Skip to main content

JAMS ADR Insights

Alternative Dispute Resolution Arbitration Mediation

ADR Considered an Active Practice in Federal Courts

More than one-third of all federal trial courts authorize multiple forms of ADR and all federal courts authorize some form of ADR, according to a report released by the Federal Judicial Center.

A survey of courts’ local rules, general orders, internal operating procedures and other online and written sources shows that 34 of the 94 district courts authorize multiple and distinct forms of ADR, including mediation, arbitration or early neutral evaluation (ENE). Of these courts, 14 authorize three or more distinct forms of ADR. An additional 27 districts authorize mediation only, while 25 districts provide general authorization to use ADR, authorize settlement conferences or authorize both.

Across the district courts, the most commonly authorized form of ADR is mediation, authorized by 63 of the 94 districts. Twenty-three districts authorize use of ENE and 23 authorize use of arbitration. Of the 10 courts authorized by the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988 to mandate arbitration, only three continue to require use of arbitration for the full portion of their caseload that meets the statutory requirements, while also offering mediation programs. Four others have made arbitration an ADR option and three no longer authorize this procedure.

The majority of districts authorize some degree of required use of ADR, particularly for mediation and ENE, either by giving judges the authority to refer cases on their own initiative without party consent, or by mandating referral for some or all civil cases. For mediation, for example, 58 districts authorize required use of mediation, including 12 that mandate use for some or all civil cases.

While the referral numbers and the profile formed on the basis of authorized procedures provides helpful information, the FJC report notes that its summary of ADR activity in the district courts is preliminary.

In the following months, the FJC will follow up on this initial report in the hope of providing answers to some of the remaining questions, such as the number of cases disposed of by ADR, and ADR’s impact on court caseloads and judicial workloads.

This page is for general information purposes. JAMS makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy or completeness. Interested persons should conduct their own research regarding information on this website before deciding to use JAMS, including investigation and research of JAMS neutrals. See More

Scroll to top