Attorney/Former Judge

Managing Partner, Dallas Office of Thompson Horton LLP, 2016 – Present; Shareholder, Vincent Lopez Serafino & Jenevein P.C., 2008 – 2015; Partner, Carlos Lopez P.C., 2004 – 2008; Special Counsel, Baron & Budd PC, 2003 – 2004; Presiding Judge, 116th District Court, 2000 – 2003; Presiding Judge, Dallas County Court at Law No. 2, 1996 – 2000; Attorney, Dean & Associates PC, 1994 – 1996; Assistant District Attorney, Dallas County District Attorney's Office, 1992 – 1994; Assistant District Attorney, Harris County District Attorney's Office, 1991 – 1992.

Through twenty-four years' experience as a private lawyer and seven years' experience as a judge, has resolved hundreds of disputes covering many different subject matters. Fairly and impartially applies demonstrated expertise in resolution of employment, construction, insurance, commercial litigation, consumer and personal injury disputes.

Mediated several hundred civil disputes. Hundreds of them involved personal injury or death cases such as trucking and auto accidents or cases against vehicle manufacturers for design issues. Over a hundred involved business transactions of every type, including dozens of cases involving dissolution of partnerships or organizations (business divorce) as well as employment/wrongful termination/discrimination claims. Over 10 cases involved professional malpractice (either accounting or legal). Over 15 cases involved investment disputes (often real estate investments) between shareholders/partners. More than 10 cases involved construction disputes between the owner, contractor and sub-contractors. Over 10 cases involved a company suing a former employee for breach of non-compete. Many of these matters involved injunctive relief as well. A handful of cases involved disputes between a supplier or manufacturer and a buyer or lease disputes between a landlord and a commercial tenant. Of all the matters, several have involved over $25 million, and dozens have involved more than $1 million dollars.

Issues have included: partnership or corporate dissolution matters involving fraud, self-dealing, corporate waste, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence; professional malpractice involving professional negligence or breach of fiduciary duty; investment disputes involving breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, disputes about valuation of properties (pro formas, etc.); construction disputes involving design error/negligence, breach of contract/failure to perform, and consequential or delay damages; injury or death cases involving negligence and products liability/design issues; landlord-tenant disputes involving breach of lease contract, and occasionally involving fraudulent inducement issues as well; company-former employee disputes involving temporary injunctions/restraining orders, non-compete agreements, geographical and time limits as well as use or misuse of confidential information; and many of the business cases have also involved tortious interference with existing or prospective contractual or business relations and unfair competition claims.

As a former Judge and mediator, I am a great believer in the Mediation process. There are several factors that help determine whether a dispute is successfully resolved. From the outset, the mediator has to create an environment in which the parties feel completely protected, so that they can deal sincerely with the mediator. The mediator is most effective when the parties trust and confide in the mediator and feel that they can be open with the mediator. Further, it is the mediator's job to realize when the parties are not getting to the heart of the disagreement or "tap dancing" around the real issues. The dispute is much more likely to be resolved fully if the root issues have been determined, discussed and dealt with in some manner. It is a fine line, but an important one. The mediator also needs to be versatile enough to adapt their "style" or "philosophy" to the needs of the particular dispute. This generally is dictated by the underlying nature of the disagreement, as well as the relationship between the disputing parties. I try not to let rules get in the way of common sense. And last but certainly not least, the mediator has to have the confidence of the parties that he/she is absolutely impartial. It is not enough just to be impartial: the parties must believe it as well. Mediation is a process that transcends and is not necessarily tied to the type of dispute at issue. The human dynamics and pressure points, etc. have more to do with human factors than with knowledge of the substance of the dispute. Example: If I had to choose, I would prefer a good, experienced mediator who is not an Intellectual Property expert, over an experienced Intellectual Property lawyer who has never mediated. Finally, the trick to resolving a lingering dispute that has not been resolved yet is to focus like a laser and determine the real reasons why the matter still hasn't resolved. It seems obvious, but many mediators seem to miss that crucial point.

Southern Methodist University (JD-1991; BA, Economics-1988).

Admitted to the Bar: Texas (1991); U.S. District Court: Northern District of Texas; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Institute for Transnational Arbitration (Board of Trustees); State Bar of Texas (ADR Section); Dallas Bar Association (ADR Section).

Frequent speaker at American Arbitration Association Seminars on mediator ethics (San Diego, Austin, Dallas). "Legal Update: Argentina," NAFTA: LAW AND BUSINESS REVIEW OF THE AMERICAS, recurring feature appeared between 1994 and 1996; co-author, "Exporting to Mexico Under NAFTA," Ernst & Young North American Trade Seminar, 1994; contributor, "Proper Use of Expert Witnesses," State Bar Civil Litigation Program, 2003.

Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex

$525 Per Hour

English, Spanish

United States of America

Dallas, TX