ILNews

Mediating Justices: Former justices find that ADR is often a fertile field for life after the court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

After years deciding disputes in the state’s highest court, two former justices now devote at least part of their practices to helping feuding parties find their own resolutions.

Former Indiana Supreme Court Justices Ted Boehm and Myra Selby each count corporate clients in their mediation and alternative dispute resolution portfolios, Boehm with Van Winkle Baten Dispute Resolution and Selby with Ice Miller LLP.

apb_tedboehm02-15col.jpg Retired Indiana Supreme Court Justice Ted Boehm sits on Monument Circle near the offices of Van Winkle Baten Dispute Resolution, where he practices primarily in mediation and arbitration. (IL photo/Aaron P. Bernstein)

Boehm said his practice is primarily ADR; Selby said ADR makes up only about 10 to 15 percent of her practice, but it’s growing. Other current and former justices are certified in alternative dispute resolution if only to understand the process, but few have much, if any, practical experience as mediators.

For Boehm, handling his own schedule of mediation and arbitration cases allows flexibility.

“The common thread of all of them is I can do whatever I want when I want,” he said. “I can act like a retired person if I want to.”

It’s not like having a real job, Boehm said, because he sets and keeps appointments on a sort of freelance basis, allowing time for golf and travel, freeing time to spend “the dark days of February in Florida.

Besides, Boehm’s expertise comes at a price that limits the number of disputes in which his services would be sought. He charges $400 an hour for mediation, more for arbitration, and more again for legal advice, though he declined to quote those fees.

“I don’t get asked to mediate more than I can handle,” he said. Most of the conflicts presented to him involve multiple parties, usually involving finance, business litigation and/or transactional law.

While most mediation and a fair amount of arbitration is confidential, Boehm recalled one high-profile case he arbitrated: A 2012 dispute involving Chevrolet and Honda over an IndyCar ruling concerning the specifications the racing governing body would allow for turbochargers.

Boehm recalls having to learn on the fly about the technology involved in open-wheel racing, and he ultimately affirmed IndyCar’s ruling allowing a Honda turbocharger design that Chevy objected to. “It was basically a conclusion that IndyCar had properly issued the regulations and could enforce them,” he said.

Boehm’s ADR practice typically involves business disputes or unsolved legal issues whose results are unpredictable, he explained. Selby said a good volume of her mediation work has involved health care or insurance or corporate contract issues.

Neither Boehm nor Selby were sure if their tenures as justices would have a persuasive impact on parties that come to them for mediation services.

“That’s hard to know,” Selby said. “I believe that it equips me with a certain perspective and set of experiences that’s valuable to the process. I think the appellate court experience really necessitates a perspective of objectivity, and that’s one of the most important things to bring to mediation.”

John Krauss runs an intensive, week-long, 40-hour public policy mediation course at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law that fulfills the basic requirement to become a civil mediator in Indiana. He has trained 45 trial court judges and two appellate judges along with third-year law students who typically take the course.

Krauss said he believes experienced judges may be at a disadvantage in some ways when they later become mediators. He tells judges who take the course, “One of the things you have to do is make your role very clear to the parties, because you’re not a judge, and they have to know you’re not a judge. You’re not going to decide.

“A lot of deference is going to be given to you because of the role you’ve had, and you’ve got to diminish that,” Krauss said.

Unlike their roles as fact-finders, Krauss said, judges who take on a later career as a mediator have to acquire a new skill set – namely, navigating parties toward a solution in which both sides can feel they have made their positions clear. And the solution might not be one found in the law.

selby Selby

“A judge could never order someone to say they’re sorry,” Krauss said. “Sometimes in mediation, it’s not the money, but being heard, and being validated, and having someone say they’re sorry, that solves it.”

It’s unknown whether anyone said “sorry” in the recent dispute among Lake Superior judges in which the Supreme Court dispatched former Justice Frank Sullivan to mediate – his first and only foray into ADR. The matter involved multiple claims on a single judgeship, and Sullivan said the effort wasn’t successful. Ultimately, the Indiana Supreme Court decided the matter.

“It was a long shot,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson acknowledged of Sullivan’s mediation effort. “He had a unique command of the political history and was well aware of how things happen in Lake County. He was respected by all the parties, and they knew he had that knowledge and that historical perspective.”

Selby is unconvinced that former judges and justices may have a disadvantage as mediators. Rather, she thinks their experience makes them better able to focus on the possible solutions.

“I think we have an understanding of both the purpose of the process and the alternatives along the continuum of alternative resolution services,” she said.

While former Chief Justice Randall Shepard said he’s had no experience as a mediator, he believes judges and justices may be ideally suited to the task.

“I think who mediates does add something, and there are people who are able to sustain the attention of the combatants, if you will,” Shepard said. “That’s something a former judge or former justice can do.”

Krauss said he believes judges do have an advantage in evaluative mediation, in which they can share with parties based on their experience the likely outcomes of cases or what they believe juries think about in particular conflicts.

Boehm concedes that in some cases parties to mediation may be influenced by his past life as a justice. “I do get some cases where I think the parties actually want me to give them an answer,” he said.

In instances where both parties ask him for his opinion, Boehm said, “I try to point out to each side what it seems to me are the weaknesses of their positions on both sides” so they can recognize the risks they may experience going forward.

Studies show an increase in the use of ADR, Selby said, a trend she believes bodes well for the legal profession and parties that otherwise might resort to litigation. “It’s a more efficient and economical way to resolve disputes,” she surmised.

Dickson is required by mandatory retirement to depart the bench no later than July 2016, and he said working as a mediator in retirement is a possibility. “It might well happen one day, if lawyers will have me,” he quipped.•

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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT