Most people assume mediation is something the parties opt into. In a Minnesota district court civil case, the opposite is true. The Legislature directed the Supreme Court to write rules that “shall require the use of nonbinding alternative dispute resolution processes in all civil cases, except for good cause shown by the presiding judge,” and the rule the Court wrote does exactly that. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114.04(b):
If the parties agree on a process, the court should order the parties to participate in that process. If the parties cannot agree on an ADR process, the court shall order the parties to use a non-binding ADR process.
Read those two sentences next to each other. Agreement gets a “should.” Disagreement gets a “shall.” The only thing a party actually controls is which process — not whether there is one. A litigant who stonewalls ADR does not avoid it; he forfeits the choice of what kind and, if the parties also cannot agree on a person, who conducts it.
And there is a trap on the far side of that: one of the processes on the menu is called “non-binding arbitration,” and if nobody demands a trial within 21 days of the award, it stops being non-binding and becomes a judgment that “is not subject to appeal, and may not be collaterally attacked or set aside.”
Does a Minnesota judge have to order my case into ADR?
In nearly every civil case, yes — subject to a short list of exceptions and one escape hatch that is not on the list.
The authority runs from statute to rule. Minn. Stat. § 484.76, subd. 1 directs the Supreme Court to establish a statewide ADR program and provides:
Except for matters involving family law the rules shall require the use of nonbinding alternative dispute resolution processes in all civil cases, except for good cause shown by the presiding judge, and must provide an equitable means for the payment of fees and expenses for the use of alternative dispute resolution processes.
Rule 114 is the rule written under that command. Rule 114.01(a) opens: “This rule governs court-annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). All civil and family cases are subject to this rule except:” — followed by seven clauses.
The duty starts early and it starts with the lawyers, not the judge. Rule 114.03(b): “Upon being retained to advise on any civil dispute potentially subject to Rule 114, attorneys shall provide clients with information about available ADR processes.” And Rule 114.04(b) opens: “The parties, after service of the complaint, petition, or motion, shall promptly confer regarding selection and timing of the ADR process and selection of a Neutral.”
Note what triggers that conference: service, not filing. In Minnesota an action can be commenced and litigated for a long time before anyone files it with the court. The rule’s own advisory committee said so in 2022, explaining that Rule 114.04(d) “recognizes that actions may be pending for a year or longer without being filed and that ADR may still be required or undertaken during that period.” The obligation to confer about ADR can attach before the court has a file number.
Which cases are exempt from Rule 114?
Seven categories, quoted here in full because the boundaries matter more than the summaries of them:
(a) Applicability to Actions. This rule governs court-annexed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). All civil and family cases are subject to this rule except: (1) As provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 604.11 (medical malpractice); (2) As provided in Family Court Rules 303 and 310; (3) Cases enumerated in Rule 111.01; (4) Cases excluded under Minnesota Statutes, section 484.76; (5) In rare circumstances where the court in its discretion finds ADR to be inappropriate or to operate as a sanction; (6) Where parties have proceeded in good faith to resolve the matter using collaborative law, the court may excuse the parties from using further ADR processes; and (7) Proceedings conducted by a special master appointed under Rule 53 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Three of those are doors into other lists.
Clause (3) incorporates Rule 111.01, the scheduling rule, which excludes fifteen lettered categories — including conciliation court actions and appeals where no jury trial is demanded, “(d) Eviction actions pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 504B.281, et seq.,” “(h) Probate court proceedings,” “(k) Proceedings for registration of land titles pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 508,” “(l) Election contests pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 209,” “(m) Applications to compel or stay arbitration under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 572,” “(n) consumer credit contract actions; and (o) mechanics’ lien actions.” If your case is on the Rule 111.01 list, Rule 114 does not reach it. That is why a small claim in conciliation court never generates an ADR order.
Clause (4) incorporates Minn. Stat. § 484.76, whose subdivision 2 ends with a flat prohibition: “Alternative dispute resolution may not be required in civil commitment matters, or in matters arising under section 144.651, 144.652, 518B.01, or 626.557.”
Clause (5) is the discretionary one, and it is drafted narrowly — “In rare circumstances where the court in its discretion finds ADR to be inappropriate or to operate as a sanction.” That is not a general good-cause exemption available on request. It is the rule’s translation of § 484.76, subd. 1’s “except for good cause shown by the presiding judge,” and the rule adds the word “rare.”
And there is an eighth exemption that is not in the list of seven. Rule 114.01(c):
If a party qualifies for waiver of filing fees under Minnesota Statutes, section 563.01, or if the court determines on other grounds that the party is unable to pay for ADR services, and free or low-cost ADR services are not available, the court shall not require that party to participate in ADR.
Read the conditions carefully — the exemption applies only where free or low-cost services are not available. But the operative verb is “shall not require,” and it is party-specific rather than case-specific. A litigant who cannot pay does not have to ask for discretionary relief under clause (5).
How does this square with medical malpractice?
Directly, and the relationship is worth stating out loud because the two rules point in opposite directions.
We have written that a Minnesota judge cannot order a medical malpractice case into mediation. That is correct, and it is not in tension with anything above. It is the first exception in Rule 114.01(a).
The mechanism is a cross-reference. Rule 114.01(a)(1) exempts malpractice cases “[a]s provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 604.11,” and what § 604.11, subd. 2 provides instead of Rule 114.04(b)’s compulsion is a unanimity requirement:
At the time a trial judge orders a case for trial, the court shall require the parties to discuss and determine whether a form of alternative dispute resolution would be appropriate or likely to resolve some or all of the issues in the case. Alternative dispute resolution may include arbitration, mediation, summary jury trial, or other alternatives suggested by the court or parties, and may be either binding or nonbinding. All parties must agree unanimously before alternative dispute resolution proceeds.
So both propositions are true at once. In an ordinary civil case the court shall order a non-binding process when the parties cannot agree. In a medical malpractice action the court may require a discussion and nothing more, because the statute the rule defers to conditions the process on unanimous consent. The exception is not a carve-out from every duty to confer about ADR — § 604.11, subd. 2 imposes its own, later-arriving conference duty — it is a carve-out from the compulsion.
Section 484.76, subd. 2’s list works differently again. Where § 604.11 permits ADR on unanimous agreement, § 484.76, subd. 2 says ADR “may not be required” in the enumerated matters at all.
What are the processes, and how do they actually differ?
Rule 114.02 defines them in four families. The distinction that matters to a client is not the label — it is who decides, and whether the decision sticks.
| Process | Family | Who decides | Binding? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation | Facilitative | Nobody — “a Neutral facilitates communication and negotiation to promote voluntary decision making by the parties to the dispute” | No |
| Early Neutral Evaluation | Evaluative | Neutral gives an assessment; parties negotiate after hearing it | No |
| Non-Binding Advisory Opinion | Evaluative | Neutral issues an advisory opinion on liability, damages or both | No |
| Neutral Fact Finding | Evaluative | Neutral issues findings | “Non-binding unless the parties agree to be bound by them” |
| Arbitration | Adjudicative | Neutral or panel renders an award | “May be binding or non-binding, pursuant to the agreement of the parties” |
| Consensual Special Magistrate | Adjudicative | Neutral decides after presentations “in a similar manner as a civil lawsuit is presented to a judge” | Binding — with “the right of appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals” |
| Summary Jury Trial | Adjudicative | A jury — six jurors “unless the parties agree otherwise” | Verdict “may be binding or non-binding, according to the agreement of the parties” |
| Mini-Trial, Med-Arb, Arb-Med | Hybrid | Varies by design | Varies by agreement |
Two entries deserve a second look.
The Consensual Special Magistrate is the only listed process that is binding and carries an appeal right on the face of Rule 114.02. Binding arbitration is the other adjudicative process that can end the case, but it is conducted under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 572B — Rule 114.09(a)(2) — where what a court reviews is the award’s validity on that chapter’s narrow grounds, not the merits. If the parties want a decision from a decision-maker of their own choosing but do not want to give up appellate review, this is the process the rule contemplates. Note the advisory committee’s own warning that this process “borrows from the Special Magistrate process set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 484.74, subdivision 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.”
