// FAQ — two-tier: 6 marquee Quick Answers + expandable deep section
const QUICK_FAQS = [
{
q: 'How is Daniel retained?',
a: 'Through JAMS for JAMS-administered matters, or directly via Tailored Mediation for ad-hoc engagements where the parties prefer party-stipulated retention. The intake form here generates a confidential matter request that routes either path.',
},
{
q: 'What is the typical timeline from request to first session?',
a: 'Mediation: 14–60 days. Special Master / Forensic Neutral: 7–30 days for straightforward matters; longer where conflicts checks, protective orders, or international coordination are required.',
},
{
q: 'Are sessions in-person, virtual, or both?',
a: 'All three. Daniel mediates in-person at JAMS or party-selected venues, runs virtual sessions on encrypted platforms, and supports hybrid configurations for cross-border or multi-party matters.',
},
{
q: 'What disputes does Daniel typically resolve?',
a: 'AI / model output liability, trade-secret misappropriation in software and ML, smart-contract and cryptocurrency disputes, cyber-insurance coverage fights, eDiscovery and ESI disputes, complex commercial matters with technical questions at their core.',
},
{
q: 'How do conflicts checks run?',
a: 'On receipt of an intake, Daniel\u2019s case manager runs a conflicts check across his active matters and prior representations through Law & Forensics LLC. Where the engagement is administered by an ADR provider, an additional conflicts review runs under that provider\u2019s protocol. Material conflicts are disclosed within 48 hours; if disqualifying, alternates are surfaced from a curated network.',
},
{
q: 'Can Daniel serve as a co-mediator with a process neutral?',
a: 'Frequently yes. Many of his engagements pair him as the technical neutral with a retired-judge process neutral (e.g. Hon. G. Andler, Hon. T. Vanaskie, Hon. F. Allegra). Co-mediation is often the right fit for matters where both procedural craft and subject-matter authority are required.',
},
];
const DEEP_FAQ_SECTIONS = [
{
section: 'Engagement scope',
qs: [
{ q: 'What kinds of evidence does Daniel typically work with?', a: 'Source code, model weights and inference logs, training data and provenance metadata, smart contracts and on-chain transaction histories, eDiscovery production sets, forensic disk images, mobile and IoT device dumps, cloud audit logs, and email archives \u2014 among others.' },
{ q: 'Will Daniel review source code under a protective order?', a: 'Yes, regularly. He has reviewed source code, ML model weights, and training data under tiered protective orders and has co-authored standing PO templates that distinguish weights, training data, prompts, and outputs into separate access tiers.' },
{ q: 'Does Daniel sit on AI tribunals under the JAMS AI Disputes framework?', a: 'Yes. Daniel arbitrates under the JAMS AI Disputes Clause and Rules and contributed to the JAMS Smart Contracts Rules. He has authored and co-authored standing protective orders for AI matters.' },
{ q: 'What is the maximum exposure Daniel typically handles?', a: 'Typical matter exposure ranges from $5M to $1B+. He has served as Special Master in multi-hundred-million-dollar trade secret matters and as forensic neutral in cyber-insurance disputes well into nine figures.' },
],
},
{
section: 'Process',
qs: [
{ q: 'How are protocols set?', a: 'On appointment, Daniel issues an initial scoping order. For Special Master and Forensic Neutral matters, this is a draft ESI/forensic protocol. For mediation, it is an agenda and confidentiality framework. Parties have a comment window of 7\u201314 days; finalization usually within 30.' },
{ q: 'Are findings published?', a: 'No. All written findings are issued under the matter\u2019s protective order and remain confidential to the tribunal and parties. Daniel does not publicly comment on active or past matters.' },
{ q: 'What does a forensic neutral report contain?', a: 'A reproducible methodology section, evidentiary findings keyed to the question put to the neutral, custody chain, hash verification, software/tooling provenance, limitations, and \u2014 where the protocol calls for it \u2014 a recommended disposition.' },
{ q: 'Do parties have direct access to Daniel during the engagement?', a: 'Yes, through case-management channels. Daniel is responsive to scheduling and procedural questions throughout. Substantive ex parte communications are handled per the engagement\u2019s confidentiality and ADR-rules framework.' },
],
},
{
section: 'Technology & evidence',
qs: [
{ q: 'How does Daniel handle TB-scale ESI productions?', a: 'Through Law & Forensics\u2019 production-grade infrastructure: validated TAR/CAL workflows, documented seed sets, sampling protocols, and reproducible privilege review pipelines. For special-master appointments specifically, the chain of custody and sampling design are recorded in the protocol order.' },
{ q: 'How are model weights and training data preserved?', a: 'Under tiered access controls: cryptographic hashing, bit-for-bit preservation of weight files, time-stamped logging of every read access, and segregated storage with reviewer-credential audit trails.' },
{ q: 'Does Daniel work on cross-border evidence collection?', a: 'Yes. He has coordinated international device collection in matters involving the FBI, Interpol, and counterpart agencies, and he is fluent in cross-border privilege, GDPR, and Schrems II constraints.' },
{ q: 'What about deepfake authentication?', a: 'Daniel has authored extensively on deepfake authentication in court and arbitration (Daily Journal, Law360, 2024). His protocols include device-level provenance, model-output forensics, and chain-of-custody review specific to synthetic-media artifacts.' },
],
},
{
section: 'Fees, ethics, conflicts',
qs: [
{ q: 'What does an engagement cost?', a: 'Fees on request. Daniel\u2019s rate structure depends on engagement type, exposure, and whether the matter is JAMS-administered or directly retained. We provide a fixed-fee or capped estimate when scope permits.' },
{ q: 'How are confidentiality and privilege handled?', a: 'Daniel operates under protective orders that distinguish work-product, party privilege, and tribunal-confidential categories. He does not participate in disputes adverse to prior counsel or clients without informed waiver.' },
{ q: 'What is the relationship between Tailored Mediation and Law & Forensics?', a: 'Daniel founded and remains Executive Managing Partner of Law & Forensics LLC. Where a matter requires substantive forensic technical work beyond a single neutral\u2019s scope, the firm\u2019s engineering bench supports the engagement under the appointing tribunal\u2019s protocols.' },
{ q: 'Can Daniel sit on a panel adverse to JAMS?', a: 'No. As a JAMS panelist Daniel does not accept neutral roles adverse to JAMS\u2019s administration. He routinely accepts party-stipulated and court-appointed neutral roles in matters not administered by JAMS.' },
],
},
];
const FAQAccordionItem = ({ q, a }) => {
const { useState } = React;
const [open, setOpen] = useState(false);
return (
{open && (
{a}
)}
);
};
const FAQPage = ({ onNav }) => (
Practical Information for Counsel
Frequently asked.
Quick answers up top. Deeper questions on engagement scope, process, technology, and ethics below.
{/* Quick answers — 6 cards */}
§ 01 · Quick Answers
{QUICK_FAQS.map((f, i) => (
Q.{String(i + 1).padStart(2, '0')}
{f.q}
{f.a}
))}
{/* Deep section — accordions by category */}
§ 02 · Deeper Questions
For counsel who need to look under the hood.
{DEEP_FAQ_SECTIONS.map(s => (
{s.section}
{s.qs.map((qa, i) => )}
))}
{/* CTA */}
Question not answered?
Reach out directly.
For matter-specific questions — conflicts, scope, scheduling, fees — the case manager replies within one business day.