ILNews

IBA: Meaningful Pro Bono and Courtroom Experience Available through the Mediation Assistance Program

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

iba-map.gifBy Kristine Seufert, United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana

More than 25 percent of the cases pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, have a least one pro se litigant. To address this community need, the Court launched the Mediation Assistance Program (MAP) in September 2009.

Since its inception, the MAP, through its attorney volunteers, has provided an outstanding service to both pro se litigants and the court. Attorneys who participate in the MAP are given the opportunity to provide quality pro bono work to pro se litigants unfamiliar with court procedures and the law by representing otherwise pro se litigants at Court-sponsored mediations. Magistrate Judges Tim A. Baker and Denise K. LaRue have used MAP counsel in multiple cases and enthusiastically support the program.

“MAP counsel provide pro se parties with an important sounding board to evaluate their case and assist them in assessing legal arguments, crafting settlement demands, considering offers, and completing settlement documents when a case is resolved. In this regard, MAP attorneys help not only the pro se parties, but the court and the legal system as a whole.” Judge Baker said.

Judge LaRue explains, “Without a MAP attorney, I am always concerned when I privately caucus with each party during a settlement conference that the unrepresented litigant might misinterpret my role to be that of legal advisor instead of Judge—despite my frequent and clear reminders to the contrary. Because of this concern, I would be less inclined to hold a settlement conference in pro se cases if we did not have MAP volunteer attorneys.”

The MAP attorney, who is appointed by the magistrate judge presiding over the case, assists in preparing for the settlement conference (including meeting with the client and preparation of a confidential settlement statement), participates in the settlement conference on behalf of the pro se litigant, and drafts a settlement agreement and corresponding stipulation of dismissal, if appropriate. Assistance under the MAP is limited, however, only to the settlement conference and does not extend to any other part of the litigation process (including discovery to prepare for the conference).

“In my experience, when a MAP attorney is involved, the case gets settled with fewer bumps along the way. For example, on the front end, the MAP attorney can explain to the unrepresented litigant any applicable legal limits on recovery which, in some instances, leads to a more realistic settlement position,” says Judge LaRue. “On the back end, the MAP attorney provides assistance to the pro se in reviewing and explaining legal terminology contained in the final settlement document.”

The MAP also provides valuable experience for attorneys wishing to appear in court. “Opportunities to represent clients in a court setting are unfortunately hard to come by,” Judge Baker said. “The MAP program provides both new and experienced attorneys a chance to appear in court, feel the excitement of litigation, and do some good in the process. It’s a win-win situation.”

MAP volunteers consistently report that their participation in the program was a positive experience. Al McLaughlin, Office Managing Shareholder of Littler Mendelson PC, has been participating in the MAP since its inception and has successfully assisted otherwise pro se litigants in negotiating a settlement agreement in four separate cases. “I continue to provide pro bono service through the MAP because the work is rewarding and interesting. I have been given the opportunity to represent individuals that I would not otherwise have had a reason to connect with. I enjoy being in a position to provide these individuals with practical and legal assistance and knowing that my representation has made a difference in their lives.”•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT