ILNews

DTCI: Mediation confidentiality

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

kyrouacBy Scott M. Kyrouac

The Indiana Supreme Court in Dennis Jack Horner v. Marcia (Horner) Carter, 34S02-1210-DR-582, corrected the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion that the confidentiality of mediation can be broken.

In this case, the husband Dennis Horner wanted to provide testimony about what he said at the mediation as evidence that a mistake had been made in drafting the final settlement agreement. The trial court excluded testimony about the confidential discussions. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief but indicated that the trial court’s exclusion of the husband’s testimony was in error.

Attorneys and mediators support the decision that what is said in mediation is confidential. The Indiana Supreme Court noted the Court of Appeals had based its decision on the Uniform Mediation Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. UMA would permit disclosure and discovery of conduct and statements made during mediation in certain circumstances. However, Indiana has not adopted the UMA rules. Instead, Indiana adheres to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Rule 2.11, which holds that evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations or mediation is inadmissible except when offered for a purpose other than to prove liability for or invalidity of the claim or its amount. Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote:

“Indiana judicial policy strongly urges the amicable resolution of disputes and thus embraces a robust policy of confidentiality of conduct and statements made during negotiation and mediation. The benefits of compromise settlement agreements outweigh the risks that such policy may on occasion impede access to otherwise admissible evidence on an issue.”

As both a mediator and as an attorney, this author welcomes the Supreme Court’s clarification and continued protection of the confidential nature of mediation.•

Mr. Kyrouac is the current Indiana Representative to DRI and is a former president of the association. He is a partner in Wilkinson Goeller Modesitt Wilkinson & Drummy in Terre Haute. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT