Technology & business mediator

Mediation for disputes where technology and business are tangled together.

Barry Dynkin helps counsel and decision-makers work through disputes involving cybersecurity, privacy, AI, software, founders, and closely held businesses.

An attorney, educator, and former cybersecurity company founder, Barry understands how a technical problem becomes a legal claim—and how both can become a business obstacle.

See if Barry can help See where Barry fits

Barry Dynkin, attorney and mediator — **Barry Dynkin**Attorney · Educator · Technology adviser

A mediator with contextBarry brings more than one vantage point to the table.

Adviser before and after cybersecurity incidents

Educator in cyber law, AI ethics, and privacy

Founder with experience on the operating side

Attorney trained in structured mediation

Representative disputes

Disputes Barry is built to understand.

The following are not abstract practice areas. They are recurring conflict patterns in which technical facts, contractual obligations, financial consequences, and business relationships must be evaluated together. They illustrate fit; they are not an exhaustive list.

Who bears the cost after a cybersecurity incident?

A breach, ransomware event, or other security failure has led to forensic, restoration, notification, interruption, and reputational costs. The company, technology providers, customers, vendors, or insurers disagree about what happened and who was responsible.

Questions that may matter

Cause and contractual responsibility
Security representations and vendor duties
Response, restoration, and interruption costs
Indemnity, insurance, and continuing relationships

Why Barry’s background helpsBarry has advised companies before and after cybersecurity incidents. He understands the response sequence, the participants, and the gap that often develops between the technical record and the legal theory.

Was the technology defective—or did the project change?

A software, SaaS, managed-services, or custom-development relationship has broken down. One side sees missed milestones, defects, failed integrations, or an unusable system; the other sees scope expansion, poor inputs, delayed decisions, or unpaid work.

Questions that may matter

Scope, specifications, and change requests
Performance, testing, and acceptance
Data migration and integration failures
Payment, termination, transition, and continuity

Why Barry’s background helpsBarry’s experience as a technology adviser and cybersecurity company co-founder helps him understand both the promised solution and the operating conditions in which it had to work.

Who had the right—and the duty—to do what with the data?

A relationship has produced disagreement over the collection, use, access, sharing, retention, deletion, or exposure of data. The dispute may involve a customer, service provider, employee, business partner, or an entire vendor chain.

Questions that may matter

Permitted use and ownership
Privacy and security commitments
Access, portability, retention, and deletion
Loss allocation after an unauthorized disclosure

Why Barry’s background helpsBarry has taught privacy at Hofstra University and advised organizations on cybersecurity and governance. He can help participants distinguish the operational facts from the conclusions each side draws from them.

What was actually promised about the AI system?

A developer, deployer, customer, or partner disputes an AI product’s performance, permitted uses, data practices, intellectual-property treatment, safeguards, or allocation of emerging legal and business risks.

Questions that may matter

Performance claims and contractual expectations
Training data, outputs, and intellectual property
Confidentiality, governance, and human oversight
Remediation, continued use, or an orderly exit

Why Barry’s background helpsBarry has taught AI ethics for six years and worked with organizations on technology risk and training. That background helps surface assumptions that may never have been made explicit when the relationship began.

Related business disputes

When the operating relationship is the problem.

Technology is Barry’s clearest specialty, but it is not an artificial boundary. His work with founders, small companies, and family offices also informs select disputes where governance, ownership, employment, or a continuing business relationship is central.

Founder and shareholder breakups

Ownership, control, compensation, access to information, departures, buyouts, and the future of a company the parties built together.

Closely held and family-business conflicts

Governance, succession, roles, distributions, employment, and disagreements in which economic and personal relationships cannot be cleanly separated.

Business separations with technology at the center

Control of data, systems, intellectual property, customer relationships, and operational access when founders, employees, or business partners part ways.

About Barry

He has worked inside the problems he now helps parties untangle.

Barry’s career has been built at the intersection of law, technology, risk, and organizational decision-making.

He has advised companies before and after cybersecurity incidents, delivered extensive cybersecurity training, and counseled small companies and family offices on corporate organization, employment, and fund-formation matters. He previously co-founded a cybersecurity company, giving him firsthand familiarity with the pressures facing founders and operating teams.

For the past six years, Barry has taught cybersecurity law and AI ethics at the City College of New York. He has also taught privacy at Hofstra University. His public work includes serving as a legal researcher on the Tallinn Manual 2.0 and as a co-founder of the American Cybersecurity Institute.

In mediation, that background does not replace the parties’ counsel or experts. It allows Barry to understand the record efficiently, ask informed questions, and help legal, technical, and business participants communicate without oversimplifying the dispute.

Adviser

Before and after cyber incidents

Risk, response, governance, training, and the operational consequences of security decisions.

Educator

Cybersecurity law, AI ethics, and privacy

Six years teaching at CCNY, with additional privacy teaching at Hofstra University.

Founder

Technology from the operating side

Experience building a cybersecurity company and advising founders, companies, and family offices.

Mediator

Structured, prepared, and practical

Forty-hour New York Part 146-approved mediation training through Phoenix Dispute Solutions.

What Barry brings to the room

Fluency is useful when it makes the choices clearer.

Barry approaches a technology-heavy dispute by separating what must be understood from what merely sounds technical. The aim is not to retry every expert question. It is to identify which disputed facts actually affect exposure, economics, implementation, and settlement authority.

His role is not to replace counsel or technical experts. It is to help the right people understand one another, locate the consequential disagreements, and make informed settlement decisions.

01 · Orient

Build a usable map of the dispute

Organize the chronology, participants, systems, agreements, decisions, and claimed losses so the session begins with the real structure of the problem.

02 · Translate

Create a shared working vocabulary

Help lawyers, executives, operators, and technical participants determine when they disagree about facts—and when they are simply using the same words differently.

03 · Test

Connect assumptions to consequences

Examine which contested facts materially affect liability, damages, insurance, business continuity, reputation, and the parties’ alternatives to settlement.

04 · Resolve

Develop terms that can actually work

Explore money alongside transition services, data return or deletion, access, security commitments, communications, timing, and the future of an ongoing relationship.

What counsel can expect

A prepared process, shaped around the dispute.

Every matter is different. The basic discipline is consistent: clear preparation, the right people at the table, and enough structure to turn discussion into decisions.

Before

Make the dispute understandable

Counsel receive focused submission guidance. A technical matter may benefit from a shared chronology, glossary, architecture diagram, or short orientation—not competing encyclopedias.

At the table

Connect the records to the decisions

Barry works with counsel and decision-makers to test assumptions, identify the real constraints, and examine legal, technical, financial, and relationship risk without turning the session into a technical hearing.

At resolution

Turn movement into workable terms

If the parties reach agreement, counsel remain responsible for documenting enforceable terms. The process focuses attention on implementation, dependencies, confidentiality, releases, and what happens next.

For counsel

Start with a focused conversation.

Share the general nature of the dispute, the participants, timing, and preferred format. Barry can explain his approach, availability, and whether his background is likely to be useful. If the matter moves forward, he will provide clear next steps for scheduling and preparation.

Selected credentials

Legal training. Technical depth. Operating perspective.

Barry’s professional background spans the legal, academic, technical, and business settings that frequently converge in the disputes he is best positioned to mediate.

01 · Legal practice

Attorney admitted in New York and EDNY

Advisory experience involving corporate organization, employment, fund formation, small companies, and family offices.

02 · Mediation

Formal neutral training

Completed a 40-hour New York Part 146-approved mediation program through Phoenix Dispute Solutions.

03 · University teaching

Six years teaching emerging-technology subjects

Cybersecurity law and AI ethics at the City College of New York, with additional privacy teaching at Hofstra University.

04 · Cybersecurity

Experience on both sides of an incident

Advised companies on pre-incident readiness and post-incident matters and delivered extensive cybersecurity training.

05 · Operating experience

Former cybersecurity company co-founder

Firsthand perspective on founders, teams, commercial pressure, technology risk, and the practical cost of unresolved conflict.

06 · Research and institutions

Public-facing work in cyber policy

Legal researcher on the Tallinn Manual 2.0 and co-founder of the American Cybersecurity Institute.

Common questions

Before you reach out

Is Barry limited to technology disputes?

No. Technology, cybersecurity, privacy, AI, and software disputes are the practice's clearest specialty. Barry also accepts select founder, shareholder, employment, and closely held-business matters where his corporate and operating background is useful.

Does Barry decide the case?

No. Mediation is a facilitated negotiation. Barry does not act as a judge, arbitrator, or lawyer for either participant, and he does not impose an outcome.

Can a matter be handled virtually?

Yes. Barry is New York-based and offers in-person and virtual mediation. Private virtual matters may be considered nationwide by agreement, subject to applicable professional requirements.

What should the first email include?

A short description of the general type of dispute, the participants, and any timing needs is enough to begin. Please do not attach sensitive documents to the initial email; Barry will explain the appropriate next step.

Contact Barry

See whether Barry can help with your dispute.

Briefly describe the general nature of the dispute, who is involved, and any timing requirements. Barry will respond about availability, approach, and appropriate next steps. Please do not attach sensitive documents to the initial email.

Email Barrycontact@dynkinlaw.comTypical response: one business day