The vast majority of the cases we handle settle short of trial. But, even in those situations, the litigants should understand how the process unfolds.

Topics addressed in this podcast include the difference between a contested and uncontested divorce, the initial case workup, service of the summons and petition, temporary motions, mediation, pre-trial conferences, discovery, experts, trials and appeals.

Run Time: 10:52

• Child Custody;
• Parenting Time
• Child Support;
• Property Valuation;
• Property Division;
• Debt Division;
• Spousal Maintenance; and
• Attorney's Fees

Depending upon the preference of the mediator, and the parties, the mediator may work with the participants in one large group, or may bounce back and forth between two conference rooms.

The mediators that we utilize are experienced family practitioners with specialized training in alternative dispute resolution. Fees for mediation are typically split between the parties. Mediators charge an hourly rate for their services.

Mediation is a much less expensive option than traditional litigation, and leaves the parties in control of the case outcome. The case may be resolved much quicker and the relationship between ex-spouses tends to be much more respectful after reaching a collective settlement. Children are the direct beneficiaries of this improved level of communication.

For these reasons, we strongly encourage our clients to participate in the mediation process. Our commitment to those we represent involves taking the least expensive road to resolution first. Certainly, if we can't settle a case, we're prepared to take it to trial. But, most clients appreciate our common sense approach to concluding the dissolution process. 

What is Mediation?

Mediation is a flexible, non-binding and confidential process in which an impartial person, the mediator, helps individuals and their attorneys have dialogue that promotes settlement.

Mediators:

• Improve communication and enhance understanding between the participants;
• Help participants articulate their needs and understand the needs of others;
• Probe the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s legal positions;
• Identify areas of agreement; and,
• Help generate options for a mutually agreeable resolution to the dispute.

A hallmark of mediation is its capacity to expand traditional settlement discussion and broaden resolution options, often by exploring participants’ needs and interest that may be formally independent of the legal issues on appeal. The mediator generally does not give an overall evaluation of the case.

Why Appellate Mediation?

The benefits of appellate mediation can include:

• Avoids the risk of reversal. There is a chance that the trial court judgment may be reversed on appeal and remanded for further, costly proceedings.
• More satisfactory results. The trial court judgment might not satisfy even the prevailing party. A mediator can assist the parties to achieve their real goals.
• Focus on Children. For issues where children are involved, mediation helps parents focus on their best interests.
• Economical. The mediation process begins at the outset of the appeal. This can save substantial costs of preparing the record and briefs. 
• Rapid settlements. Mediation can resolve a dispute in a matter of days, while an appeal takes much longer.
• Allows more client participation. Clients without attorneys participate in the appeals process through written submissions only, and do not have a hearing. Even clients with attorneys can feel frustrated by their restricted role. 
• Higher rate of follow through. Parties who have reached their own agreement in mediation are generally more likely to comply with its terms than those whose resolution has been imposed upon them. 
• Reduces stress. Mediation encourages cooperation and communication, while discouraging the adversarial atmosphere of litigation.
• Avoids financial risk. A judgment for payment or transfer of property still does not ensure collection.

Who Attends the Mediation?

All parties to the appeal, and their lawyers if they have them, are required to attend the mediation. Under special circumstances, other arrangements may be made, if acceptable to the mediator and all parties. This requirement reflects the Court of Appeal’s view that the principal values of mediation include affording the litigants opportunities to articulate their wants and needs directly to the other parties and the mediator, and to hear first hand the other party’s wants and needs. Mediation also enables parties to directly discuss opportunities for mutually acceptable solutions.

How Should I Prepare for Mediation?

If you are pro se, you can think about these ideas before attending mediation, or discuss them with someone you trust. Attorneys and clients can discuss these ideas together before attending mediation:

Understand your goals and needs. Mediation helps parties explore what really matters to them. You can prepare for mediation by thinking about what you need to allow you to resolve the matter. Needs are not just what you WANT the court to do, but also WHY you want it ... think about how getting what you want will benefit you and your family?

