ILNews

Special task force going word-by-word through ADR rules

September 25, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Although the privacy of mediation has been affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court, the possibility that confidential conversations could become public highlighted the need to clarify and possibly change the state’s rules for alternative dispute resolution.

Over time, questions and ambiguities can arise as the ADR rules are applied, explained Johnson Circuit Judge Mark Loyd. One particular area of concern surrounds the confidentiality of mediations.

Dickson Dickson

Loyd, who also serves as chair of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee for the Indiana Judicial Conference, joined with Zionsville attorney Patrick Brown, immediate past president of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Section, and formulated the idea for a task force to review the rules and make proposals for revisions.

The goal, both Loyd and Brown emphasized, is not to make wholesale revisions to the ADR rules but to tweak the provisions that need updating.

They approached Supreme Court Chief Justice Brent Dickson in the fall of 2012 with their idea. A few months later, the court established the Alternative Dispute Resolution Task Force.

A limited number on the committee are voting members, but many from the mediation community are being encouraged to provide their suggestions and ideas, Brown said.

“I think everybody is going to have the opportunity to have their input,” he said.

valer Van Valer

ADR in Indiana

The ADR rules in Indiana were adopted in 1991 and have become a model for courts and legislatures in other states.

Initially, the idea of mediating disputes rather than litigating them was rebuffed by the Indiana legal community. Several doubted individuals would pay for a mediator and a lawyer when they could get their disagreements heard by a judge for free.

Still, alternative dispute resolution gained acceptance and had success in part because of the rules, according to Dickson. The provisions governing mediation, arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution have allowed for maximum flexibility without micromanaging the process or mandating onerous reporting requirements.

Not surprising, when approached about the task force the chief justice was a little leery about fixing something he believed was not broken. He did not see any need for a complete overhaul of the rules that have worked so well.

The Supreme Court, he said, does not want to over structure the rule or make itself an excessive supervisor of the alternative dispute resolution process. However, he continued, the court is open to making reasonable, minor changes.

A former Johnson Superior judge and member of the ADR Task Force, Kim Van Valer was an early advocate of mediation, first getting trained in the process in 1992. Her time on the bench reinforced her belief in the benefits of cooperatively working through a dispute.

applegate Applegate

Mediation can reduce the number of cases on a court’s docket and allow judges to focus more on the decisions, like criminal sentencing, that have to be made by a court, said Van Valer, who retired from the bench in 2008 and now runs Van Valer Dispute Resolution in Franklin.

She remembered listening to cases as a judge and thinking the decision she was being called upon to render would have been better made by the parties involved. Van Valer said she only knew what she was told in court while the individuals involved knew more about the situation and the solution that was best for them.

Moreover, Van Valer echoed Dickson in maintaining the ADR rules help the parties reach an agreement that is in everyone’s best interest. The guidelines facilitate the mediation by not imposing strict requirements on the process so the individuals can make their own decisions and develop their own solutions.

Any proposals for change the task force makes will ultimately have to be approved by the Indiana Supreme Court. Loyd anticipated any suggestions would be opened for public comment.

Keeping quiet

Confidentiality is commonly viewed as essential to the alternative dispute resolution process. The people on opposite sides of the table have to be assured that what they say or propose in the discussions will not come back to bite them in court.

Mediation, Van Valer said, does not produce a lot of “super secret opinions that the public would go crazy over,” but keeping the conversations private makes people more comfortable. If the parties are worried about speaking freely, they may not arrive at the best solution or any solution to their dispute.

The case, Dennis Jack Horner v. Marcia (Horner) Carter, 34S02-1210-DR-582, rattled the mediation community and spurred the task force to give special attention to the issue of confidentiality.

Dennis Horner tried to include testimony from a mediation to support his petition to modify the settlement agreement with his ex-wife. On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held his statement made during the mediation could be admitted in court.

The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the privacy of alternative dispute resolution discussions. Dickson wrote the opinion, noting Indiana judicial policy “embraces a robust policy of confidentiality of conduct and statements made during negotiation and mediation.”

That the COA saw an exception to confidentiality alarmed the mediation community.

Amy Applegate, director of the Viola J. Taliaferro Family and Children Mediation Clinic at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, is chair of the task force’s subcommittee on domestic relations. This group is examining confidentiality.

Echoing Loyd, Applegate noted for those who provide alternative dispute resolution services, a review can be helpful because sometimes things are not as clear in practice. In regards to privacy, her subcommittee is asking “what does confidentiality mean and what can mediators tell the participants about confidentiality?”

Spotting violence

loyd Loyd

Another area that Applegate’s group is looking at is domestic violence. Currently, Indiana ADR rules do not require mediators to screen for abuse among the participating parties. When the requirements were drafted more than 20 years ago, there was less focus on questions about mediation with people who had been abused or hurt through domestic violence, Applegate said. Many have since learned without this information, any agreement reached may be tainted.

“You can’t make a voluntary autonomous decision if you are scared for your life,” Applegate said.

Her subcommittee wants to include language in the ADR rules that mandates mediators be trained in screening and know the appropriate questions to ask to determine if the relationship has become violent.

Applegate emphasized the difference between being educated in issues of domestic violence and knowing how to screen for abuse.

As a general rule, many people do not identify themselves as victims in their own homes. This then requires the mediator to ask specific questions about the relationship and whether there has been any punching, slapping or intimidation. Domestic violence is not limited to violent conduct. It also includes the threat of injury or doing something horrible.

Knowing how to elicit this information can give the mediator a better understanding of the relationship between the parties, Applegate said. He or she will be able to make decisions about what mediation process to use or whether mediation is even appropriate.

Stepping back

Proposals dealing with confidentiality and domestic violence will probably be more than tweaks but, Brown said, making a larger adjustment is “absolutely justified.”

The task force and its subcommittees have been very diligent in their work, some reviewing the rules word-by-word. In October, the whole task force is scheduled to meet again.

Brown agreed the state’s ADR rules have served very well and credited the comprehensiveness and flexibility with making the mediation process successful.

The mission of the task force, he said, is to step back and see how those rules are working.•

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT