Retiring justice to join Indy dispute resolution firm

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Justice Theodore R. Boehm marked his departure from the Indiana Supreme Court today with a celebratory retirement ceremony, using that event to announce that he’ll not only be senior judging at the appellate and trial levels but that he’s joining Van Winkle Baten Rimstidt Dispute Resolution in Indianapolis as an arbitrator and mediator.

More than 200 people gathered for the retirement ceremony inside the Indiana Supreme Court’s ornate third-floor courtroom at the Statehouse, saying goodbye to a justice who’s been on the court since 1996. The governor made remarks, as did several others from the legal community, including representatives from the Indiana State Bar Association and Indiana Judges Association. New Justice-designee Steven David, who wraps up his duties as a Boone Circuit judge and begins on the Supreme Court Oct. 18, attended the ceremony.

“Ted Boehm has found appropriate ways to be of this community and of this entire state community,” Gov. Mitch Daniels said. “We’re so fortunate that he came our way. That a person of this degree of talent was willing to lend and invest in year after year, chapter after chapter, in diversity of ways to the like we haven’t seen. He’s been a major part in establishment of a national reputation that Indiana has as fine a Supreme Court as the country knows. He leaves to his successor and to his colleagues a very, very high target in order to maintain that stellar reputation.”

Indianapolis Bar Association president Christine Hickey thanked Justice Boehm for his service on the court and his past work that’s included serving as president of the local bar association. She announced that the IBA is commissioning a biography to preserve his judicial legacy for future generations.

His four colleagues on the court gave Justice Boehm a parting gift of a 3 wood golf club, with the 104 TRB engraved, honoring his status as the state’s 104th justice.

In his goodbye speech, Justice Boehm noted that he’d be taking on the role of arbitrator, mediator, and “perhaps a few other roles” at the Indianapolis-based ADR firm, which was founded in 1995 and describes itself as the state’s first and oldest ADR-devoted firm. The retiring justice joins two others from the bench – former Marion Superior Judge David Rimstidt and former Hancock Superior Judge Richard Payne.

Justice Boehm also said he didn’t plan to vanish from the public arena; he said his past 14 years in state government have given him some perspective of issues that need addressing. He criticized the many duplicative government services noted in the Kernan-Shepard report on local government reforms, and he also criticized the current judicial-selection slating system in Marion County that he described as “a scheme that purports to place the selection in the hands of voters but in practical effect leaves it under the control of a few party officials.”

“There are several pernicious results, not the least of which is the judges become a vehicle for raising funds for political parties,” Justice Boehm said. “Despite widespread derision, even ridicule of this system, few in government have the will to challenge it.”

Before convening the ceremony for a reception, Justice Boehm made a point to answer the age-old universal question about what judges and justices wear beneath the black robes. He unzipped the robe and to applause and laughter, revealed his attire underneath: an Indiana Pacers jersey of No. 33 player Danny Granger.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?