Elizabeth Bader’s Publications
Self, Identity and the IDR Cycle: Understanding the Deeper Meaning of ‘Face’ in Mediation, Int’l J. of Applied Psychoanal. Studies, Wiley Online Library. See abstract here.
The Psychology of Mediation (II): The IDR Cycle, A New Model For Understanding Mediation. Read here.
Confidentiality in Collaborative Cases After Thottam. Press here for this article on mediate.com.
Mediation Confidentiality, Chapter 7 in: A Litigator’s Guide to Effective Use of ADR in California (Continuing Education of the Bar, 2005).
Mediation Confidentiality: What Litigators Need to Know After Rojas v. Superior Court, 26(5) Cal. Civ. Litig. Rep., Oct. 2004, 189-194.
Rojas v. Superior Court, 26(15) Ins. Litig. Rep., Sept.10, 2004, p. 536
Defects in Construction: Will California’s Mediation Confidentiality Statutes Still Remain Standing after Rojas v. Superior Court? 14(3) Cal. Construction L. Rep., 2004, 97-103
Confidentiality in Insurance Coverage Mediation: Will It Survive Rojas v. Superior Court?, 26(2) Ins. Litig. Rep., Feb. 2004, 37-51.
Using Hard Facts to Clarify Good Law: A Principled Approach to Rojas v. Superior Court and the Interpretation of California’s Mediation Confidentiality Statutes (Evid. Code §§ 1115 et seq.), XXIV (10) California Tort Rep., Nov. – Dec. 2003, pp. 343-363.
Publications on Insurance
Confidentiality in Insurance Coverage Mediation: Will It Survive Rojas v. Superior Court?, Ins. Litig. Rep., 26(2), Feb. 2004, pp. 37-51.
Strategies for Defeating and Defending the 1973 Pollution Exclusion, 11(3) Ins. Litig. Rep., March 1989, 75 – 87.
Automobile Insurance, Chapter 50 in: California Insurance Law & Practice (Matthew Bender 1987). Updated by publisher.
California Insurer’s Duty to Defend: How Far Does It Extend?, 1985, 52 Ins. Counsel J. 252.
Cited by the Court of Appeal in Garvey v. State Farm (1986) 191 Cal.App.3d 1248, 1255 fn. 6. The California Supreme Court later granted review in Garvey and issued the important opinion in Garvey v. State Farm (1989) 48 Cal.3d 395.
Civil Litigation & Procedure/Anti-SLAPP Statute & Miscellaneous
Appeal From Superior Court Judgment, Chapter 14 in: California Administrative Mandamus (Continuing Education of the Bar, 2003).
California’s Powerful Anti-SLAPP Statute: Litigating After Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity, (May 1999) 21(3) CEB Civil Litig. Rep., (1991) 1, 82-87. With Mark Goldowitz.
California Administrative Mandamus, Updates. (Continuing Education of the Bar Updates, 1994-2001).
Law of administrative mandamus (a form of appeal to the superior court used to challenge decisions in hospital peer review proceedings and other administrative proceedings).
Homeless Odyssey, California Lawyer, October 1989.
Textbook of Medicine & Surgery for the Attorney, 1979. Executive Editor. (Matthew Bender & Co., 1979.)
In Matthew Bender’s Gray’s Attorneys’ Textbook of Medicine and Courtroom Medicine: Editor/writer on medicine.