Former Supreme Court Justices take a new career path as mediators

Former Iowa Supreme Court Justices David Baker and Michael Streit hadn't planned to leave the bench but after losing the retention vote last year both men had to choose a new career path.

Both ruled out retirement because they're too young. They would have to stay in a law because it has been each man's life – Baker for 32 years and Streit for 36 years.

So, what do justices do when they're no longer justices? For these two the natural fit was to become a mediator – a trained neutral party who assists in negotiations and conflict resolutions.

Streit, who joined Ahlers & Cooney in Des Moines, is also an arbitrator and he presides as a trial judge, much like a district trial judge, who examines evidence and then makes a ruling. The more complex cases are handled through arbitration such as, securities fraud, construction litigation and even divorces, which involve difficult financial matters.

Baker, now in a private Cedar Rapids mediation practice, said he and Streit are unique as mediators/arbitrators because they both have been judges in district, appellate and supreme courts. As judges in the three courts they have seen numerous situations and legal battles to help them decipher how a case might go in court, so they can save the litigants time and money by settling or going through arbitration.

“As a judge, you rule on law and make a binding decision,” Baker said. “Mediation is more an interactive process – talking with attorneys and parties. They come to a voluntary decision. As a judge, you simply listen and make a decision.”

Streit agreed saying a mediator takes a hands-on approach to resolving a legal dispute.

“You're more isolated as a judge because you have to stay above the fray (stay impartial), Streit said. “In mediation, you establish a trust and rapport with the parties and work them into a dialogue, so both sides are treated fairly. You find out what people want – what they need.”

Baker said he enjoys interacting with the people and letting them talk through a situation. As a judge, he couldn't do that because it would be pre-judging a case and it would be a problem if they decided to settle. Judges or justices only interact with the lawyers.

Baker said one advantage of being a mediator is the freedom to come up with creative solutions that aren't available to a judge or court.

Streit said he came up with a “novel solution” to solve a dispute over a fence, which separated two pieces of property.

“They argued for two hours, getting nowhere, and I asked why do you want a fence,” Streit said. “One (of the litigants) said ‘To keep the cattle out.' Well, come to find out, the neighbor couldn't have cattle on his land because it was a forestry reserve – he had a signed agreement.”

Streit suggested tearing down the fence – a simple solution and an end to the dispute.

Baker said people look to mediation to save money, time, the certainty of a solution without trial and appeal.

“Arbitration and mediation fit hand in glove of what the court system does,” Streit said. “It complements the system by resolving those cases out of court.”

Streit said every year the courts struggle because of funding and cuts in personnel. There are 1.5 million cases filed each year in Iowa courts and about 600-700 result in jury trials.

The Iowa Supreme Court prioritized cases a few years ago after budget cuts were made. Cases given priority were criminal speedy trials, person in custody, juvenile, dissolutions with custody issues. Other case like civil disputes and dissolutions without children were pushed back on the court schedule.

Some of the Iowa court districts, including 5th and 6th, now require mediation of divorces before they can go to trial.

Streit said he misses life on the bench but his new career has been “a hellava lot of fun” so far and he enjoys the freedom to participate in activities he couldn't as a judge because he had to remain impartial. He was fortunate to be able to join a “dynamic and smart” group of attorneys at Ahlers & Cooney. Streit said the firm does a lot of charity work and he can now participate.

“After the (retention) election, I thought I would retire and dabble in the law,” Streit said. “But I have lived and breathed the law for so many years and I still have something to offer.”

Streit said even if he knew he wouldn't be retained after the court's 2009 ruling in the Varnum case, he and the entire bench would have made the same decision, which led to legalizing same-sex marriage. The statute defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution, he said.

“We didn't do a good enough job educating the voters on how the system works,” Streit said. “When cases are appeal we have to take them. The opponents distorted the judicial review (process). We did what the constitution says.”

Streit said the justices also failed when they didn't go out and refute the misinformation Bob Vander Plaats, president of Family Leader, and his followers were releasing about the court and the decision.

“It's disheartening but none of us would have done it differently,” Streit said. “I will go on personally, and I hope this hasn't weakened the system. The court system is in need of constant care.”

Baker declined to talk about the retention vote and ruling. He said he was looking forward to his work now and to giving the commencement speech at the University of Iowa Law School graduation on Friday. It's important to him because the students requested him as the speaker during the retention battle.

Baker wouldn't reveal what his speech was about but he did share the title – “No regrets.”