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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT