Print to PDF

Lee M. Mendelson, Esq.

Case Manager: Haward Cho

Fee Schedule

Profile

For over 27 years, Lee Mendelson, Esq. has been at the forefront of civil litigation, advocating for clients in high-stakes disputes across a broad spectrum of legal matters. His expertise spans insurance coverage, personal injury, subrogation, workers’ compensation, product liability, debtor/creditor disputes, and real estate conflicts. Throughout his distinguished career as a litigator, Mr. Mendelson consistently found himself drawn to the moments when resolution was achieved outside the courtroom—not through contentious trials, but through the art of negotiation.

Today, Mr. Mendelson is a full-time mediator, leveraging his extensive litigation background to help parties resolve disputes with efficiency, fairness, and pragmatism. His passion for negotiation and conflict resolution emerged early in his legal career, where he quickly developed a reputation for his ability to de-escalate tensions and foster constructive dialogue. Whether representing insurers in high-value claims or navigating complex multi-party disputes, he demonstrated a keen ability to shift the focus from entrenched positions to meaningful resolutions. His ability to “lower the temperature” in contentious matters and guide parties toward mutually beneficial outcomes has become a hallmark of his practice.

In 2006, Mr. Mendelson took a pivotal step in his career by founding the Mendelson Law Group. What began as a solo practice soon expanded into a thriving firm with a team of more than 20 attorneys and legal professionals. Under his leadership, the firm became a trusted resource for insurance-related litigation, managing a high volume of cases with a steadfast commitment to quality and results. As lead counsel, he handled complex, multi-party lawsuits, frequently negotiating resolutions that saved clients significant time and expense. Even as he excelled in the adversarial world of litigation, his passion for dispute resolution never wavered. He remained guided by the principle that the best outcomes are not always dictated by a courtroom verdict, but by solutions that allow all parties to move forward with confidence.

Transitioning from advocate to neutral, Mr. Mendelson now applies his skills as a strategist, problem-solver, and consensus builder in mediation. His approach is pragmatic and results-driven, grounded in the belief that the real “client” in mediation is the settlement itself. He meticulously prepares for each case, thoroughly reviewing briefs and conducting pre-mediation calls to identify potential roadblocks before they arise. During mediation, he fosters a solutions-oriented atmosphere, employing a range of techniques—including informal mediator proposals, bracketed negotiations, and interest-based bargaining—to drive meaningful discussions. His commitment to resolution extends beyond the mediation session; if an agreement is not reached immediately, he continues working behind the scenes, persistently engaging with parties to bridge gaps and finalize settlements.

Mr. Mendelson is widely respected for his intelligence, professionalism, and unwavering dedication to the mediation process. His style is neither aggressive nor passive, striking a balance that encourages open dialogue while keeping parties grounded in practical realities. He understands that creating a relaxed and collaborative environment is essential for productive negotiations. By fostering an atmosphere of trust, he helps parties consider new perspectives and reach settlements that are not only legally sound but also sustainable.

Guided by the philosophy that persistence is often the key to resolution, Mr. Mendelson believes that the difference between impasse and settlement is frequently just one more conversation, one additional effort toward compromise. As a mediator, his mission remains clear: to help people navigate conflict, identify common ground, and achieve resolutions that work—not just in theory, but in real life.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

  • Commercial Contract / General Business
  • Employment
  • Fee Disputes
  • Governmental Entities
  • Insurance Coverage / Bad Faith
  • Personal Injury
  • Products Liability
  • UIM / UM

EDUCATION & TRAINING

  • Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation – Mediation and Conflict Management
  • Pepperdine Law School Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution – Mediating the Litigated Case
  • Juris Doctor, Northwestern University School of Law (1997)
  • Bachelor of Arts, Emory University (1994)

MEDIATION & LEGAL EXPERIENCE

Mediator (2024 – Present)

  • Mediates complex disputes in insurance coverage, subrogation, personal injury, property damage, products liability, workers’ compensation, real estate disputes, and debtor/creditor matters.
  • Employs strategic mediation techniques, including informal mediator proposals and bracketed negotiation methods, to help parties overcome impasses.
  • Provides a structured yet adaptable approach to dispute resolution, emphasizing creative and practical solutions.
  • Offers pre-mediation preparation through advance brief reviews and direct communication with parties to facilitate effective negotiations.
  • Committed to post-mediation follow-up to secure lasting settlements.

Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, Adjunct Professor (Spring 2025)

  • Teaching Negotiation Theory and Practice at the renowned Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution.

Mendelson Law Group, APC, Managing Attorney (2006 – 2023)

  • Founded and led a thriving law firm, growing it from a solo practice to a staff of over 20 attorneys and legal professionals.
  • Served as lead counsel on high-value, multi-party personal injury, subrogation, and property damage cases involving complex insurance coverage issues.
  • Negotiated settlements with insurers, opposing counsel, and mediators, leveraging extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution.
  • Supervised litigation teams, overseeing court appearances, legal filings, and strategic case management.

Prior Law Firm Experience (1997 – 2006)

  • Hemar, Rousso & Heald, Associate Attorney: Led cases in equipment leasing, financing, and banking litigation.
  • Macey, Wilensky, Cohen, Whittner & Kessler, Associate Attorney: Represented clients in litigation and mediations across Georgia, resolving cases through negotiation and ADR.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

  • Workers’ Compensation Subrogation in California – Combined Claims Conference
  • Playing the Percentages: Comparative Negligence in Auto Collisions – National Association of Subrogation Professionals
  • General Principles of Workers’ Compensation Subrogation – Commercial Law World Magazine
  • Legal Ethics in Subrogation Negotiation – National Association of Subrogation Professionals
  • Subrogation for the Collection Professional – National Creditors Bar Association

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

  • National Association of Subrogation Professionals
  • Commercial Law League of America
  • California Lawyers Association – Health and Wellness Committee
  • Beverly Hills Bar Association
  • San Fernando Valley Bar Association
  • Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA)
  • Association of Southern California Defense Counsel (ASCDC)
  • Southern California Mediation Association
  • State Bars: California, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia

Representative Cases

BUSINESS / COMMERCIAL CONTRACT

  • Insurance carrier sued large freight company for breach of contract and fraud claiming that the freight company intentionally failed to include hired trucks in the vehicle listing of the policy application in order to obtain a lower premium.
  • Plaintiff claimed that Defendant committed fraud in factoring dispute. Plaintiff sued two individuals claiming that they were personal guarantors. The individuals disputed personal liability claiming that the guarantees were only for validity and not for payment.

EMPLOYMENT

  • Wrongful termination action wherein Plaintiff claimed that he was terminated in retaliation due to the numerous complaints about unlawful actions of the Defendant company.
  • Wage and hour claim filed where the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff was actually a sole proprietor and not an employee of the Defendant’s business.
  • Disgorgement claim filed by building contractor against a subcontractor stating that the subcontractor’s failure to carry workers’ compensation coverage automatically suspended his license.

FEE DISPUTE

  • Owner of a restaurant refused to pay the full amount of his workers’ compensation premium stating that most of the employees worked in the ice cream parlor section of the business but had been misclassified by the insurance carrier as working in kitchen resulting in a higher balance due.
  • An expert witness sued the law firm that hired him for failure to pay. The law firm filed a cross-claim stating that the expert did not provide the services contracted for resulting in issue with the underlying litigation.
  • Plaintiff claimed that shipping company detained containers in violation of Uniform Interchange and Facilities Agreement to which both parties were signatories.

GOVERNMENT ENTITIES

  • Vehicle owner sued a municipality under the Tort Claims Act and Inverse Condemnation when a tree branch fell onto his vehicle when it was parked in a lot on city property.
  • Plaintiff involved in car accident sued a municipality for negligent design of a roadway.
  • Auto accident involving city bus.
  • Complaint against municipality alleging faulty workmanship resulting in an electrical surge into the Plaintiff’s home.

