ADR Systems Reinforces Security & Privacy for Videoconferencing Sessions - ADR Systems

ADR Systems


ADR Systems is committed to ensuring the security and privacy of the remote mediations and arbitrations that we conduct:

  • Parties in a mediation or arbitration via a Zoom videoconference will wait in a waiting room until admitted to the videoconference by its host. While Zoom account holders can forgo this feature, ADR Systems’ videoconferences will always utilize it.
  • Only the ADR Systems host of a Zoom videoconference can share their screen with the videoconference’s participants. None of the participants in the videoconference can use this function without the permission of the host, preventing parties from being exposed to content not permitted by the host.
  • On all ADR Systems accounts, the cloud recording feature is disabled and the encrypted chat feature is enabled. By disabling and enabling these features, we deny Zoom access to user data that could be collected from our remote mediations and arbitrations, preserving our clients’ privacy and their cases’ confidentiality.

Many compromised videoconferences reported in the news were public calls (with the link shared on social media), not private ones. Our Zoom videoconferences are not public and never have been. Only the parties, the host and ADR Systems’ staff have access to the meeting link.

Additionally, Zoom has bolstered the strength of its Advanced Encryption Standard and has updated its platform with a new security icon on its toolbar, accessible only to the host of a Zoom videoconference. This allows the host to regulate and maintain the waiting room and screen sharing features for all of the videoconference’s participants, and it allows the host to lock the meeting and remove participants if necessary.

Our staff will continue to work closely with our clients to determine the most secure way to remotely conduct mediations and arbitrations.

ADR Systems, It’s Settled.®

I recently engaged Judge Gomolinski to mediate a case that was not factually or legally complicated, but other factors — including the amount of the lien and the position of the lienholder — made the case a challenge to resolve. This case would not have settled but for the efforts of Judge Gomolinski. He was prepared, knew all the relevant facts, had a command of the pertinent law and demonstrated a level of competence and experience that deeply resonated. I believe I can speak for opposing counsel in saying that we believe we reached a fair, reasonable agreement thanks to Judge Gomolinski.

Juan M. AndersonBryce Downey & Lenkov, LLC