Sources: http://www.disputeresolutioninstitute.

com/
The Dispute Resolution Institute
Two Logan Square, 6th Floor
18th & Arch Streets
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Tel: (215) 656-4374
Fax: (215) 656-4089

The Dispute Resolution Institute (DRI) was founded in 1994 to provide parties
with the opportunity to resolve their disputes in a timely, private and cost effective
manner in a user-friendly forum. Unlike the court system, each case submitted to
DRI is given the priority and individualized attention it deserves. Private dispute
resolution provides participants with a high degree of control over resolution of
their dispute.
The majority of cases submitted to DRI are resolved through the standard alternative dispute resolution
processes of arbitration and mediation. When required to satisfy specific or unique needs of the
disputants, DRI utilizes hybrids of these processes or custom designs procedures that are flexible and
individualized. This specialized approach insures that the best process available for a particular dispute is
utilized. DRI contrasts markedly from the judicial system where all cases are generally handled in the
same fashion. DRI insures that the "forum fits the fuss."

ADR Advantages
Cost Savings
ADR consistently saves the parties significant transaction and litigation costs without reducing their ability to
effectively present their case. Through the submission of medical and other expert reports in lieu of live or
deposition testimony and significant other cost saving features of ADR, total reductions of attorney's fees and trial
costs of $25,000 or more are common in a straightforward case. Moreover, the flexibility of DRI allows utilization
of live or video expert testimony when deemed appropriate by counsel.

Reasonable Results
ADR brings to dispute resolution the expectation and realization of reasonable results. Disputes are submitted
without the fear of the vagaries of a jury trial or a judge chosen by random selection.

Timeliness and Scheduling

Cases referred to DRI are usually resolved within two months from the date the parties agree to submit their case.
Frequently matters are resolved in much shorter periods when warranted by the exigency of the situation (referral to

DRI on "courthouse steps".) Cases are scheduled at the convenience of

the parties and not at the convenience of the Court. Special scheduling
accommodations are always available to meet the needs of a particular
party or witness.

Distinguished Neutrals
Unlike litigation where parties have minimal, if any, participation in
selecting the judge and/or jury deciding their case, parties to a DRI
proceeding jointly select their neutral. By choosing DRI, the respected
background, accommodating demeanor, case management
ability and process expertise of their adjudicator is assured.

Control
DRI's flexible approach and procedures are designed to put substantial control of the resolution process in the hands
of the participants in order that the process foster and not retard resolution. Rules, scheduling, venue, nature of
presentation and choice of neutral are all agreed upon by the parties themselves.

Confidentiality
A watchword of ADR is confidentiality. DRI recognizes and respects the
appropriateness and needs of the parties for privacy. Where strict confidentiality is
necessary, the parties execute a stipulation agreeing to such non-disclosure. While the
public right to know often wins the day in litigated matters, contractual sealing of the
record in private ADR proceedings has beenconsistently judicially recognized as a
right of the parties in private dispute resolutions.

User Friendly Forum

From scheduling your case to closure, DRI truly satisfies its commitment to be a user
friendly forum. Comprised of a respected cadre of the ADR movement, our raison d'etre is making dispute
resolution a responsible process producing reasonable and when indicated, creative solutions. Dispute resolution
should not be a "legal war", complicated by bureaucratic and judicial indifference. This DRI core principle
evidences itself in the pleasantness and efficiency of our administrative staff, the professionalism of our
distinguished neutrals and our comfortable conference facilities.

Reasonable Charges
Just as reasonableness is the keystone of ADR, reasonableness of our provider charges is a hallmark of DRI. Our
fees are based primarily upon the time expended by the neutral and are not artificially inflated by the number of
parties involved or the dollar value of the dispute.

Working with DRI

Follow-up
Because of our commitment to resolution, DRI's involvement does not always end when the conference does. Even
when a mediation does not result in settlement, the process always brings the parties closer together, opens lines of
communication and provides additional information not previously disclosed and evaluated. While 85% of all
mediations will generally produce an immediate settlement, DRI provides the follow-up needed to settle those cases

that do not resolve initially. DRI continues the quest for resolution by addressing remaining issues with the parties
and assists in formulating approaches to help resolve them. A followup can range from simple information
clarification, further negotiation facilitated by the mediator or bringing about agreement for a binding hearing, often
with a "high/low" provision.

ADR Processes
Mediation
Mediation, which is succinctly defined as facilitated negotiation, is a nonbinding process. The parties mutually
select from our roster of distinguished neutrals a professional mediator to facilitate the resolution process. Prior to
the mediation, the neutral reviews memoranda provided by the parties, along with pertinent documents, such as
medical reports, expert reports and deposition transcripts. Unlike submissions to the court, which are too often not
properly reviewed, our distinguished neutrals are committed to the
simple axiom, "If it was important enough for you to prepare, it
will be carefully read and considered... no exceptions"! During the
mediation session counsel and the parties present an abbreviated
version of their case and a discussion ensues in open session with all
parties and their counsel present.
Following the joint session, the mediator caucuses separately with
each side to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their respective
positions. These private meetings witheach party, or with one set of
similarly interested parties in multi-party actions, may be numerous
and are similar to "shuttle diplomacy." The mediator will generally
go back and forth from one party's caucus to another party's caucus
in order to build a consensus for settlement. The mediator, unlike a
judge at a settlement conference, strives to have the parties suggest
and agree upon an acceptable resolution rather than imposingone upon them. It is generally helpful to the
resolution process if the parties themselves, or in cases involving insurance, a representative from the carrier, attend
the mediation session and participate in the mediation.

Arbitration
Arbitration is generally a binding process and differs from mediation in that the parties have agreed to be bound by
the decision of the neutral or by a majority of the arbitration panel. The parties may agree to give the neutral or the
panel sole discretion over the award, or they may select one of many options to modify the neutral's decision such
as:

High/Low Arbitration
The most frequently utilized arbitration option is a high/low agreement which is negotiated between the parties prior
to a binding hearing. At the option of the parties, the high and the low may or may not be disclosed to the arbitrator.
When this approach is utilized the parties limit the boundaries of the award by agreeing to a ceiling, a dollar amount
above which the claimant cannot recover, (the high), and a floor, the amount the claimant is guaranteed to recover,
(the low). If the neutral's decision falls within the negotiated range, the award stands as decided. If the award is
above the high or less than the low, it is molded to comply with the high/low agreement.

The following hypothetical illustrates the workings of an agreed high/low with a $25,000 low and a $100,000
high:
1. If the award is less than $25,000, it is automatically molded up to $25,000.
2.

If the award is in excess of $100,000, it is automatically molded down to $100,000.

3.

If the award is between $25,000 and $100,000 it stands as decided by the neutral arbitrator.

This approach is uniquely appealing to both sides since it limits the maximum exposure of one party while
customarily assuring the other party of a minimum recovery.

Med-Arb
Med-Arb is a combination of mediation and arbitration. It is customarily utilized in cases where the parties are
desirous of attempting to accomplish a mediated resolution, but want to be assured that the matter will be resolved
even if the mediation does not produce a settlement.Generally, the parties initially proceed in the same manner as a
mediation. The mediator facilitates negotiations between the parties with the expectation of reaching an amicable
agreement between them. If the matter is unable of being resolved in that fashion, the mediator acting in an
adjudicatory capacity, issues a final decision which binds the parties in the same manner as an arbitration award.
This procedure is sometimes referred to as binding mediation.

Neutral Evaluation
A neutral reviews pertinent materials, conducts a conference and listens to an abbreviated presentation of a case. The
neutral then issues an advisory opinion on the factual, legal and damage matters in dispute. The neutral does not
attempt to facilitate settlement since the purpose of this procedure is to provide the parties with the comments from a
respected neutral to be utilized by them in their further negotiations. This technique is frequently utilized where
there is a wide disparity between the parties on liability or damage issues.

Settlement Conferences
A settlement conference is the traditional dispute resolution technique used by the Court.Unlike mediation it is
usually attended by counsel only and conducted in summary fashion without any participation by the parties. In a
settlement conference, the neutral has evaluativeresponsibility and will generally provide the parties with the
neutral's overall evaluation of the case including a suggested settlement recommendation.

Fact-Finding
In cases which generally are submitted before litigation has been instituted, DRI assists the parties by making an
informal inquiry into the facts of a particular dispute. The fact-finder meets with the parties to the dispute,
interviews key witnesses and reviews important documents. Unlike depositions, these interviews are conducted in an
informal, non-adversarial manner. Thereafter, the fact-finder will either attempt to resolve the dispute, assist the
parties in selecting a process for resolution, or provide the requesting entity with a confidential report. This
procedure is frequently utilized for intra-entity disputes. DRI has also been called upon by both parties after
litigation has been initiated to perform neutral factfinding. In this situation, DRI is given the opportunity to conduct
an impartial investigation and submit a non-binding neutral report that frequently is a catalyst for settlement.

Hearing Officer
The need frequently arises for a hearing officer to preside over administrative proceedings or other types of hearings
conducted outside the judicial system. Such hearings include contractually mandated due process proceedings,
medical coverage disputes, employment disputes and other similar adjudicatory processes that are contractually
specified to protect an aggrieved party. Depending on the nature of the proceeding, the hearing officer may serve in
an adjudicative capacity or as a presiding officer vested only with the responsibility of ensuring an orderly and fair
hearing.

Discovery Master
Discovery is routinely recognized as the major abuse of litigation. The cost in dollars and increasingly more often,
the cost of business interference, of discovery in complex and multi party cases is, more often than not, exorbitant.
Competent counsel seeking to reduce such prohibitive expense have turned to DRI to decide or mediate discovery
disputes at key points during the pendency of the litigation. Discovery disputes are resolved in this way,
expeditiously and efficiently resulting in substantial savings of dollars and time.

Terms & Conditions

The following TERMS and CONDITIONS apply to all proceedings
administered by The Dispute Resolution Institute:
1. By choosing The Dispute Resolution Institute to serve as the
provider of alternative dispute resolution services pursuant to
agreement of the parties, or in the event that The Dispute
Resolution Institute has been appointed by the court, the
attorneys for the parties shall be responsible for payment of all
fees for services rendered.
2. All invoices issued by The Dispute Resolution Institute are payable upon receipt. Any
unpaid invoice beyond sixty (60) days from the date of issuance shall accrue a monthly
finance charge at the rate of 1.5%. If litigation is commenced for collection of unpaid
invoices, The Dispute Resolution Institute shall be entitled to receive reasonable
attorneys fees of not less than $500.00 in addition to the principal sum due and interest
accrued thereon.
3. The parties agree that The Dispute Resolution Institute and its employees, agents, and
principals, shall not be subpoenaed as a witness or expert, nor shall any documents in the
possession of The Dispute Resolution Institute be subpoenaed, in any pending or
subsequent litigation with respect to any matter relating to any ADR.
4. The parties and their attorneys agree to defend and hold The Dispute Resolution Institute
harmless and reimburse The Dispute Resolution Institute for any attorneys fees incurred
resulting from any subpoena from any party regarding the subject matter of any ADR.
5. The Dispute Resolution Institute, and its employees, agents, or principals, are not
necessary or proper parties in any judicial proceeding relating this ADR.
6. The Dispute Resolution Institute, and its employees, agents, or principals, shall not be
liable in any way to any party or attorney for any act, error, or omission of any type, and
all parties and their attorneys hereby expressly release The Dispute Resolution Institute,
and its employees, agents, or principals for any and all claims arising out of any
proceeding it administers.
Refund/Cancellation/Privacy for Online Transactions
Cancellation/Refunds
If you are unable to attend the CLE course, you may send a substitute or you will receive the
course materials in full consideration of tuition paid.

Privacy
Your privacy is important to us. To better protect your privacy we provide this notice explaining
our online information practices and the choices you can make about the way your information is
collected and used.
By visiting this website you are accepting the terms of this Website Privacy Policy. Any external
links to other websites are clearly identifiable as such, and we are not responsible for the content
or the privacy policies of these other websites.
Types of Information Collected
We retain two types of information:
"Company and Personal Data"
This is data that identifies you or can be used to identify or contact you and may include your
name, company, address, email address, user IP addresses in circumstances where they have not
been deleted, clipped or anonymised, telephone number, and other relevant company and
personal. Such information is only collected from you if you voluntarily submit it to us in order
to register for CLE events offered by us.
"Non-Personal Data"
Like most websites, we gather statistical and other analytical information collected on an
aggregate basis of all visitors to our website. This Non-Personal Data comprises information that
cannot be used to identify or contact you, such as demographic information regarding, for
example, user IP addresses where they have been clipped or anonymised, browser types and
other anonymous statistical data involving the use of our website.
Purposes for which we hold your Information
Non-Personal Data:
We use the Non-Personal Data gathered from visitors to our website in an aggregate form to get a
better understanding of where our visitors come from and to help us better design and organize
Company and Personal Data
We will process any Company and Personal Data you provide to us for the following purposes:
(a) to provide you with the goods or services you have ordered;
(b) to contact you if required in connection with your request to order or to respond to any
communications you might send to us.
Disclosure of Information to Third Parties

We may provide Non-Personal Data to third parties, where such information is combined with
similar information of other users of our website. For example, we might inform third parties
regarding the number of unique users who visit our website, the demographic breakdown of our
community users of our website, or the activities that visitors to our website engage in while on
our website.
We will not disclose your Personal Data to third parties unless you have consented to this
disclosure or unless the third party is required to fulfill your order (in such circumstances, the
third party is bound by similar data protection requirements). We will disclose your Personal
Data if we believe in good faith that we are required to disclose it in order to comply with any
applicable law, a summons, a search warrant, a court or regulatory order, or other statutory
requirement.
Security
Your Personal Data is held on secure servers, and any credit card information is transmitted to
our merchant vendor via secured communications. The nature of the Internet is such that we
cannot guarantee or warrant the security of any information you transmit to us via the Internet.
No data transmission over the Internet can be guaranteed to be 100% secure. However, we will
take all reasonable steps (including appropriate technical and organizational measures) to protect
your Personal Data.
Updating, Verifying and Deleting Personal Data
You may inform us of any changes in your Personal Data, and in accordance with our obligations
under the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2002 we will update or delete your Personal Data
accordingly.
Changes to the Website Privacy Policy
Any changes to this Website Privacy Policy will be posted on this website so you are always
aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we
disclose it. If at any time we decide to use Personal Data in a manner significantly different from
that stated in this Website Privacy Policy, or otherwise disclosed to you at the time it was
collected, we will notify you by email, and you will have a choice as to whether or not we use
your information in the new manner.
How To Contact Us
Should you have other questions or concerns about these privacy policies, please call us at 215656-4374.

Distinguished Neutrals
Harris T. Bock, Esq.
Judge Richard B. Klein (Ret.)

Judge A. Michael Snyder (Ret.)

Judge Sandra Mazer Moss (Ret.)
Michael L. Galbraith, Esquire
Louis W. Fryman, Esquire

Harris T. Bock, Esq.

Director / Distinguished Neutral

Director of Dispute Resolution Institute, Mr. Bock is a respected and recognized leader in the ADR
field. One of the handful of full time neutrals in the Philadelphia area, his practice for the last two
decades has been devoted exclusively to serving as arbitrator, mediator, factfinder or hearing officer. Mr.
Bocks areas of expertise include business, personal injury, professional malpractice, employment,
insurance, partnership, law firm and equitable distribution disputes.
Mr. Bock is routinely selected by agreement of counsel as well as State and Federal Judiciary to serve as
Arbitrator, Special Master or Mediator. He is currently Special Hearing Officer for the Commonwealth
Court of Pennsylvania. A frequent lecturer for continuing legal education programs, commercial trade
associations, insurance carriers and Trial Lawyer and Defense Counsel groups in all aspects of dispute
resolution, Mr. Bock has authored numerous articles in the ADR field. He was the founding Managing
Editor and was instrumental in initiating publication of The Philadelphia County Reporter in 1977 and
served in such capacity until 1990.
Director Bock serves as a consultant in ADR design and utilization. He created and implemented a
unique mediation program in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court and served as Chair of the
Philadelphia Bar Association ADR Committee for five years. Under his leadership, ADR awareness and
utilization in the Philadelphia area increased substantially. He has also served as special ADR Consultant
to governmental entities and Fortune 500 companies, and was recently appointed by the Mayor, President
of City Council, and the City Controller to serve as the Hearing Officer for the Philadelphia Water
Departments proposed $318 million rate increase for fiscal years 2009-2012.
Mr. Bock is currently Adjunct Professor of Alternative Dispute Resolution at Villanova Law School and
has assisted in the teaching of courses on dispute resolution at numerous accredited institutions. He
served on the ADR Section of the Pennsylvania Futures Commission and on other state and national ADR

related committees and organizations. Mr. Bock also served as an Arbitrator for The International
Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims.
Mr. Bock was born and raised in Philadelphia. After graduating from Central High School with Barnwell
Honors in 1966, he was inducted into The Beta Alpha Psi Honor Society at Temple University, where he
received his B.B.A. in 1970. A 1973 graduate of Villanova Law School, and winner of the U.S. Law
Week prize for academic excellence, he received his primary mediation training at Harvard Law School in
1990. Since that time he has received and participated in extensive ADR training from numerous
nationally respected training programs. Mr. Bock has also taught mediation with faculty
from Pepperdine University Law Schools renowned Straus Institute.
Mr. Bock is President of the Philadelphia Lawyers Club, a Board Member of Philadelphia Affiliate of
Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a Board Member of the American Heart Association, trustee of Boys Town
of Jerusalem, President of Vassar Square Condominiums, and former Chairman of the Radnor Township
Housing Appeal Board. He resides in theRittenhouse Square area of Philadelphia.

Judge Richard B. Klein (Ret.)

Distinguished Neutral

Uniquely qualified to serve as an arbitrator, fact finder, mediator, special master, or appellate consultant
with The Dispute Resolution Institute (DRI), the Honorable Richard B. Klein joined DRI in January 2010.
Prior to joining us, Judge Klein served, with distinction, for 36 years on the bench.
Most recently, Judge Klein served eight years on the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. In his role, he
decided appellate matters touching almost every aspect of life, law and commerce. He served as a trial
judge in the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia for twenty-eight years and was the youngest judge in
the states history. He served in all major civil and criminal trial courts and pioneered many new programs
designed to improve the civil justice system, especially in the mass tort arena.
Judge Klein distinguished himself with clear, to-the-point opinions, always urging the court to consider its
role in assuring that litigants were treated fairly and the substantive law was followed. When running for
the Superior Court, he won the endorsements of all the major Pennsylvania newspapers, received the
highest rating from the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and was the top vote getter in the election.
Judge Klein brings more than 25 years of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) experience to DRI. He
received certifications in mediation at the National Judicial College in Nevada and the American Bar
Association Mediation Training for Judges in Maryland. He is an active member of the Philadelphia and
Pennsylvania ADR committees and co-chair of the Pennsylvania Futures Commission where he co-

chaired its Alternate Paths to Justice task force. Judge Klein is a member of the Joint Legislative
Committee on ADR, where he has dealt with issues concerning mediation and arbitration.
In addition to his judicial responsibilities, Judge Klein has been active in many committees to improve the
justice system, including serving as founding co-chair of the Pennsylvania Bar Plain English Committee
and Pennsylvania House of Delegates. He has also provided service to various committees that deal with
appellate advocacy, appellate rules, ADR, and technology. A frequent author, educator and lecturer, Judge
Klein served 15 years as an adjunct professor at Temple University Law School. He is co-author of the
West Publication book, Trial Communication Skills, written with Body Language author Julius Fast and
international lawyer Roberto Aron.
Judge Klein is the 2013 winner of the Pennsylvania Bar Associations Sir Francis Bacon award, given to
an individual who excels in the area of alternative dispute resolution and has had a significant
professional impact in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the area of ADR.
A Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Amherst College, Judge Klein graduated with honors
from Harvard Law School. He is the educational leader for legal-study tours sponsored by the
Corporation for Professional Conferences and has led trips toRussia, China, Greece, Egypt,
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Vietnam, and South Africa.

Judge A. Michael Snyder (Ret.)

Distinguished Neutral

Judge Snyders creative approach to problem-solving makes him exceptionally qualified to serve as an
arbitrator, fact finder, mediator or special master with The Dispute Resolution Institute (DRI). Judge
Snyder joined DRI in January, 2012. Prior to joining us, Judge Snyder served for over 14 years as a
Workers Compensation Judge.
During his years on the bench, Judge Snyder was respected for his knowledge of the law, his clear writing
style, and his calm demeanor. He became a sought-after mediator, able to forge agreement in the most
complex of matters through a unique blend of mediation styles. He strives to create a feeling of comfort
for the litigants and counsel, recognizing that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) allows for true closure
of a dispute, addressing the non-economic needs and desires of the parties, as well as the financial aspects
of any resolution.
Adept in medical malpractice, product liability, and general negligence, as well as in Workers
Compensation matters, Judge Snyder has the ability to effectuate global resolutions of matters that cross

jurisdictional and subject matter lines. He has formal mediation training certification from the
International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions.
Judge Snyder has lectured extensively, and has repeatedly acted as course planner on subjects ranging
from the Medicare Secondary Payer Act to Understanding the Mediation Process. He has lectured for
PBI, the Pennsylvania Self-Insured Association, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association, the Delaware
Valley Insurance Trust, and The Philadelphia Bar Association, among others.
In addition to his professional responsibilities, Judge Snyder has twice served as Co-Chair of the Workers
Compensation Section of the Philadelphia Bar Association, has served on the Bench-Bar Planning
Committee, currently serves as the Workers Compensation Sections representative member of the Board
of Governors of the Philadelphia Bar Association, has served as the Chair and Co-Chair of the
Philadelphia Bar Association Bar Academy, serves on the Grants Committee of the Philadelphia Bar
Foundation, and is an active member in the Temple American Inn of Court, and the Judge Alexander F.
Barbieri Workers Compensation Inn of Court, which he founded, and which he currently serves as
President. Judge Snyder also is Vice-Chancellor of the Louis D. Brandeis Law Society and Assistant
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Bar Association.
A graduate of Muhlenberg College and Temple University School of Law, Judge Snyder has been an
active member of the Philadelphia legal community for over 37 years.

Judge Sandra Mazer Moss (Ret.)

Distinguished Neutral

In joining the Dispute Resolution Institute in January 2014, Judge Moss brings to the private
sector the special and unique skills she finely honed over the last three decades. Her consummate
experience in supervising, presiding over, and resolving the entire gamut of civil litigation is unparalleled.
The judges creative, hands-on, and practical approach makes her exceptionally qualified to serve as an
arbitrator, mediator, private judge, or special master.
As a stalwart of the First Judicial District Civil Trial Division, Judge Moss has served as Trial Judge,
Judicial Team Leader, and most notably, was the founder and first Supervising Judge of the Complex
Litigation Center. It was at the Center that Her Honor developed groundbreaking special programs for
asbestos and mass tort cases. Many of the protocols that she created have been adopted throughout the
nation, and were the basis of her appointment as Chair of the State Judges Mass Tort Litigation
Committee, where she served under the auspices of The Conference of Chief Justices.

Judge Moss has been known for years by the trial bar as the judge who was able to settle the cases that the
lawyers said would never settle. Her Honors excellent listening skills and analytical out-of-the-box
approach enabled her to forge a consensus where amicable resolution was not on counsels radar screen.
The judges willingness to stay with a case and work it, even when the parties are at an impasse, bodes
extremely well for her success as an ADR professional.
It is no surprise that Judge Moss weighty accomplishments have been recognized by local and national
organizations. The Philadelphia Bar presented her with The William J. Brennan Distinguished Jurist
Award, which is the highest award given to a jurist in recognition of Judicial Excellence. Her
willingness to train other judges was recognized by the National Judicial College by awarding Judge
Moss their highly coveted Service Award, and her expertise in case resolution resulted in Judge Moss
testifying before The Unites States Senate Judiciary Committee.
A graduate of the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, Judge Moss has been awarded their
Certificate of Honor, was given by the alumni associations inaugural Womens Champion Award,
and has been a President of their Inn of Court. In addition to serving as an Adjunct Professor of Law at
Temple, she has also taught at Widener Law School and Drexel University, and participated in literally
hundreds of continuing legal and judicial education programs.

Michael L. Galbraith, Esquire

Deputy Director / Distinguished Neutral

Michael is the Deputy Director of the Dispute Resolution Institute, and has been part of the team since
2004.
In addition to being a general practitioner at Bock and Finkelman, P.C., Michael serves an integral role in
the management of many arbitration and mediation matters, as well as special master courtappointments. Michael also serves as an arbitrator for the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
Arbitration Center.
During his tenure with The Dispute Resolution Institute, Michael has worked on the production of dozens
of CLE events with Harris Bock.
Michael is admitted to the following courts:
Pennsylvania Supreme Court (2003)
New Jersey Supreme Court (2003)
United States District Court New Jersey

United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit

SYNOPSIS OF AN ISSUE