ILNews

Justice-turned-mediator: ADR does work

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When he was a member of the state’s highest court, former Justice Ted Boehm recalls reading a fair amount about alternative dispute resolution and even crafting rules about the topic.

But since leaving the appellate bench in September, he is seeing the modern ADR system for the first time from the trenches.

boehm After retiring from the Indiana Supreme Court last fall, former Justice Ted Boehm started working with Indianapolis-based Van Winkle Baten Dispute Resolution and is seeing the alternative dispute world up close and personal. (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

His verdict: It truly does work.

That is a common theme among jurists-turned-mediators, who may not have been able to personally witness the ADR benefits and only heard stories told by others about how effective an option it can be. Many say they are in some ways constrained by their robes from actually talking to parties and finding mutually beneficial resolutions. Boehm may be unique in moving from the state’s highest appellate bench to the ADR world, but he echoes what others have said when making the move.

“Before now, I’d had an Olympian view of mediation,” Boehm said, referring to his 14 years on the Indiana Supreme Court. “Not too many former judges are doing this, but I’m a little of an unusual character being the only former justice. As an appellate judge, I read a fair amount about it and helped create some rules but never

witnessed it on the ground level and didn’t know what it was truly like. I’m really surprised at how well it really does work.”

The first months with Indianapolis ADR firm Van Winkle Baten Dispute Resolution haven’t presented any new substantive challenges. The issues he is addressing are much like those he handled both as a practicing attorney and saw from the judge’s perspective. Boehm began his legal career at Baker & Daniels in the 1960s before taking on corporate counsel roles at General Electric and Eli Lilly in the late 1980s to 1995. Those jobs gave him the chance to participate in negotiated settlements of many large complex business disputes on acquisitions, dispositions, real estate transactions, and commercial agreements.

All of that combined with his court experience set the stage for what he’s doing now. The use of ADR really exploded during the time he was on the bench, so this is his first practical experience participating since that boom happened, he said.

Devoting about a third of his time to mediation work, Boehm said he just recently started handling his first arbitrations and most of his cases at this point have been focused on business, contractual, or regulatory scheme issues between shareholders, corporations, or employees. He hasn’t had a personal injury or domestic relations case, which are the most high-volume type, he said.

“I’m really enjoying the mediation so far and like that it’s something I can do on my own schedule,” he said, noting that his calendar has at least one mediation or arbitration per week. “The issues aren’t really different, so it’s really just the ADR aspect that I haven’t experienced before. My biggest surprise has been how unsurprising it’s been so far. But I am really interested to see firsthand how well it works.”

Boehm is keeping busy, balancing his time between the dispute resolution firm and other work such as senior judging for the Indiana Court of Appeals. He’s also been spending much time handling a high-profile trustee role in the estate of the late Mel Simon, who died in 2009 and whose family is battling in court over how the former mall owner’s estate will be split. Boehm is also staying involved in civic activities and the legal community, such as chairing an Indianapolis Bar Association political action committee focused on changing how judicial candidates receive campaign donations.

“I’m trying to keep my hand in the civic and legal communities as much as I can give back,” he said.

That schedule flexibility and ability to apply past experience to something new is one of the reasons other judge-turned-mediators agree ADR is an attractive professional option.

Kim Van Valer left the Johnson Superior bench in 2009 to return to her family firm in Greenwood where she is helping to run the office and has created an ADR focus.

“As a judge in my second term, I started seeing that there was so much good I could do if I could just step around that big bench and sit at a table to talk with these people,” she said. “I loved being on the bench, but it can be frustrating that you aren’t able to just talk casually with people about what options might exist. In court, you’re trying to win rather than agree on something.”

Though her ADR emphasis at the firm took off slowly, she said it has started to pick up and she is seeing cases from not only lawyer or judicial referrals but unexpected places like church counselors and therapists. She works as a mediator to avoid the “shuttle mediation” method between rooms. Though she’s running for a part-time position on the Franklin City Court, Van Valer said she’s eager to continue mediation work at the law firm. She also serves as a senior judge statewide and is on the ADR Committee for the Judicial Conference of Indiana.

“If we expect our courts to function as problem-solving centers, we need to send only those cases in which resolutions are impossible between the parties themselves,” she said.

Former Shelby Superior Judge Russell Sanders, who retired at the end of 2010, has entered the ADR world as a member of The Mediation Group in Carmel. He’s one of two former judges there.

Sanders said his judicial experience gives him a better feel for evaluating cases – he knows how he might approach a case as a litigator or how he would view it if it came before him on the bench – and helps him to craft a mutually beneficial resolution. He uses the perspectives of both as a neutral party.

“This was just too good an opportunity to pass up, getting to stand on the third leg of the system,” the former judge said, referencing his 20 years as a practicing attorney and 14 years on the bench. “They’re all complementary and a part of what this practice of law is all about – resolving disputes for people. That’s why we got into this profession in the first place.”•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT