Maureen Arellano Weston, J.D.
Professor of Law
Office: School of Law (SOL)
Maureen Weston is Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law and Director of the Entertainment, Media & Sports Dispute Resolution Project. She received her JD from the University of Colorado, and BA in Economics/Political Science at the University of Denver. Professor Weston teaches courses on arbitration, mediation, negotiation, international dispute resolution, legal ethics, and U.S. and international sports law. She serves as Faculty Advisor to the Sports & Entertainment Law Society and Dispute Resolution Journal, and as coach for ICC Mediation Advocacy and Sports & Entertainment Law Negotiation competitions. Weston has taught law at the University of Oklahoma, University of Colorado, University of Las Vegas Nevada, Hamline, and in Oxford, England. Prior to teaching, Weston practiced law with Holme Roberts & Owen and Faegre & Benson in Colorado. She is actively involved in programs furthering opportunities for students to gain experience in negotiation, mediation and arbitration. Her committee service includes the ABA, Law School Division, Arbitration Competition, AALS Sports Law Executive Committee, and former chair of the ABA Dispute Resolution Education Committee and Representation in Mediation Competition. She is a member on the Boards of Directors at the University of Colorado School of Law Alumni Board, the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette School of Law, Malibu Little League, and Editorial Board of LawInSport. A frequent speaker at conferences, Weston is co-author of casebooks on sports law and arbitration and has written numerous articles in the area of Olympic and International Sports Arbitration, disability law, sports law, and dispute resolution.
Authorized publications include: Arbitration: Case and Materials (with Stephen K. Huber) (Lexis Pub.) (3rd ed. 2011); Sports Law: Cases & Materials (7th ed. 2011) (Lexis Pub.); Gamechanger: NCAA Student-Athlete Likeness Litigation and the Future of College Sports, 3 Miss. Sports L. Rev.77 (2014); The New Normal in College Sports: Realigned and Reckoning, 41 Pepp. Law Rev. 209 (2013); The Accidental Preemption Statute: Federal Arbitration Act and Displacement of State Agency Regulation, 6 Penn State Yb. Arb. & Med. 59 (2013); The Public Costs of Private Judging, Univ. of Nebraska Law-Lincoln, Conference on Justice, Conflict and Well-Being (2013) (Springer Pub.); The Death of Class Arbitration After Concepcion, 60 Kansas. L. Rev. 101 (2012); NCAA Sanctions: Assigning Blame Where it Belongs, 52 Boston College L. Rev. 551 (2011); The Other Avenues of Hall Street and Prospect for Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 929 (2010); Anatomy of the First Public International Sports Arbitration and the Future of Public Arbitration After USADA v. Floyd Landis, 2009-10 Yearbook of Arbitration and Mediation (Vandeplas Pub. 2010); Simply a Dress Rehearsal? U.S. Olympic Sports Arbitration and De Novo Review at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, 28 Georgia J. Int'l & Comp. I. 101 (2009); Doping Control, Mandatory Arbitration and Process Dangers for Accused Athletes in International Sports, 10 Pepp. Disp. Resol. J. 5 (2009); The Fantasy of Athlete Publicity Rights, 11 Chapman L. Rev. (2008); Preserving the Federal Arbitration Act by Amending the Statute to Rein in Judicial Expansion and Mandatory Use, 8 Nev. L.J. 385 (2007); Internationalization in College Sports: Issues in Recruiting, Amateurism, and Scope, 42 Willamette L. Rev. 101 (Fall 2006); Universes Colliding: The Constitutional Implications of Arbitral Class Actions, 47 William & Mary L. Rev. 1711 (2005); The Intersection of Disability and Sports: Assessing Challenges to Rules of Participation and Play by Athletes with Disabilities, 50 St. Louis Univ. L.J. 137 (2005); Reexaming Arbitral Immunity in an Age of Mandatory and Professional Arbitration, 88 Minn. L. Rev. 449 (2004); Confidentiality's Constitutionality: The Incursion on Judicial Powers to Regulate Parties in Court-Connected Mediation, 8 Harv. Neg. L.J. 29 (2003); Checks on Participant Conduct in Compulsory ADR: Reconciling the Need for Good Faith Participation, Autonomy, and Confidentiality, 73 Ind. L.J. 591 (2001).