“Non-binding” arbitration is non-binding for 21 days. Rule 114.09(e)(2):
If no party has filed a request for a trial within 21 days after the award is filed, the court administrator shall enter the decision as a judgment and shall promptly transmit notice of entry of judgment to the parties. The judgment shall have the same force and effect as, and is subject to all provisions of law relating to, a judgment in a civil action or proceeding, except that it is not subject to appeal, and may not be collaterally attacked or set aside. The judgment may be enforced as if it had been rendered by the court in which it is entered.
The demand runs from filing, not from receipt, and Rule 114.09(f)(1) closes the door: “This 21-day period shall not be extended.” Rule 114.09(e)(1) requires that “[n]o later than 14 days after the date of the arbitration hearing or the arbitrator’s receipt of the final post-hearing memorandum, whichever is later, the arbitrator shall file with the court the decision, together with proof of service on all parties by first class mail or other method of service authorized by the rules or ordered by the court.” After entry, the only remaining move is Rule 114.09(e)(4): “Within 90 days after its entry, a party against whom a judgment is entered pursuant to an arbitration award may move to vacate the judgment on only those grounds set forth in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 572B” — the Uniform Arbitration Act’s vacatur grounds, which are narrow by design and are the same grounds discussed in what an arbitration award can and cannot be attacked for.
A party who treats a non-binding arbitration as a free look, and calendars nothing, can lose the case to a docket entry.
Who picks the neutral, and can I remove one?
The parties pick first. Rule 114.04(b): “In the event that the parties are unable to agree on a Neutral, the court shall make the selection of a Qualified Neutral.” The rule also protects the parties’ process choice against judicial second-guessing: “If the parties decide on a process and cannot decide on a Neutral, the court should not substitute its judgment on process.”
If the court makes the pick, there is a one-shot strike, on a fast clock. Rule 114.04(c):
If the court selects a Qualified Neutral without the consent of all parties, any party may file a notice to remove the Qualified Neutral. Such notice must be filed with the court and served on the opposing party within 7 days of notice of the court’s appointment. Upon receipt of the notice to remove, the court shall select another Qualified Neutral. After a party has once disqualified a Neutral as a matter of right, a substitute Neutral may be disqualified by the party only by making an affirmative showing of prejudice to the chief judge or his or her designee by motion filed within 7 days of notice of the court’s appointment.
Seven days, from notice of the appointment. This is one of the deadlines that runs from an event rather than from a document you file — the category discussed in Minnesota deadlines that run from a fact. Miss it and the strike is gone; what remains is a motion to the chief judge on an affirmative showing of prejudice, on the same seven-day clock.
One more constraint, easy to overlook when parties want a specific person: “Any individual providing ADR services under Rule 114 must either be a Qualified Neutral or be selected and agreed to by the parties.” Rule 114.12 defines what qualification takes — for civil facilitative and hybrid neutrals, “a minimum of 30 hours of classroom training, with an emphasis on experiential learning,” and for civil adjudicative and evaluative neutrals, “a minimum of 6 hours of classroom training.”
What is actually confidential?
Less than “everything,” and the line is drawn by process type.
Non-binding processes. Rule 114.07(b): “Subject to Minnesota Statutes, section 595.02, and except as provided in paragraphs (a) and (d), no statements made nor documents produced in non-binding ADR processes that are not otherwise discoverable shall be subject to discovery or other disclosure. Such evidence is inadmissible for any purpose at a later trial, including for impeachment.” Note the qualifier “that are not otherwise discoverable” — a document does not become privileged by being handed to a mediator.
Adjudicative processes are the opposite. Rule 114.07(c): “Evidence in consensual special magistrate proceedings, binding arbitration, or in non-binding arbitration after the period for a demand for trial expires, may be used in later proceedings for any purpose for which it is admissible under the rules of evidence.”
No recordings. Rule 114.08(a) makes the neutral’s notes, records, impressions, opinions and recollections confidential and adds: “No record or recording of an ADR session may be made or disclosed without the agreement of all parties and the Neutral.” The rule then addresses the case where a session is held in a courtroom that records automatically — that recording “shall not be used for any purpose in the case without the agreement of all parties and the Neutral.”
Sessions are private. Rule 114.06(a): “ADR sessions are not open to the public except with the consent of all parties.”