INSURANCE COVERAGE / SUBROGATION

  • Farm worker injured when her hair was caught in a conveyor belt while sorting olives. The worker had not been properly trained to be a sorter and her primary job was picking fruit elsewhere on the farm. The worker was employed by a farm labor company that had been hired by the owner of the farm. The farm’s insurance carrier denied coverage under the “special employee” doctrine.
  • Multi-vehicle car accident with undisputed liability. The insurance carrier for the at-fault party denied coverage stating that the driver was the son of the policy holder but did not live full-time in the same household.
  • Insurance carrier sued their insured for reimbursement of funds paid to third parties for property damage for a loss caused by a vehicle being driven by the named policyholder’s son. The carrier stated that the insured had committed fraud by failing to list the son as a driver on the policy. The insured filed a cross-claim against the carrier for failure to cover certain property damage to her vehicle.
  • Insurance carrier sued large freight company for breach of contract and fraud claiming that the freight company intentionally failed to include hired trucks in the vehicle listing of the policy application in order to obtain a lower premium.
  • Defendant ran a red light causing serious personal injury to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff was driving within the scope of employment at the time of the loss. As a result, the workers’ compensation carrier for the Plaintiff’s employer paid for a substantial amount of the medicals and lost wages. Plaintiff sued the Defendant for available damages and workers' compensation carrier intervened in the case for reimbursement.
  • Plaintiff insurance carrier paid over $75,000 because their insured’s parked luxury vehicle had been totaled as the result of the defendant’s admitted negligence. The defendant only carried the state required minimum amount of insurance.
  • Plaintiff was within the scope of employment as a mover when he fell due to what he claimed to be an unreasonably dangerous condition on the Defendant’s premises. The workers’ compensation carrier for the Plaintiff’s employer intervened in the case for reimbursement of medicals and wage replacement paid to the injured worker.
  • Plaintiff was injured by Defendant in parking lot while waiting for employer’s bus to pick her up for work. Workers' Compensation carrier denied coverage stating that the Plaintiff was not within the scope of employment at the time of the loss.
  • Refrigerator malfunction caused substantial damage to the insured’s home. The manufacturer filed cross claim against the installer.
  • Sink’s water filter malfunctioned causing extensive property damage to the home of the Plaintiff’s insured.
  • Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff’s insured causing substantial property damage and personal injury. Defendant had a lapse in insurance coverage. Plaintiff paid their insured for personal injury through the uninsured motorist bodily injury clause of the policy and filed a subrogation claim against the Defendant.
  • Defendant driver ran a red light causing serious bodily injury to Plaintiff. Liability for the loss was not disputed by the Defendant driver, but he claimed that his personal auto insurance should not pay since he was within the scope of employment delivering newspapers on his regular route at the time of the accident. The newspaper’s carrier also denied coverage claiming that all delivery people are independent contractors.

view all

PERSONAL INJURY

  • Plaintiff sued auto manufacturer when his vehicle caused a multi-party collision as the result of a malfunction of the car’s auto pilot feature.
  • Defendant ran a red light causing serious personal injury to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff was driving within the scope of employment at the time of the loss. As a result, the workers’ compensation carrier for the Plaintiff’s employer paid for a substantial amount of the medicals and lost wages. Plaintiff sued the Defendant for available damages and workers' compensation carrier intervened in the case for reimbursement.
  • Plaintiff was within the scope of employment as a mover when he fell due to what he claimed to be an unreasonably dangerous condition on the Defendant’s premises. The workers’ compensation carrier for the Plaintiff’s employer intervened in the case for reimbursement of medicals and wage replacement paid to the injured worker.
  • Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff’s insured causing substantial property damage and personal injury. Defendant had a lapse in insurance coverage. Plaintiff paid their insured for personal injury through the uninsured motorist bodily injury clause of the policy and filed a subrogation claim against the Defendant.
  • Defendant driver ran a red light causing serious bodily injury to Plaintiff. Liability for the loss was not disputed by the Defendant driver, but he claimed that his personal auto insurance should not pay since he was within the scope of employment delivering newspapers on his regular route at the time of the accident. The newspaper’s carrier also denied coverage claiming that all delivery people are independent contractors.

    PRODUCT LIABILITY

    • Plaintiff sued auto manufacturer when his vehicle caused a multi-party collision as the result of a malfunction of the car’s auto pilot feature.
    • Water heater malfunction caused substantial damage to the home of Plaintiff’s insured.
    • Refrigerator malfunction caused substantial damage to the insured’s home. The manufacturer filed cross claim against the installer.
    • Sink’s water filter malfunctioned causing extensive property damage to the home of the Plaintiff’s insured.

