Kevin began his career outside of finance, founding and operating a record label before formally moving into financial roles. Through that experience, he developed an operator’s perspective on finance, learning to manage cash flow, make trade-offs, and navigate uncertainty in real time. He later brought that mindset into leadership roles, including serving as CFO of Reverb, a global online marketplace for musical instruments.

In the conversation, Kevin explains how that background influences his view of the CFO role today. He emphasizes that finance leaders must stay closely connected to the business, including its customers and products, and play an active role in decision-making and growth strategy. He also discusses the importance of taking calculated risks, building judgment through experience, and stepping into unfamiliar roles to accelerate learning.

 His perspective reflects a broader theme at New Era, where the leadership team brings together experience across legal, financial, and operational disciplines. This diversity of backgrounds informs the company’s approach to designing dispute resolution systems that align with how businesses actually operate, enabling more efficient and practical outcomes for a wide range of clients.

Catch the full episode here or on your favorite podcast platform. 

Drawing on his experience as a former patent attorney and two-time General Counsel, Rich explains how many common business disputes, including unpaid invoices, employment claims, and contract disagreements, fall into a gap where litigation is technically available but economically impractical. As a result, companies often choose not to pursue valid claims, leading to lost revenue and unresolved risk.

The conversation highlights how New Era was designed to address this challenge through a digital-first arbitration model that resolves disputes in approximately 100 days on a flat-fee basis. Rich also discusses how traditional discovery practices contribute to unnecessary costs and delays, and how streamlined procedures, supported by technology and AI, can improve both efficiency and the user experience.

The episode underscores a broader shift in how companies approach dispute resolution, moving from a purely legal function to a strategic tool for managing financial and operational risk.

Check out the episode here or on your favorite podcast platform.

“We’re excited to bring the tools and approaches we’ve seen work for some of the most consequential organizations in the U.S., including Fortune 500 companies, multinational organizations, and consumers, to a new generation of leaders and innovators,” said Shane Mulrooney, Co-Founder and General Counsel at New Era. “Our collaboration with 9to5 Docs and Dyspute.ai reflects a shared belief that disputes don’t have to be defined by acrimony, gamesmanship, or outdated processes. By making efficient, fair, and tech-enabled dispute resolution more accessible, we’re helping startups and emerging companies resolve conflict in ways that protect relationships and support long-term growth.”

At its core, this collaboration is about rethinking how disputes are handled. particularly for organizations that value speed, clarity, and collaboration. By working together, the three innovative companies seek to:

• Expand access to modern, tech-enabled dispute resolution tools

• Reduce friction, cost, and delay associated with traditional processes

• Help companies address conflict in ways that support long-term relationships and business continuity

 As innovation accelerates and business relationships become more complex, the need for dispute resolution models that are efficient, fair, and forward-looking has never been greater.

9to5 Docs provides document automation and legal workflow solutions designed to help growing companies operate more efficiently without unnecessary legal complexity. By streamlining document creation and management, 9to5 Docs empowers founders, operators, and in-house teams to move quickly, reduce risk, and focus on building their businesses.

Dyspute.ai is an AI mediation platform built to help companies address conflict early, transparently, and affordably. Through AI-driven workflows and a reimagined mediation process, Dyspute enables organizations to manage and resolve disputes in ways that prioritize efficiency, fairness, and long-term relationships over adversarial processes.

New Era looks forward to collaborating closely with 9to5 Docs and Dyspute.ai as the partnership develops and new tools, resources, and educational opportunities are introduced.

“Multiple factors and events helped influence the enactment of this landmark statute during the 1920s, such as the First World War, the progressive movement, and a broader movement for procedural reform,” the authors write. “The history of the FAA’s enactment is rich, with serendipitous acts and several cultural, social, political, and economic factors playing a role in the statute’s development, along with reformers and supporters who promoted commercial arbitration evangelistically with deep passions and sincere, good-faith beliefs in the fairness of arbitration.”

Collin points out, “In many ways, the original vision of arbitration has changed significantly over the past 100 years. At New Era ADR, we want to revisit the original purposes of the FAA, using technology to facilitate a faster, more efficient process for everyone.”

Read the article here.

“At its core, virtual mediation delivers on the original promise of ADR: faster, fairer, and more cost-effective outcomes that benefit everyone involved,” Shane writes in his article.

Shane notes that while traditional mediation has had its share of pain points, the shift to digital platforms is restoring the efficiency that mediation was always meant to provide.  

You can read Shane’s article in the ACC Docket here.

Rich’s article outlines why modern hospitality brands are rethinking their approach to conflict. Instead of reacting when issues arise, the best operators proactively embed dispute management into their guest experience, employee relations, and vendor partnerships.

“Every dispute is an opportunity to prove what your brand stands for,” Rich writes. “By embracing modern, tech-enabled dispute resolution tools, hospitality leaders can protect what matters most: their reputation, their relationships, and the experience they promise to deliver every day.”

Read Rich’s article in Hotel Executive here.

“That’s the hallmark of a modern finance leader: someone who transforms uncertainty into action by building frameworks that enable thoughtful tradeoffs and strategic outcomes,” Kevin wrote for the publication. “Whether the challenge is marketing efficiency, supply chain resilience, or product expansion, top-performing CFOs don’t wait for decisions to arrive at their desks. They go out and shape those decisions with data, rigor, and a strategic lens.”

Read practical tips from Kevin in CFO Intelligence Magazine about how CFOs can turn their information into actionable insights that drive the business forward.

“It's an industry that's traditionally been low tech,” Rich explained in an interview, noting that both arbitrators and counsel have historically been “risk averse” in adopting new tools.

But that’s changing, and Rich emphasizes that technology’s success in dispute resolution depends less on what’s possible and more on what’s practical. “The real question,” he told LegaltechNews reporter Benjamin Joyner, “is who’s going to use it – and what are the things people need to do to use it?”

For now, most providers are focusing on AI that assists, rather than replaces, human judgment. As Rich and others in the industry see it, the goal isn’t to eliminate arbitrators; it’s to empower them with tools that make fair, fast, and consistent decisions possible at scale.

Subscribers to Law.com can read the full article in Legaltech News here.

“Marketplace businesses operate at the intersection of multiple dynamic relationships,” the authors write. “There are partnerships between buyers and sellers, vendors and platforms, and even among competitors sharing the same digital or physical space. Each of these relationships is critical to the success of the marketplace, requiring careful management to ensure trust, fairness, and long-term growth.”

How businesses navigate challenges can make all the difference in customer satisfaction.

Read the column in Retail TouchPoints here.

“New Era, in a nutshell, is 100 days in arbitration, so legally enforceable arbitration, all for one flat fee, all on our platform,” Rich explains. The platform’s fully virtual process and subject-matter-specific arbitrators deliver outcomes that are not only faster but also fair and enforceable, often in a fraction of the time it takes through traditional courts.

MCA companies are increasingly turning to New Era to avoid court backlogs and recover awards efficiently, with some uncontested disputes resolved in as little as 30 days. New Era’s roster of more than 100 arbitrators includes both retired judges and active practitioners with deep experience in finance and MCA-specific law.

As Rich notes, “Ninety-nine percent of litigation doesn’t need two or three years to resolve. Our system was built for that 99% – cases that deserve fair, fast outcomes without the drag of traditional litigation.”

Read the full article in deBanked here.

Drawing on his experience as a general counsel and transactional attorney drafting contracts for complex M&A transactions, Shane makes the case for developing a strategic dispute-resolution playbook that aligns processes with risk and streamlines outcomes. Instead of a one-size-fits-all clause, he argues that approaches to contract drafting should account for the nature of the relationship, the size and complexity of each deal, and the stakes involved if a dispute arises.

“A well-constructed playbook minimizes wasted resources on routine disputes, preserves firepower for strategic matters, and transforms the legal department from a reactive to a proactive function,” Shane writes.

The article walks in-house attorneys through five essential considerations for rethinking dispute-resolution provisions: assessing risk, selecting the right forum, deciding how much to customize procedural rules, choosing the governing law, and addressing key details such as fee allocation and arbitrability.

Ultimately, Shane’s framework empowers legal teams to handle disputes more efficiently, protect high-stakes matters, and avoid the “disputes about the dispute” that can derail even the best-intentioned contracts.

Subscribers to Bloomberg Law can read the full article here. 

John shares his advice for younger litigators who want to be viewed by clients as trusted business advisors: “Two things. First, get out of the office and see the subject matter of your cases. In real estate litigation, that means walking the property, whether it’s a building, an easement, or a parcel of land. You can’t fully understand it until you’ve seen it yourself. Second, be curious about your client’s business. Visit their plant, tour their facility, learn how they operate. Business owners are proud to show you around, and it demonstrates that you care about more than the problem at hand. That curiosity builds trust, strengthens relationships, and often leads to new legal work. You may feel too busy, but time spent with clients at their business is really an investment in your career.”

 Those same clients want predictability in costs, outcomes, and strategies, but litigation is uncertain. “It’s difficult to forecast total costs or outcomes at the start. The best thing you can do is communicate regularly and in detail. Give the client the case in bite-sized chunks. The worst thing is to surprise them.”

 In the Q&A, John shares with Rich his perspective after serving as managing partner of Ice Miller and his philosophy on preparing younger attorneys to be great litigators. Looking back at his career, a through line has been his commitment to clients: “Educating the client on the role of a litigator. I tell clients upfront that I wear two hats: counselor and advocate. Many clients are influenced by the TV version of lawyers—dramatic trials, clever closings, and happy endings. They rarely see the counselor role. By making that clear upfront, I reduce surprises later and help them understand that being a trusted adviser sometimes means recommending settlement, not just charging into court.”

 Subscribers to Law.com can read the full Q&A here.

In his case, Flores alleges minority coaches are often interviewed to “check a box” rather than seriously considered, and that retaliation can follow those who speak out. Collin outlines the allegations and notes, “By filing as a putative class action, Flores positioned the case as a challenge to systemic discrimination in NFL hiring.”

As Collin points out, “This case underscores a broader trend: Courts are increasingly skeptical of arbitration clauses that tilt too heavily toward the drafter… Arbitration was meant as a faster, cheaper alternative to litigation. But many employers have weaponized it as a shield against liability.”

The case is far from over, but the lesson is clear: “If you want arbitration to work, it must be fair. For everyone else, the case is a reminder that courts are increasingly unwilling to rubber-stamp arbitration clauses that abandon due process.”

Read Collin’s article in Sports Business Journal here.

“In today’s environment, every executive is expected to do more than manage their department—they must drive strategic growth, optimize costs and proactively manage risk,” the authors write. “For general counsels and chief financial officers, these expectations are especially interconnected… Yet too often, the GC-CFO relationship is viewed through a narrow, transactional lens: finance approves legal’s budget; legal ensures compliance with financial disclosures… That’s a missed opportunity.”

When GCs and CFOs understand each other’s worlds – the business’s financial model and the legal team’s priorities – they make better decisions. Shared insight into revenue drivers, cost structures, risk posture, and outside-counsel management leads to more precise forecasting, stronger strategy, and more aligned, business-focused outcomes.

Rich and Kevin suggest that one of the easiest ways to foster stronger collaboration is to schedule recurring meetings between the GC and CFO, ideally once a quarter or more often as needed. In the article, the authors share a sample agenda.

“The relationship between the GC and CFO is no longer a back-office alliance – it’s a front-line strategic partnership,” they say.

Subscribers to Law.com can read Rich and Kevin’s column here.

Shane and Michelle write, “Generally, the biggest hurdle with any new departmental endeavor is figuring out where to begin. The good news is that, for legal departments at generally well-functioning businesses, half of the work should already be done. Legal department KPIs should be inextricably tied to the top-line overall business goals, and you should be able to draw a straight line from any particular departmental KPI directly to a strategic goal of the business.”

When it comes to getting started, Shane and Michelle suggest examining the business's goals for the next quarter, year, five years, and so on, and then identifying the levers the legal department can pull to contribute to those goals. “Then, determine how to measure the impact of these levers, including not only their contribution to moving the needle, but also any internal metrics that can drive legal department improvement.”

Shane and Michelle offer readers a few examples of common approaches to measuring and reporting so that legal departments can develop a thoughtful framework.

Subscribers to Law360 can read their article here.

Collin provides a brief history of arbitration, which dates back to ancient civilizations, the watershed moment of the FAA’s creation, and how traditional arbitration has drifted too close to the courts.

Calling for a course correction, Collin notes, “The goal of arbitration was never to recreate the court system in private – it was to offer something better. Simpler. Smarter. More accessible. Yet as arbitration drifts toward becoming ‘litigation lite,’ it’s fair to ask: Are we preserving what makes it valuable, or slowly eroding it? As the legal landscape continues to evolve, now is the time to revisit the original purpose of arbitration – not just in theory, but in practice. Because if arbitration ends up looking, feeling, and costing just like court, then what exactly is the alternative?”

Subscribers to Law.com can read Collin’s article here.

“What are the benefits of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)?” Collin asks in his column. “Ostensibly, flexibility, efficiency, equitable solutions, speed, and cost all favor the use of ADR. Still, the process faces a significant challenge: A lack of diversity among its practitioners, decision-makers and the number of available platforms. These deficiencies present implications not only for fairness and legitimacy but also for the quality and accessibility of justice. Additionally, a lack of diversity in available platforms has recently led to alarming antitrust challenges.”

Collin points to publicly available statistics from the two largest ADR providers in the U.S., which cite a significant lack of diversity.

“With respect to competition, these two providers handle 99% of the consumer arbitrations in this country,” Collin explains. “This high market share has led to recent antitrust challenges. One of these ADR providers is being sued for allegedly monopolizing the consumer arbitration space through ‘cut-rate pricing on arbitrations that do not adequately reflect the actual cost of neutral proceedings, rules that encourage corporations to provide only one choice in arbitral forums by disallowing discovery into corporations’ tactics, and shockingly abysmal outcomes for consumers.’ These challenges underscore the need for greater competition in the ADR space.”

Subscribers to Law.com can read Collin’s article here.

“One of the most effective ways to manage disputes is to address them before they escalate,” Kevin writes. “Internal methods, such as HR intervention or call center escalation, are important first steps, but quickly warrant more professional solutions.  By establishing a formal Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, healthcare organizations can proactively reduce the financial and relational costs associated with legal conflicts.”

While legal disputes in the healthcare sector are inevitable, leaders have a unique opportunity to modernize their litigation approach by implementing structured, strategic processes.

“In doing so,” Kevin says, “healthcare executives not only gain control over legal uncertainty; they build a more resilient, agile organization better equipped to focus on what truly matters: delivering high-quality care to their patients.

Read Kevin’s article in Healthcare Business today here.

Subscribers to Law.com can read the article here.

Subscribers to Law.com can read the article here.