ILNews

IBA: Mediation Day

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis Bar Association’s ADR Section and the Bar’s Standing Committee on Pro Bono jointly hosted their first annual Mediation Day on August 3, 2010 at Baker & Daniels downtown Indianapolis office.  The purpose of the Mediation Day was to provide a service to the Marion Circuit Court and community by volunteering time to mediate several screened cases for litigants who qualify for modest means mediation. 

“We truly believe that this joint collaboration between the ADR Section and Pro Bono Committee is a win-win for all involved. It allows the litigants to resolve difficult and emotional issues surrounding their children effectively and economically in a manner in which they can problem solve in a safe environment and control the outcome of their case,” said Jill Goldenberg-Schuman, ADR Section Chair and partner at Cohen Garelick & Glazier.

Attorney volunteer mediators waived their normal $100.00 per hour fee for modest means mediations.  The litigants paid his or her share proportionate share of the modest mean rate based on a sliding scale and the dollars earned were donated to the Indianapolis Bar Foundation. Commissioner Sheryl Lynch in Paternity Court screened non domestic violence cases for inclusion in the project.

“It is a win for the Paternity Court as we can help alleviate the heavy demand in their court due to its high volume case load and at least try to settle some difficult cases. It is a win for the law firms and its staff who house the program as they can provide a great service simply by donating space and time and their staff have the ability to participate/volunteer in something they might not otherwise have had the opportunity, “ Goldenberg-Schuman added. “Finally, the mediators win because not only do we have a chance to help out the litigants and give back to our community and court systems, but it allows the mediators an additional chance to hone their skills.”

To speed the process a pro tem judge was on site to approve mediated agreements in the ten cases set for mediation that day. Staff members from Baker & Daniels assisted with copying and clerical support.•

ADVERTISEMENT

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