ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT