Hamline Law Review, Vol. 25, 2002
77 Pages Posted: 17 Aug 2011
Date Written: 2001
Rule 114 of the Minnesota General Rules of Civil Procedure took effect in July, 1994 and requires attorneys to discuss ADR with clients and advise the court about whether ADR will be used in a particular civil case; and still allows the court to order non-binding ADR regardless of attorney and client preference. To evaluate the rule and its effects, the Supreme Court ADR Review Board asked the author to conduct an extensive attorney survey, part qualitative and part quantitative, to determine how lawyers are using ADR in relation to discovery and negotiation; what motivates them to choose a particular ADR process for use in a given case; and what types of settlements are resulting from ADR processes. This survey was done in 1996-97. The ADR Review Board also embarked on a review of court case files in four selected districts during 1998.
This article reports the results of attorney interviews and surveys and some of the results of the case file review. Among other findings the survey confirmed the "institutionalization" of ADR, especially mediation, in Minnesota; the importance of judicial support to this institutionalization; the fact that lawyers choose mediation because it makes settlement more likely, saves time and money, and provides a reality check for all parties; and because it is less adversarial. Secondarily lawyers perceive that mediators make communications between parties more effective and encourage participation by clients. Finally the article suggests ways courts can use the Minnesota data to inform future policy making for court-connected ADR.
Keywords: Court-connected ADR, mediation, Minnesota, Rule 114
JEL Classification: J52, K00, K10, K49
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
McAdoo, Barbara, A Report to the Minnesota Supreme Court: The Impact of Rule 114 on Civil Litigation Practice in Minnesota (2001). Hamline Law Review, Vol. 25, 2002. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1910142