• Expect the discussion to go beyond the legal issues. Think about what is of highest value to you? It might not be what is in the appeal. For example, sometimes your children’s stability, being respected, a favorable relationship with someone, or end of the stress of litigation can be of equal or higher value than money or principle.
• Prioritize. Think about what interests are most important to you to achieve. Understand where you may be willing to make concessions to get what you most want.
• Think about what the other party needs. Other parties have their own goals and needs. They may overlap with yours, or they may be different. Mediation tries to find creative ways to help both party’s meet many of their needs. Think about questions to ask the other party to understand what is most important to them.
• Create a list of options. Consider a variety of ways to meet your needs, and those of the other party. Be creative and leave the possibility open that you will find more options through your discussions in mediation.

Who Are the Mediators and How Are They Selected?

The twelve-member pilot project panel consists of highly respected mediators. All of them are attorneys, and have many years of family mediation experience, and an understanding of the appellate process. They are qualified family neutrals under the MN General Rule of Practice for the District Courts Rule 114, and have completed additional training on appellate mediation. They agreed to serve on this pilot panel on a sliding fee basis because they want to help people in the appellate process try a different path to resolution. You will receive a list of available mediators and short bios for them when your case is referred to mediation. You then have the opportunity to rank your preference of mediator, or agree together with the other side on who you want to choose.

What Happens if I am Ordered Into Mediation?

An Order for Mediation, Confidential Information Form (“CIF”) and this information sheet is sent to the lawyers and parties who do not have lawyers. The Order stays (stops) the appellate process from moving forward. Transcripts will not be ordered, and briefing will not be scheduled. This is to help parties avoid the costs of the appeal if they are able to reach resolution in mediation. Parties are required to complete the CIF and return it to the Court within 15 days. This form does not become a part of the court record. The form gives parties the ability to opt out of the mediation program with a valid reason. Parties also provide income and asset information to the Court to determine appropriate fees for mediation. The Court will set the fees and refer the case to the mediation coordinator, who will help the parties to select their mediator and schedule a telephone conference with him or her.

The pilot program, which began 18 months ago, is designed, according to the State, "with the goal of decreasing the conflict levels for families, decreasing the costs to litigants and the court, and increasing efficiency and litigation satisfaction."  The process is structured to reinforce and work cooperatively with the early-neutral-evaluation and other alternative-dispute processes that are become more common at the district court level.

Referral to mediation takes place after the appellant's Statement of the Case has been filed and the filing fee has been paid, but occurs before the briefing stage and before litigants incur the substantial costs of ordering transcripts from the district court where the case originated. Good news; parties to an appeal can expect to spend no less than $10,000.00 each to get through the process.

About a week ago I received a Notice of Appeal from an opposing litigant. Thus far, the Court of Appeals has stayed the proceeding (did so almost immediately) and ordered the parties to mediate within 90 days. The parties are able to rank  five highly qualified mediators appearing on the Court's roster of approved neutrals. The combined blind rank of each party will determine who will serve as the neutral. A sliding fee scale has been implemented, to facilitate various income and net worth levels.

I've heard nothing but good things about the program. I'll update the process as I work my way through it for the first time.

Couples can divert from the court system and meet with qualified "neutrals" who will facilitate settlement discussions and (unlike traditional mediation) offer opinions about the merits of a party's position. If successful, the process can save litigants months of emotionally-charged litigation and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs.

Five Anoka County judges have agreed to participate in the program, including Judge Sharon Hall who says that the early neutral process will allow litigants to "keep some control over their situation." The family law section of the Anoka County Bar Association has been a driving force behind the program, which provides litigants with yet another alternative to traditional litigation.

One big difference between the program in Anoka and Hennepin County involves funding. While Hennepin County covers the bulk of the costs for litigants, the Anoka County program has a very limited budget. Work is done by local lawyers, not county employees, on a sliding fee scale.

Upon the filing of a Notice of Appeal, the Court will immediately refer litigants to mediation. Mediators available to serve include a panel of 12 retired judges and/or experienced family law attorneys. Parties will pay the costs of the mediation on a sliding fee scale.

