ABSTRACT
Universities increasingly rely on ombuds offices as informal, impartial mechanisms for addressing conflict and strengthening institutional trust. Yet the ombuds role is frequently shaped by tension among impartiality, advocacy, and legal accountability. This paper examines the evolution of the Office of the Ombuds at the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) as a practice-based case study of how these tensions are navigated within a public research university. Drawing on institutional documents and relevant conflict resolution scholarship, the analysis traces the office’s development from pilot initiative to campus-wide function, with particular attention to leadership transitions, role clarity, and institutional positioning. The paper conceptualizes impartiality as an active ethical practice grounded in fairness, independence, and process advocacy rather than passive detachment. It further examines how reporting obligations complicate expectations of confidentiality, highlighting UMB’s efforts to clarify the limits of confidentiality within a public institutional context. The case offers practical insight for ombuds practitioners and dispute system designers working within complex regulatory and power-laden organizational environments.