    REAL ESTATE / PROPERTY DAMAGE

    • Owner of a rental home sued the property manager for negligence due to water damage. The renter claimed that he had complained several times to the property manager regarding pipe issues prior to the flooding.
    • Plaintiff insurance carrier paid over $75,000 because their insured’s parked luxury vehicle had been totaled as the result of the defendant’s admitted negligence. The defendant only carried the state required minimum amount of insurance.
    • Defendant failed to properly gate his farm. A cow wandered off of the farm onto the roadway causing a collision.
    • Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff’s insured causing substantial property damage and personal injury. Defendant had a lapse in insurance coverage. Plaintiff paid their insured for personal injury through the uninsured motorist bodily injury clause of the policy and filed a subrogation claim against the Defendant.

    UM / UIM

    • Insurance carrier sued their insured for reimbursement of funds paid to third parties for property damage for a loss caused by a vehicle being driven by the named policyholder’s son. The carrier stated that the insured had committed fraud by failing to list the son as a driver on the policy. The insured filed a cross-claim against the carrier for failure to cover certain property damage to her vehicle.
    • Plaintiff insurance carrier paid over $75,000 because their insured’s parked luxury vehicle had been totaled as the result of the defendant’s admitted negligence. The defendant only carried the state required minimum amount of insurance.
    • Defendant rear-ended Plaintiff’s insured causing substantial property damage and personal injury. Defendant had a lapse in insurance coverage. Plaintiff paid their insured for personal injury through the uninsured motorist bodily injury clause of the policy and filed a subrogation claim against the Defendant.

    WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

    • Farm worker injured when her hair was caught in a conveyor belt while sorting olives. The worker had not been properly trained to be a sorter and her primary job was picking fruit elsewhere on the farm. The worker was employed by a farm labor company that had been hired by the owner of the farm. The farm’s insurance carrier denied coverage under the “special employee” doctrine.
    • Owner of a restaurant refused to pay the full amount of his workers’ compensation premium stating that most of the employees worked in the ice cream parlor section of the business but had been misclassified by the insurance carrier as working in kitchen resulting in a higher balance due.
    • Defendant ran a red light causing serious personal injury to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff was driving within the scope of employment at the time of the loss. As a result, the workers’ compensation carrier for the Plaintiff’s employer paid for a substantial amount of the medicals and lost wages. Plaintiff sued the Defendant for available damages and workers' compensation carrier intervened in the case for reimbursement.
    • Plaintiff was within the scope of employment as a mover when he fell due what he claimed to be an unreasonably dangerous condition on the Defendant’s premises. The workers’ compensation carrier for the Plaintiff’s employer intervened in the case for reimbursement of medicals and wage replacement paid to the injured worker.
    • Plaintiff was injured by Defendant in parking lot while waiting for employer’s bus to pick her up for work. Workers' Compensation carrier denied coverage stating that the Plaintiff was not within the scope of employment at the time of the loss.

      Testimonials

      “Lee Mendelson lets your clients be heard. This helps him analyze a case from every angle, and enables him to get settlements that satisfy the parties. He is one of the very best people, and that makes him one of the very best mediators.”

      “I previously used Mr. Mendelson for a contentious real estate escrow dispute. The parties were very far apart when the mediation commenced, but within a few short hours, Mr. Mendelson was able to settle the case. He was professional, easy to work with and an extremely effective negotiating the terms of the agreement. I already have another mediation scheduled with him and will continue to use his services.”

      “I recently mediated a case with Lee Mendelson in an injury claim in a residential setting. Lee was attentive to both parties and the nuances of the claims. He carefully considered each side’s position and used his own litigation and trial experience to facilitate productive discussions. Would use him again!”

      “I have consulted with Lee on many occasions regarding subrogation matters involving workers’ compensation liens.  He is truly an expert in this field.”

      “I am very happy that I hired Lee to mediate a wage and hour dispute that was close to coming to trial.  He worked diligently to the last minute to facilitate a resolution that worked for everyone involved.”

       

      Fee Schedule