Supreme Court Rules - Rule 17 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar and the Judiciary - Alternative Dispute Resolution: Alternative Dispute Resolution Program-Establishment-Purpose-Definition

Clerk Handbooks

Supreme Court Rules

		Section/Rule:	17.01
Subject:	Rule 17 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar and the Judiciary - Alternative Dispute Resolution	Publication / Adopted Date:	October 22, 1996
Topic:	Alternative Dispute Resolution Program-Establishment-Purpose-Definition	Revised / Effective Date:	July 1, 1997

17.01. Alternative Dispute Resolution Program - Establishment - Purpose - Definition

(a) Any judge by order or any judicial circuit by local court rule may establish an alternative dispute resolution program as provided in this Rule 17. It is the purpose of the Court through adoption and implementation of this Rule 17 to provide an alternative mechanism for the resolution of civil disputes, except those subject to Supreme Court Rules 88.02 to 88.08, by means of alternative dispute resolution procedures for disposition before trial of certain civil cases with resultant savings in time and expenses to the litigants and to the court without sacrificing the quality of justice to be rendered or the right of the litigants to jury trial in the event that a settlement satisfactory to the parties is not achieved through alternative dispute resolution.

(b) As used in this Rule 17, alternative dispute resolution programs include but are not limited to:

(

) "Arbitration," a procedure in which neutral persons, typically one person or a panel of three persons, hears both sides and decides the matter. The arbitrator's decision is not binding and simply serves to guide the parties in trying to settle their lawsuit. An arbitration is typically less formal than a trial, is usually shorter, and may be conducted in a private setting at a time mutually agreeable to the parties. The parties, by agreement, select the arbitrator or arbitrators and determine the rules under which the arbitration will be conducted;

(

) "Early neutral evaluation," a process designed to bring together parties to litigation and their counsel in the early pretrial period to present case summaries before and receive a non-binding assessment from an experienced neutral evaluator. The objective is to promote early and meaningful communication concerning disputes, enabling parties to plan their cases effectively and assess realistically the relative strengths and weaknesses of their positions. While this confidential environment provides an opportunity to negotiate a resolution, immediate settlement is not the primary purpose of this process;

(

) "Mediation," a process in which a neutral third party facilitates communication between the parties to promote settlement. A mediator may not impose his or her own judgment on the issues for that of the parties;

(4) "Mini-Trial," a process in which each party and counsel present the case before a selected representative for each party and a neutral third party, to define the issues and develop a basis for realistic settlement negotiations. The neutral third party may issue an advisory opinion regarding the merits of the case.

(5) "Summary jury trial," is an informal settlement process in which jurors hear abbreviated case presentations. A judge presides over the hearing, but there are no witnesses, and the rules of evidence are relaxed. After the "trial", the jurors retire to deliberate and then deliver an advisory verdict. The verdict becomes the starting point for settlement negotiations among the parties.

(c) Each circuit is encouraged to develop other alternative dispute resolution programs that will meet the needs of the parties, the circuit and the community.

(d) All alternative dispute resolution processes shall be non-binding unless the parties enter into a written agreement as provided in Rule 17.06(c). A written agreement shall be binding to the extent not prohibited by law.

(Adopted Oct. 22, 1996, eff. July 1, 1997.)