The study examines the impact of Minnesota Rule 114, which requires attorneys to consider ADR in every civil case, discuss ADR with their clients and opposing counsel, and advise the court regarding their conclusions about ADR, including the selection of a process, a neutral, and the timing of the ADR process. The findings include: Rule 114 has caused tremendous growth in the use of mediation; less than 1/3 of lawyers surveyed reported an increase in settlement rates for filed cases since Rule 114; the key reason lawyers choose mediation is to save litigation expenses, but they also choose it because it saves time, decreases client expense and is less adversarial; the most important qualification for a mediator is substantive experience in the field of law related to the case.

Description of Study: Evaluation of the impact of Minnesota Supreme Court Rule 114 (requiring attorneys to consider ADR in every civil case and discuss it with their clients and opposing counsel) on the use of mediation in Minnesota.

Method: In-depth personal interviews with 23 civil litigators. From this data, a questionnaire was developed and sent to 1000 attorneys in all 10 judicial districts. The attorneys were randomly selected and proportioned according to the district’s caseload.

Comparative: No

Sample Size: 748 of 1000 attorneys responded to the survey

Variables Examined: Attorney attitudes about mediation and their use of the process

Program Variables: Program was in existence more than 10 years at the time of study.

Findings: Attorneys chose mediation because it saved litigation expenses (67.9%) and because it made settlement more likely (57.4%). However, they did not think it reduced their workload. Mediation as compared to litigation process: 46.7% said it saved attorney time, 26.1% said it provided greater client satisfaction, and 9.0% said it caused attorneys to make less money.