1. Rule 17 Originally promulgated in 1992, amended in 1996 to take effect in 1997 Subject to local adoption Jackson County adopted as Rule 25

2. Purpose To encourage use of ADR in all civil suits Exempts cases under Rule 88 ( child custody) Alternative to trial not replacement

3. Definitions Defines five most common processes: Arbitration, ENE, Mediation, Mini-trial, SJT Non-binding unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. Such agreement will be binding on the court to the extent not prohibited by law.

4. Notice Requirements Notice is given to plaintiff at the time of filing and to defendant when served. Requires counsel “ to advise their clients of the availability of ADR programs” Quere:Will the failure to do so constitute an ethical violation?

5. Voluntary? Compulsory? Parties can agree and court will issue order Court may initiate and sustain an ADR order Parties can seek an “opt out” within 30 days of order But court may REQUIRE participation if there are compelling circumstances

6. Neutrals Parties can choose Court will appoint Court will maintain list but will not dictate fees Qualifications: mediators need 16 hours of training, others need 4 hours as determined by Missouri Bar Court can set other requirements such as length of experience

7. Reporting requirements Unless agreed otherwise, results reported to parties only to serve as a guide for settlement Results are inadmissible in any court Conclusion of ADR is reported to court within 10 days

8. Confidentiality Tracks language of Arbitration statute Neutral cannot be subpoenaed Settlement shall be by written document executed AFTER the termination of process Neutral can be compelled to testify as to events occurring after ADR completed Discovery can continue contemporaneously with ADR process

9. Attorney Perspectives on Rule 17 Study conducted by Supreme Court ADR Committee Based on experience with ADR after 1997 amendment through 1999 Data collected an analyzed by categories: Jackson County, St. Louis City, St. Louis County, Outstate More than 75% of respondents participated in ADR process within the last two years, highest % was in Jackson County

10. Why Attorneys had not been involved in ADR Process 57% -Not had a case appropriate for ADR 34%- Court does not actively encourage 30% - prefer judge or jury trial 26%- settle cases as well or better without ADR 25%- imposes additional expense

11. Use of ADR 90 % said ADR was useful in at least some cases 30% said they would “usually” use ADR even if Rule 17 repealed, another 55 % said they would use it “sometimes”. 35% said cases “usually “ settle faster with ADR, another 48 % said they “sometimes” settled faster. 36 % said ADR “usually” saved money, another 45 % said they “sometimes” saved money.

12. When is ADR discussed with opposing counsel? 50% within 6 months 30% within one year 15 % hardly ever unless opposing counsel or judge raises the issue

13. Settlement rates 30% reported increase in settlement rates 57% said clients wanted to stay out of court, 42% indicated that the use of ADR led to increase in settlement rates.

14. When is ADR discussed with clients? 62% within six months of filing 18% within one year 16% hardly ever 4% right before trial

15. Mediation Most commonly used process Reasons given: saves expense (85%), speeds settlement ( 76%), provides reality check for opposing lawyer or party (69%), settlement more likely ( 69%), helps everyone value case (69%), provides own client with reality check ( 67%), clients like mediation (32%), creative solutions more likely ( 23%) preserves party relationship (8%). What style of mediation is likely to produce these results?