Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114.02
The following terms shall have the meanings set forth in construing these rules.
Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114.02
Implementation Committee Comments-1993
The definitions of ADR processes that were set forth in the 1990 report of the joint Task Force have been used. No special educational background or professional standing (e.g., licensed attorney) is required of neutrals.
Advisory Committee Comment-1996 Amendment
The amendments to this rule are limited, but important. In subdivision (a)(10) is new, and makes it explicit that parties may create an ADR process other than those enumerated in the rule. This can be either a "standard" process not defined in the rule, or a truly novel process not otherwise defined or used. This rule specifically is necessary where the parties may agree to a binding process that the courts could not otherwise impose on the parties. For example, the parties can agree to '"baseball arbitration" where each party makes a best offer which is submitted to an arbitrator who has authority to select one of the offers as fairest, but can make no other decision. Another example is the Divorce with Dignity Program established in the Fourth Judicial District, in which the parties and the judge agree to attempt to resolve disputed issues through negotiation and use of impartial experts, and the judge determines unresolved preliminary matters by telephone conference call and unresolved dispositive matters by written submissions.
The individual ADR processes are grouped in the new definitions as "adjudicative," "evaluative," "facilitative," and '"hybrid." These collective terms are important in the rule, as they are used in other parts of the rule. The group definitions are useful because many of the references elsewhere in the rules are intended to cover broad groups of ADR processes rather than a single process, and because the broader grouping avoids issues of precise definition. The distinction is particularly significant because of the different training requirements under Rule 114.13.
Advisory Committee Comments - 2022 Amendments
Rule 114.02 is amended to clarify and update the specific processes available for use in court-annexed ADR. The mini trial is retained as an available process, although it is rarely used. The definitions of "Neutral" and "Qualified Neutral" are important under the revisions made to Rule 114. Any person providing ADR services under Rule 114 is a Neutral and thereby is subject to Rule 114 and is deemed under Rule 114.04(a) to have consented to the authority of the ADR Ethics Board.
The definition of "Consensual Special Magistrate" borrows from the Special Magistrate process set forth in Minn. Stat. § 484.74, subd.2a, which is limited to the Second and Fourth Judicial Districts. The two processes are different, however, and care should be taken when specifying which process is being selected. See generally Daniel S. Kleinberger, The Consensual Special Magistrate, Minnesota's Appealable Alternative to Arbitration , Bench & B. Minn. (Jan. 2016).
According to the ADR Ethics Board's 2017 report to the Court, the definition of "Non-Binding Advisory Opinion" was added in 2007 to replace the Moderated Settlement Conference for civil matters as it was easier to understand the contours of the process and whether it was truly adjudicative as opposed to evaluative in nature. See Recommendations of the Minnesota Supreme Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Ethics Board, #ADM09-8009 11-12 (July 14, 2017). The Moderated Settlement Conference process is being reintroduced in family court Rule 310 as a process primarily used in the later stages of family court matters.