ILNews

Mediation confidentiality; ADR rules review coming

March 27, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

By Andrea Ciobanu
 

ciobanu Ciobanu

When the Horner v. Carter appellate decision was published, many were astonished at the thought that mediation would not be confidential. To support their position, the Indiana Court of Appeals cited to the Uniform Mediation Act which permits disclosure in certain, limited circumstances. The problem with that cite is that only 11 states have adopted the UMA, and Indiana is not one of them. Furthermore, the UMA has additional procedural safeguards in place in the limited circumstances when statements made during the course of mediation could later be divulged.

In reaction to that concern, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the Indiana State Bar Association and the Indiana Association of Mediators joined forces and authored a joint amicus brief that requested transfer to clarify this issue. Happily, transfer was granted, and the Indiana Supreme Court has upheld the sanctity of confidentiality in mediations.

In our oral argument, the amici requested that the Indiana Supreme Court issue a clear opinion in which the sanctity of ADR Rule 2.11 is upheld and that there are no exceptions to the confidentiality of mediations as set forth in our current rules. The Indiana Supreme Court questioned the amici during oral argument as to why this was so important when we argued the language was “unnecessary dicta” in our amicus brief. The amici responded that they did not want any confusion with the appellate decision since the opinion contained language that would lend itself to opening the door for piercing the confidentiality of mediations whether it was deemed dicta or not. The amici further requested an opinion containing clear language upholding the confidentiality of mediations so that the appellate language was not adopted in the Indiana Supreme Court’s opinion.

The Indiana Supreme Court did just so. Chief Justice Brent Dickson’s opinion stated, “In Vernon v. Acton, we held that the mediation confidentiality provisions of our ADR Rules ‘extend to and include oral settlement agreements undertaken or reached in mediation. Until reduced to writing and signed by the parties, mediation settlement agreements must be considered as compromise settlement negotiations . . .’” 732 N.E. 2d 805, 810 (Ind. 2000). The opinion further stated, “Evidence of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations or mediation is not admissible except when offered for a purpose other than ‘to prove liability for invalidity of the claim or its amount.’” A.D.R. 2.11 (incorporating Evid. R. 408); see also Gast v. Hall, 858 N.E. 2d 154, 161 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals that the “husband’s statements made during the course of mediation could be admitted as extrinsic evidence to aid in the construction of an ambiguous agreement.” The Supreme Court held that “Indiana judicial policy strongly urges the amicable resolution of disputes and thus embraces a robust policy of confidentiality of conduct and statements made during negotiation and mediation.” The Indiana Supreme Court further concluded that the “benefits of compromise settlement agreements outweigh the risks that such policy may on occasion impede access to otherwise admissible evidence on an issue.”

The Indiana Supreme Court reiterated in its opinion that Indiana has not adopted the UMA. They also acknowledged that the two amici organizations have further worked to create a task force to review the rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution (now formally recognized by the court). The Indiana ADR rules have not been thoroughly reviewed for over 20 years. It will be the goal of the task force to review all the Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules, not just ADR 2.11, and determine where any modifications may be necessary.

The ADR Task Force had its first meeting on March 26, 2013. Judge David Avery of Allen Superior Court is chair of the task force. Other voting members include: Amy Applegate of Bloomington, Judge Elaine Brown of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Patrick Brown of Zionsville, Stephen Cohen of Munster, Andrea Ciobanu of Indianapolis, Magistrate Nanette Raduenz of Lake Superior Court 3, Steven Spence of Indianapolis, and Kim Van Valer of Franklin. Additional liaisons include Judge L. Mark Bailey of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Rebecca Billick of Bloomington, Judge Mark Loyd of Johnson Circuit Court, Julia Orzeske of the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education, and Ann Thrasher of Zionsville.

As such, stay tuned for the review of the ADR rules! Also, please feel free to contact any member of the task force if you have any issues that should be considered during this rules review.

Additionally, there will be a roundtable discussion at the Indiana State Bar Association’s Solo and Small Firm Conference June 6-8, 2013, in French Lick, Ind. It will be lead by Pat Brown, immediate past chair of the ISBA ADR Section, and Mark Loyd, chair of the ADR Committee of the Indiana Judicial Conference, and will gather additional insights of potential necessary modifications or other important issues pertaining to our ADR rules. This is truly a group effort and we thank you for your support!•

__________

Andrea Ciobanu is the managing partner at Ciobanu Law, PC. Andrea practices in civil rights and litigation, education law, ADA Compliance, family law and appellate practice. She is a civil, domestic and elder mediator. She currently serves on the IAM board of directors and is the vice chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s ADR Section. You may contact Andrea at: aciobanu@ciobanulaw.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • c
    We are enquiring for an experience attorney to handle a breach of contract. negotiation or a lawsuit. Anders Klinton Supply Management Mölnlycke Health Care Box 13080 SE-40252 Gothenburg, Sweden Gamlestadsvägen 3C www.molnlycke.com

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. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT