your career?

Some of the most meaningful milestones in my career came early and shaped how I approach dispute resolution today. Clerking for an outstanding federal appellate judge gave me a deep appreciation for disciplined legal reasoning and the importance of clarity in advocacy. Trying cases to juries and winning reinforced how differently disputes look outside a brief or expert report. And perhaps most importantly, serving as a juror myself gave me a firsthand view of how juries actually process evidence, credibility and uncertainty. Those experiences continue to inform how I evaluate risk and help parties make realistic decisions in mediation and arbitration.

Your ADR work is national and international in scope. How does your global arbitration and mediation experience inform your work with parties today?

My international experience is shaped by not only cross-border arbitrations and mediations, but also my role as chair of the ADR Committee of the AIPPI, the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property. Working with practitioners from different legal systems and cultures has sharpened my sensitivity to differing expectations around process, advocacy and decision-making. That perspective helps me design dispute resolution processes that feel fair, efficient and credible to parties from diverse jurisdictions.

You were recently elected to the board of directors and appointed treasurer of the Silicon Valley Arbitration & Mediation Center (SVAMC). What does this leadership role represent for you and your continued involvement in tech-focused dispute resolution?

Serving on the board of the SVAMC reflects my long-standing commitment to thoughtful, innovative dispute resolution in the technology sector. The SVAMC sits at the intersection of law, technology and global commerce, and I value the opportunity to help support an institution that is shaping how complex tech disputes are resolved worldwide.

Who has had the greatest influence on your career or professional development, and in what way?

Three individuals, at different stages of my career, had a lasting influence on how I practice law and approach dispute resolution.

Judge Philip Nichols, for whom I clerked, taught me humility, disciplined judicial thinking and the importance of writing for the audience that must decide the case.

Paul Hayes, the first litigator I worked for right out of law school, was a demanding former Marine who taught me how to focus relentlessly on the issues that matter and how effective cross-examination can shape outcomes.

And Dennis Allegretti, widely regarded as a leader in the patent bar, showed me that advocacy does not always require aggression and that the practice of law can be rigorous, principled and civilized.

What is the best piece of advice you have received during your legal career?

The best advice I received was to focus less on being “right” and more on being effective. That perspective has been invaluable in both advocacy and ADR, particularly in disputes driven by uncertainty and competing expert views.

What accomplishment are you most proud of, and why?

The accomplishment I am most proud of is building a successful practice as a neutral at JAMS over the past five years. After a 30-year career as a first-chair litigator whose role was to advocate forcefully for clients, earning the trust of parties, counsel and institutions as a neutral has been especially meaningful. I believe that trust reflects long-standing professional relationships and a reputation for fairness, preparation and sound judgment.