The Indiana Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) have undergone significant amendments effective January 1, 2025. These changes aim to modernize the ADR framework while attempting to balance the need for innovation and flexibility with essential protections for vulnerable parties. This article examines these amendments, analyzing their implications for family lawyers, child and parent psychologists, judges, social workers, and guardians ad litem.
The 2025 amendments represent the culmination of efforts from diverse practitioners in government, private, public-interest, corporate, and non-profit sectors. While many stakeholders provided input on the proposed changes, some critical concerns raised during the comment period were not fully addressed in the final amendments, particularly regarding the scope of the rules and immunity provisions for neutrals.
Background and Context
The Indiana ADR Rules were first adopted in 1992, establishing a framework for dispute resolution outside traditional litigation. Over the years, incremental changes have been made, but the 2025 amendments represent a significant overhaul. These amendments were prompted by the evolution of ADR practices and the need to address emerging issues, including those highlighted by cases like Hochstetler v. State (215 N.E.3d 365, Ind. App. 2023), which raised questions about potential harm when unregulated neutrals engage in dispute resolution activities.
Key Amendments and Their Implications
A. Scope of Rules (Rule 1.1)
Original Rule: Previously, Rule 1.2 (now vacated) limited the scope to specific ADR methods: Mediation, Arbitration, Mini-Trials, Summary Jury Trials, and Private Judges.
Amended Rule 1.1: “These rules apply to all non-binding methods of alternative dispute resolution listed in Rule 1.3.”
Concerns and Implications: The amended language expands the rules’ scope to all non-binding methods listed in Rule 1.3, which now includes “Other Forms of Non-Binding Alternative Dispute Resolution” (Rule 1.3(F)). This expansion raises concerns about the breadth of ADR methods that will be governed by these rules. During the comment period, some practitioners suggested more precise language to specify that the rules should apply only to court-ordered or court-approved methods, but the final amendment maintains a broader approach.
This change is significant for family law practitioners because it potentially extends rule coverage (and immunity protections) to a wider range of dispute resolution activities without the corresponding safeguards that some commenters advocated for.
B. Other Forms of ADR (Rule 1.3(F))
New Rule 1.3(F): “Any other non-binding method of alternative dispute resolution that allows the parties to resolve their disputes and is court-ordered or court-approved is encouraged by these rules.”
Implications: While this new provision does include the important qualifier that methods must be “court-ordered or court-approved,” the rule still broadens the scope of recognized ADR methods considerably. For mental health professionals and child advocates, this expansion means that a wider range of processes may now be officially sanctioned, though at least with the protection of court oversight.
The addition of court approval as a requirement addresses some concerns about unregulated processes, but questions remain about the standards courts will use when approving novel ADR methods.
C. Immunity Provisions (Rule 1.5)
Original Rule: Previously, immunity was limited to specified registered or court-approved neutrals for enumerated ADR methods.
Amended Rule: “A registered or court-approved mediator, arbitrator, private judge, neutral advisor, or court-approved or court-ordered person conducting, directing, or assisting in any form of non-binding alternative dispute resolution under these rules has immunity in the same manner and to the same extent as a judge in the State of Indiana.”
Concerns and Implications: The amended immunity provision extends judicial immunity to a broader category of neutrals, including those conducting “any form of non-binding alternative dispute resolution” under the rules. While it does require that these individuals be “court-approved or court-ordered,” the rule still represents a significant expansion of immunity.
During the comment period, stakeholders raised specific concerns about the Hochstetler case, in which elders in a religious community were convicted of intimidation for their actions while attempting to resolve a domestic dispute outside the court system. The concern was that expanded immunity provisions could potentially shield similar conduct if characterized as non-binding ADR. While the final rule does require court approval, the standards for such approval are not clearly defined.
For family law practitioners, this amendment requires heightened vigilance about who serves as a neutral in cases involving vulnerable parties or children.
D. Judicial Discretion (Rule 1.6)
Original Rule: Previously, this rule gave judges discretion to order civil or domestic relations proceedings to mediation, non-binding arbitration, or mini-trial.
Amended Rule: “Except as herein provided, in any civil or domestic relations case, a presiding judge may order non-binding alternative dispute resolution, or any of the methods listed in Rule 1.3, for the entire case or select issues in the case. Cases may only be ordered to a binding alternative dispute resolution process upon the agreement of the parties.”
Implications: The amended rule expands judicial authority to order any of the non-binding ADR methods listed in Rule 1.3, including “other forms” under Rule 1.3(F). This provides judges with greater flexibility but also raises concerns about the potential for parties to be directed to less established ADR methods.
On the positive side, the rule maintains the important requirement that binding ADR processes may only be ordered upon agreement of the parties, which protects litigants’ rights to court adjudication absent consent.
E. Mediation Termination Reporting (Rule 2.7(D)(3))
Original Rule: Previously, mediators could not disclose reasons for terminating or declining mediation beyond simply reporting the termination to the court.
Amended Rule: “Other than reporting that mediation is being terminated or declined due to a conflict of interest or bias by the mediator, the mediator must not state the reason for terminating or declining mediation except to report to the court, without further comment, that the mediator is terminating or declining mediation.”
