Here's the situation Miss Smith is a homeowner who hired mr. Espinoza a contractor to paint her house she claims mr. Espinoza's workers caused damage to a wall in her house and did a poor job of painting she paid him half of his fee in advance he wants to be paid the rest of his fee Miss Smith is representing herself and mr. Espinoza is represented by his lawyer mr. Kim will attempt to resolve their dispute using the four most common ADR techniques mediation settlement conference neutral evaluation and arbitration in a settlement conference the parties present their positions to a neutral settlement officer who is either a judge or experienced attorney the settlement officer then suggests ways to settle the dispute which may include a recommended settlement amount he or she may give an informed opinion about how the case might be decided at trial the process is confidential okay I've read your brief heard both sides considered the evidence and it looks to me like mr. Espinosa has enough evidence to show that the damage was caused by dry rot and not by his workers but he should have stopped work and notified Miss Smith of the damage in general I think there's weaknesses in both cases I doubt that any of you are going to get what you're asking for especially if this goes to trial and you know you're going to be spending a lot of money okay I understand yeah I get it so I suggest Miss Smith that you retract her damage claim due to the dry rot and mr. Espinoza I think since you should have stopped work you not charged miss me for the work that you did I seriously doubt but you're going to get what you're asking for I think this is a fair offer and that you should take it fine okay
