ILNews

Mediation firm champions comfort

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Carol Terzo proudly states that visitors will find no traditional office furniture at The Mediation Option. At this alternative dispute resolution firm on the north side of Indianapolis, even the dry-erase boards – made of bamboo – are designed to feel homey and inviting.

During a mediation, “There can be a lot of down time,” Terzo said as she pointed out a room where guests can watch TV, relax, or play Guitar Hero. It’s this laid-back atmosphere that Terzo and her associates say distinguish them from other mediators in Indiana.

Trading spaces

mediation group The Mediation Option’s attorneys, from left, Elodie Meuser, Carol Terzo, Lori Anne Perryman, and Noah Schafer, in one of the firm’s mediation rooms. (Not pictured is Emily Bubb). (IBJ Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Last year, Terzo began to long for a change of scenery. She had worked for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office for 22 years, presiding over many civil and family law cases in her roles as a commissioner, a master commissioner, and a senior judge. And she remembered an ADR course she had taken two decades earlier – perhaps the second such class offered in the state, she recalled.

“I thought it was such a wonderful thing to do,” she said about mediation.

So she decided she would open her own ADR office. She mentioned the idea to Lori Anne Perryman, an attorney working in the child support division of the prosecutor’s office. She told Perryman about her idea on a Monday, and by Tuesday, Perryman had decided that when Terzo left, she would go with her.

Perryman had worked for 10 years in the child support division and was known for her success in the collection of unpaid child support. But the job was demanding. “It’s hard not to take that work home with you,” she said.

Also a prosecutor in the child support division, Perryman’s friend Elodie Meuser liked Terzo’s dream of opening an ADR firm. “I was looking for something different,” she said. “I was tired of fighting – I felt like everyone thought I was the enemy.”

The three women decided they would begin looking for a space for an ADR office, finally settling on their location at 93rd and Meridian streets because they liked its proximity to Interstate 465.

Meanwhile, Noah Schafer, an attorney in the prosecutor’s office homicide unit, heard rumors that his colleagues were leaving to start an ADR firm. “I still thought maybe it was a half-baked idea,” he said. But once he talked to them and realized how much research they had done, he figured he should take a chance, and he joined them at TMO.

The four attorneys rounded out the staff with the addition of Emily Bubb, a registered family law mediator. Bubb is not an attorney, but Terzo thinks that’s an advantage – not all clients want to talk to an attorney.

“As you look at us, we all have various strengths and weaknesses,” said Terzo, who calls herself “the token old person.”

Every Friday, the group meets to discuss upcoming mediations and who is best-suited to talk to the parties involved. Terzo said they prefer two mediators to work on a case, a technique known as co-mediation, which she said is new to Indiana.

Some people may be more comfortable talking to a woman, a man, a non-attorney; but most importantly, Terzo said, clients seem to appreciate working with two people. The mediators may not always agree on the best resolution, and as they amicably discuss possible alternatives, clients can witness compromise in action.

ADR v. litigation

People save money by settling disputes out of court. But the less-tangible benefits of ADR may be equally satisfying for TMO’s clients and staff.

“Litigation has kind of a cookie-cutter resolution,” Schafer said, with outcomes of disputes being limited by the constraints of the court system. Perryman added that even when cases are settled in court, the parties involved are often left wanting something more.

“People didn’t have this complete sense of closure,” she said of the many cases she handled for the prosecutor’s office. “They really wanted to express these other things.”

Perryman said that being able to express themselves brings people a sense of relief, and if people can’t say what they want to say, sometimes, “It just festers, and the conflict never goes away.”

Terzo said it’s interesting to watch body language during mediation. Clients who are tense, with their arms drawn close to their body, may – by the end of mediation – be stretched out comfortably on the couch. Mediators can see the relief their clients feel.

All of the TMO attorneys say mediation works for most types of cases, even victim-offender cases. “Except murder,” Schafer interjected. And because of their background in the prosecutor’s office, Perryman says they are familiar with the tension that can arise from complicated personal disputes. If people should be kept apart, each party can be in different rooms, with the mediators literally going back and forth to reach a resolution.

Terzo said she thinks the cozy, inviting environment may help alleviate those interpersonal tensions, noting that even the tough-guy cable TV installers “oohed” and “aahed” when they saw the space.

Despite their best efforts, some issues cannot be resolved – or at least not completely.

In one case, a time constraint resulted in an incomplete mediation. Mediators resolved all but a few issues.

Budget-conscious clients may hope to achieve a lot in a minimal amount of time. Terzo recalled one mediation in which the clients wanted to resolve their conflict in one hour. While the TMO staff nodded in agreement about that being a short time in which to achieve results, Terzo said they were able to do it. The clients were so satisfied, they came back for further mediation.

Even when mediators can’t completely resolve a dispute, Schafer said, “It’s never a waste of time.” Often, one of the greatest benefits of mediation is simply being able to communicate. “They get to see how to talk to each other,” Terzo said.

Building a client base

Some clients find their way to TMO through the Internet, and many come through referrals.

Meuser said if judges have a case in court that they think could be resolved through mediation, they will provide the involved parties with the names of three mediators.

“I’ve been amazed so far,” Terzo said of the volume of clients they have had since opening in January. Schafer said the demand for their services demonstrates the necessity for mediation firms.

TMO’s clients sometimes attend mediation on their own, and people with active or pending court cases may bring along their attorneys.

Perryman said busy attorneys appreciate being able to remediate. Meuser recalled that at the prosecutor’s office she was unable to spend as much time with clients as she would have liked, which is one reason she enjoys her work at TMO – the time she spends talking to people.

Schafer said people in general may wrongly believe that attorneys deliberately drag out their work to increase billable hours. Quite the opposite, he says, “I think attorneys are happy when things get resolved quickly.”

“We make attorneys look good,” he said. “Especially when an attorney comes with a client to the office, and the client gets to see (his/her attorney) advocate for them in a way they can’t in court.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Satisfied Client
    I have used TMO, and specifically Mr. Schafer, to mediate dissolution of marriage proceedings and have been very satisfied with the outcome and the professional approach!
  • Good Job Guys
    Great attorneys that will do well in this specialty. Keep up the good work!!!

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