Implications: This amendment represents a positive development that allows mediators to disclose conflicts of interest or bias as reasons for termination, while maintaining confidentiality for other grounds. This distinction is important because termination due to mediator conflict or bias indicates the need for reassignment to another mediator, whereas termination for other reasons (harm to a party/child, lack of meaningful participation, or general inappropriateness) suggests the process itself may be unsuitable.
For family law practitioners, this change facilitates more efficient case management by giving courts clearer information about why a mediation ended and whether reassignment is appropriate, without compromising the confidentiality essential to the mediation process.
Implications for Multidisciplinary Professionals
A. For Family Lawyers
The amendments broaden the landscape of ADR processes that may be used in family cases. Attorneys should be aware that:
- A wider range of non-binding ADR methods now fall under the rules
- Immunity has been extended to a broader category of neutrals
- Judges have more flexibility to order various ADR processes
Family lawyers should carefully vet neutrals and ADR processes, particularly when dealing with complex family dynamics, power imbalances, or cases involving allegations of abuse or control. The broader immunity provisions make it even more important to select qualified neutrals who adhere to appropriate ethical standards.
B. For Judges
Judges now have expanded authority to order various non-binding ADR processes. With this expanded authority comes greater responsibility to ensure:
- The ordered ADR method is appropriate for the specific case
- Any non-traditional ADR approach has adequate safeguards for vulnerable parties
- Court approval of neutrals is based on meaningful evaluation of qualifications
The modified reporting requirements for mediation termination also provide judges with better information for case management decisions, particularly when reassignment to another mediator might be appropriate due to conflicts or bias.
C. For Psychologists and Mental Health Professionals
Mental health professionals involved in family dispute resolution should note:
- Their roles in ADR processes may now be more formally recognized under the expanded rules
- Court approval or court ordering of the process is crucial for immunity protection
- The Hochstetler case serves as a reminder of the potential risks when dispute resolution occurs outside established frameworks
Mental health professionals should ensure any ADR process they participate in has appropriate court authorization, especially when working with vulnerable individuals or families with histories of power imbalances or abuse.
D. For Guardians ad Litem and Social Workers
Child advocates should be particularly attentive to:
- The expanded scope of ADR methods that may now be used in cases involving children
- The broader immunity provisions for neutrals
- The importance of court oversight for non-traditional ADR approaches
When involved in cases using ADR, guardians ad litem should advocate for appropriate safeguards and carefully consider whether the chosen ADR method adequately protects children’s interests. The amendments’ expansion of ADR options makes this advocacy role even more critical.
Best Practices Under the New Rules
A. Selection of ADR Methods
Practitioners should:
- Carefully evaluate whether a proposed ADR method is appropriate for the specific case
- For non-traditional methods, ensure court approval is obtained
- Consider power dynamics and client vulnerabilities when selecting ADR processes
- Document the selection process and reasoning
B. Documentation Recommendations
- Maintain clear records of court orders or approvals for ADR processes
- Document conflicts that arise during the ADR process appropriately
- When serving as a neutral, clearly distinguish between termination due to
conflict/bias and termination for other reasons
C. Client Counseling Considerations
When advising clients about ADR options:
- Explain the expanded range of ADR methods now covered by the rules
- Discuss the implications of broader immunity provisions
- Outline the protections that remain in place (such as court approval requirements)
- Address special considerations for cases involving vulnerable parties or children
Continuing Concerns and Future Directions
The 2025 amendments take important steps toward modernizing Indiana’s ADR framework, but some concerns raised during the comment period remain unaddressed:
- Definitional Clarity: The expansion to “all non-binding methods” listed in Rule 1.3 still leaves questions about what exactly constitutes a covered method.
- Immunity Standards: While court approval is required for immunity to attach to neutrals conducting “other forms” of ADR, the standards for granting such approval are not clearly articulated.
- Protection of Vulnerable Parties: Additional safeguards may be needed to ensure that expanded ADR options do not create opportunities for intimidation or coercion, particularly in communities where power imbalances exist.
Looking ahead, practitioners across disciplines should monitor the implementation of these amendments and advocate for further refinements as needed. There may be opportunities to develop practice standards or court guidelines that address these continuing concerns.
Conclusion
The 2025 amendments to Indiana’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules represent a significant expansion of the ADR landscape. While they offer greater flexibility and recognition of diverse dispute resolution approaches, they also create new challenges for ensuring appropriate safeguards for all participants.
For the multidisciplinary professionals who serve families in dispute – attorneys, judges, mental health providers, and child advocates – these amendments require careful attention to the selection and oversight of ADR processes. The expanded rules place even greater importance on professional judgment and advocacy to ensure that alternative dispute resolution serves the interests of justice, particularly for vulnerable parties and children.
About the Author: Mike Commons is the Indiana Legal Help Manager for the Indiana Bar Foundation. He is a practitioner with experience in family law and alternative dispute resolution who participated in the review and comment process for the 2025 amendments to the Indiana Rules for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
;