What the neutral may tell the judge is a closed list. Rule 114.10(c) and (d) enumerate the permitted communications — including, during the process, “[w]ithout comment or recommendations, whether the case has undergone an ADR process and whether it has or has not been resolved,” and “[w]hether a party or an attorney has failed to comply with the order to attend the process or pay the court-ordered fees.” After the process, the neutral may report that the case settled “and may also include a copy of the written agreement,” or, “[w]ithout further comment, that the case has not been settled and, with the written consent of the parties or their counsel, that resolution of pending motions or outstanding legal issues, discovery process, or other action by any party which, if resolved or completed, would facilitate resolution of the dispute.”
So the judge learns whether you showed up, whether you paid, and whether it worked. Nothing about what you offered.
Who has to attend?
This is where sanctions actually get imposed, and the rule splits by process family.
- Evaluative, facilitative, and hybrid sessions — Rule 114.06(d): “Unless the court has ordered otherwise, individuals with the authority to settle the case shall attend all evaluative, facilitative, and hybrid ADR sessions.”
- Adjudicative sessions — Rule 114.06(c): such individuals “need not attend adjudicative ADR sessions as long as such individuals are reasonably accessible.”
- Trial counsel — Rule 114.06(b): “The court may require that the attorneys who will try the case attend the ADR sessions in a manner determined by the court.”
- Consequences — Rule 114.06(e): “The court may impose sanctions for violations of this rule.”
For an insured defendant, subsection (d) is the operative sentence. Mediation is a facilitative process; an adjuster who dials in only when called is not “attend[ing]” it within the meaning of the rule unless the court has ordered otherwise. Where the case is one in which a settlement demand is being made to create later consequences, that attendance requirement intersects directly with the offer mechanics described in Minnesota’s prejudgment interest and settlement offers.
What to do
- Assume ADR is coming and pick the process yourself. Agreement gets deference; disagreement gets a court-selected non-binding process.
- Calendar the ADR conference from service. Rule 114.04(b)’s duty to “promptly confer” attaches after service of the complaint, petition, or motion — not after filing.
- If a neutral is appointed over your objection, docket seven days. The strike under Rule 114.04(c) runs from notice of the appointment and is not renewable.
- Never let a non-binding arbitration award sit. Twenty-one days from the filing of the award, and Rule 114.09(f)(1) says the period “shall not be extended.”
- Send someone with authority to a mediation. Rule 114.06(d) is mandatory unless the court has ordered otherwise, and Rule 114.06(e) authorizes sanctions.
- If the cost is the problem, say so under Rule 114.01(c), not under clause (5). Inability to pay has its own provision and its own mandatory verb.
- In a medical malpractice case, negotiate for ADR — you cannot move for it. Section 604.11, subd. 2 requires unanimity, and the rule defers to it.
The observation
Rule 114 is usually described as the rule that lets Minnesota courts send cases to mediation. That description is backwards in two ways.
It is not a permission; § 484.76, subd. 1 told the Supreme Court to make nonbinding ADR the default in all civil cases, and Rule 114.04(b) uses “shall” for the one case where the parties fail to agree. And it is not about mediation. Mediation is one entry — a single facilitative process — on a menu that also contains a binding-but-appealable private adjudication, a six-person jury, and an arbitration that ripens into an unappealable judgment on a 21-day clock.
The parties’ real leverage under Rule 114 is exercised at the very beginning, in the conference the rule requires after service, and it is a choice among instruments rather than a choice about whether to be instrumented at all. Litigants who spend that conference arguing about whether to do ADR are arguing about the one question the rule has already answered.
Madgett Law, LLC represents Minnesota clients in district court civil litigation, including ADR selection and strategy under Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114 — choosing the process, evaluating a proposed neutral, preparing a case for mediation or arbitration, and protecting a client’s position when an award enters. If you have a case headed for a court-ordered ADR process, send us a message or call 612-470-6529.
Sources: Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 114, retrieved in full from the Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes’ published court rules on August 7, 2026, and quoted from the raw page text. Specifically: Rule 114.01(a) (quoted in full above, all seven exception clauses, including clause (1) “As provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 604.11 (medical malpractice),” clause (3) “Cases enumerated in Rule 111.01,” clause (4) “Cases excluded under Minnesota Statutes, section 484.76,” and clause (5)’s “rare circumstances” standard); Rule 114.01(c) (inability to pay — “the court shall not require that party to participate in ADR,” conditioned on free or low-cost services being unavailable); Rule 114.02(a)(1)–(3), (b)(1)–(3), (c)(1), (d)(1)–(4) (definitions of arbitration, consensual special magistrate — “This process is binding and parties have the right of appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals” — summary jury trial and its six-juror default, early neutral evaluation, non-binding advisory opinion, neutral fact finding, mediation, mini-trial, med-arb, arb-med, and “Other”); Rule 114.02(e)–(f) (definitions of “Neutral” and “Qualified Neutral”); Rule 114.03(b) (attorneys “shall provide clients with information about available ADR processes”); Rule 114.04(b) (duty to “promptly confer” after service; “If the parties agree on a process, the court should order the parties to participate in that process. If the parties cannot agree on an ADR process, the court shall order the parties to use a non-binding ADR process.”; court selection of a Qualified Neutral on disagreement; “the court should not substitute its judgment on process”; the requirement that any individual providing ADR services be a Qualified Neutral or be selected and agreed to by the parties); Rule 114.04(c) (7-day notice to remove, quoted in full, and the affirmative-showing-of-prejudice route for a substitute Neutral); Rule 114.06(a)–(e) (privacy of sessions, attorney attendance, attendance at adjudicative sessions, mandatory attendance of individuals with settlement authority at evaluative/facilitative/hybrid sessions, and sanctions); Rule 114.07(a)–(d) (use of ADR evidence, the non-binding-process inadmissibility rule “including for impeachment,” and the adjudicative-evidence carve-out); Rule 114.08(a) (neutral’s confidentiality; “No record or recording of an ADR session may be made or disclosed without the agreement of all parties and the Neutral,” and the courtroom auto-recording provision); Rule 114.09(a)(2) (binding arbitration “shall be conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 572B (‘Uniform Arbitration Act’), subject to any agreed-upon modifications permitted under the Act”); Rule 114.09(e)(1)–(2), (4) and (f)(1) (14-day deadline for the arbitrator to file the decision; entry of judgment if no trial request within 21 days, which judgment “is not subject to appeal, and may not be collaterally attacked or set aside”; the 90-day motion to vacate on chapter 572B grounds only; and “This 21-day period shall not be extended.”); Rule 114.10(c)–(d) (closed list of permitted communications to the court during and after the process); Rule 114.12, subd. 4(a)(1) and (b)(1) (30 hours of classroom training for civil facilitative/hybrid Neutrals; 6 hours for civil adjudicative/evaluative Neutrals); and the Advisory Committee Comments — 2022 Amendments to Rules 114.02 (the § 484.74, subd. 2a caution about the Consensual Special Magistrate) and 114.04 (actions “may be pending for a year or longer without being filed”). Rules 114.09, 114.12, and 114.13 carry history lines noting amendments effective July 1, 2026; the remaining subdivisions relied on here carry no 2026 amendment. Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 111.01, retrieved in full (fifteen lettered exclusions (a)–(o); clauses (d), (h), (k), (l), (m), (n) and (o) quoted above). Minn. Stat. § 484.76, subd. 1 (2025) (the Supreme Court’s mandate; “the rules shall require the use of nonbinding alternative dispute resolution processes in all civil cases, except for good cause shown by the presiding judge”) and subd. 2 (2025) (“Alternative dispute resolution may not be required in civil commitment matters, or in matters arising under section 144.651, 144.652, 518B.01, or 626.557.”), retrieved from revisor.mn.gov; the section’s history line ends “2020 c 86 art 1 s 1” and the page displayed no pending-amendment banner. Minn. Stat. § 604.11, subd. 2 (2025), quoted in full above, retrieved from revisor.mn.gov; the section’s history line reads “1992 c 549 art 8 s 2” and the page displayed no pending-amendment banner. Minn. Stat. § 563.01 is referenced only as it is referenced in Rule 114.01(c). No case law is cited in this article. This article does not state what any particular judge or judicial district requires in practice; Rule 114 permits variation by court order at several points, and each of the quoted provisions is subject to the court’s contrary order where the rule so provides. This article is general legal information about Minnesota law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts and on the practices of the assigned judge. No outcome is promised or implied.