This pilot program was initiated three years ago as the result of a meeting between Judge Harriet Lansing and William Mitchell College of Law Vice Dean for Academic Programs Nancy Ver Steegh. Ver Steegh is known for her work in the area of family law and alternative dispute resolution, and serves as an Editor for the Family Law Professor Blog. The Chief Judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Edward Touissant, believes the program is here to stay, calling it a "win-win" situation.

A few other states have adopted similar programs, with a resolution rate as high as 76 percent. That's an impressive statistic, given the adversarial mindset of litigants - especially following a trial.

We've seen clients benefit from the trend toward resolving family disputes through mediation.   This new mandatory appellate mediation might just result in additional justification for working with a mediator in the very early stages of litigation and avoiding unnecessary fees, costs, time and emotion.

At this point in time, compromising probably doesn't seem like the best thing to do for yourself. Nor is it the best for your lawyer's pocketbook. But, a lawyer who truly has your interests in mind will attempt to position your case for settlement and speak with you about how to approach a case in a sensible manner rather than unnecessarily drive up the costs of your case through contentious litigation. We often say that any fool (referencing the attorney) can turn a $3,000 case into a $30,000 case. Aggressive lawyering typically yields greater fees and much of the time it simply isn't necessary. 

Unfortunately, in some cases we can do nothing but litigate. We've been there many times and enjoy trying cases. This entry is not intended for parties who have been victims of severe domestic violence or whose children are in danger while in the care of their other parent. In those situations, and others, we must take a very aggressive approach. However, the vast majority of cases do not involve such situations and can be resolved much less expensively (in terms of dollars, time and emotions) in a manner that is consistent with what the court will ultimately do with the case if asked to decide. 

Consider how your soon-to-be-ex feels about things. Think about your children. Discuss solutions that work for everyone involved in the case, not just you. Most importantly, it is irresponsible to intentionally create or fuel ongoing conflict during a divorce. In our experience, clients who are bitter, angry and relentless in their approach wind up hurting themselves and living with much more pain than those who come to the table with a sense of flexibility and reasonableness. We find they are also far less satisfied with the legal process.

We are not suggesting the divorce process will be easy for you. Everyone knows that it is very difficult to make reasoned decisions in the middle of an emotionally charged situation. It is our job to help with that. We understand you may hurt because of infidelity, irresponsible spending on the part of your spouse or chemical dependency issues. But, the bottom line is that the court does not care about such things, unless they have a direct impact on the welfare of the children. For that reason, it is important to focus on the things that do matter to the ultimate decision-maker in your case.

We find the couples who resolve their case through settlement feel much better about the result. They own the agreement. They haven't been told what they are going to do some person in a black robe. They conclude their case in a much shorter time frame than expected. They have more financial resources to draw on in the future. And, most importantly, their children seem to benefit from the fact that their parents, despite the dissolution, have found a way to work things out. The experts agree that divorce is a very stressful and difficult time for the litigants. But, those same experts also agree that it is even more stressful and painful for children. The longer your case lasts, the more harm will be done to your children.
 

In certain situations, courts will require couples to mediate. This is called court ordered mediation. A judge may order couples to mediate certain issues that are difficult to resolve. For resolving parenting time conflicts, a judge has the discretion to assign an expediter to help couples set up a visitation schedule for their children.

When couples seek mediation voluntarily or by court order, they are trying to resolve some routine problems that come up in divorce. Problems that people bring to mediation may include visitation, child support, parenting responsibilities, spousal maintenance (alimony), property division, debt division, and/or division of financial assets. The opportunity to mediate allows parties to take the time to address all their concerns and, with the mediator's help, to reach a workable compromise.

People often prefer to mediate rather than go to trial. Individuals may mediate before separation, and before, during and after the divorce process. In fact, a final divorce decree can state that for future conflicts, parties agree to first seek mediation to resolve problems that come up after their divorce is final.

Mediation may not be a good choice if: 

• A person or his/her children have been verbally, physically, emotionally or sexually abused by the other person;
• One person fears the other person or doesn't trust the other party to be fair or honest ;
• One person is not ready emotionally to mediate;
• The mediator is not treating either party fairly;
• One person has difficulty making decisions; or
• There is a power imbalance the mediator cannot neutralize.