10/28 - Confidentiality & Mediation A.D.R. Rule 2.11 (Fort Wayne)

Sponsored by
Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  October 28, 2013 

In this session, we will explore Indiana cases addressing and applying Rule 2.11 confidentiality provisions and analyzing the following:
 - Admissibility of testimony regarding statements made in mediation.
  - Admissibility of testimony regarding the observations or conclusions drawn during mediation by a party or by the party’s representative.
  - Admissibility of evidence obtained at mediation.
  - Admissibility of testimony of the mediator on the meaning of an agreement reached at mediation.

Speakers:
  - Edward E. Beck, Shambaugh, Kast, Beck & Williams
  - Daniel J. Borgmann, Helmke Beams LLP
  - Linda P. Chrzan, Esq.

Date: Monday, October 28, 2013
Time:
Registration & buffet lunch: noon - 12:30 pm
Program: 12:30 - 1:30 pm

Credit hours: 1.0 Ethics / CME

Cost:
$40 ADR section members
$45 ACBA members
$60 Non-ACBA members

Attendance limited to 40. Reservations must be received by 4:00 p.m. Monday, October 21, 2013.
Reservations received after the deadline and walk-ins will be accepted on a space available basis with an additional $10 charge; lunch and materials may not be provided.

Location:
Allen County Bar Association, 924 South Calhoun St., Fort Wayne 46802

Provider:
Allen County Bar Association

Contact Information:
Allen County Bar Association
Phone (260) 423-2359
www.allencountybar.org

 

Back to Events
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT