How Courts and Counsel Can Build Buy-in for Early Neutral Evaluations

When I helped develop Minnesota’s first early neutral evaluation (ENE) programs from the bench in Hennepin County, the idea of resolving disputes early, before discovery and entrenched positions, was still new. We were experimenting, but with purpose: We saw how early evaluation could streamline litigation, reduce harm for families and ultimately improve outcomes. Over time, ENE became embedded in our local process, and the model earned national recognition. Still, it didn’t happen overnight. It required judicial leadership, thoughtful design and persistent effort to overcome institutional resistance.

I’d like to share a few lessons from the trenches, drawn from both personal experience and the broader ENE ecosystem that can help courts and counsel foster greater engagement and long-term success with ENE programs.

1. Bring in the bar association early—and listen to them

In Hennepin County, when we began developing our ENE programs, we knew that genuine bar association participation would be critical. We invited the family law bar to join our working groups on both ENE and the initial case management conference (ICMC) process. They didn’t just validate our ideas; they helped shape them. In doing so, they became champions for the program, not just subjects of it.

It’s easy to underestimate the power of collaborative design. In our case, the bar offered insight into how procedures might land in practice, what would be resisted and what language or approaches would resonate. Their involvement also made it much easier to “sell” the programs to the wider legal community, especially when a few influential voices backed the effort.

2. Anticipate resistance—especially from the fee-driven few.

Not everyone greeted ENE with open arms. I encountered a few lawyers, particularly those whose practices relied heavily on prolonged, contentious litigation, who actively resisted the program. One attorney openly refused to allow her clients to settle during ENEs, hoping to sabotage the program by making it seem ineffective. Another told me to “get out of the lawyers’ way.”

We had to address this head-on. In one case, I brought a resistant attorney into chambers and made it clear that she couldn’t participate if she wasn’t willing to do so in good faith. Word traveled quickly, and the threat of exclusion from a growing, respected program was enough to change behavior. It also helped that many other lawyers and clients were beginning to see the real value of ENE.

3. Choose the right cases at the right time.

One of the biggest pitfalls I’ve seen, both in ENE and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) formats, is premature or poorly targeted participation. Some courts, eager to reduce their dockets, have referred all sorts of cases to ADR without regard to readiness. But ENE isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution.

Some disputes truly benefit from early evaluation, especially those involving fairly clear legal issues, manageable factual disputes or defined valuation questions. Others, especially when emotional readiness is low or key discovery is still pending, may need more time. However—and this is very important—as part of the court's case management role, the presiding judicial officer can facilitate an early informal exchange of key information, thus better preparing the parties to discuss settlement early on. I’ve seen firsthand how an ill-timed ENE can be counterproductive and how a well-timed one can transform a case.

4. Pilot first; scale second.

In Minnesota, we didn’t try to roll out ENE across every practice area at once. We started with focused pilots in family court: one on financial issues (FENE) and one on social issues (SENE). This made it easier to measure success, adjust our approach and develop advocates within the system. It also gave us a proof of concept that we could show to others.

I’ve seen similar strategies succeed in other jurisdictions, including in federal courts and states such as Ohio, where starting small allowed for refinement before institutionalization. It’s tempting to go big, but a successful pilot builds the momentum you need to do it right.

5. Don’t underestimate the role of culture and continuity.

Even the most well-designed program can falter if it lacks support from key players. Judicial officers with a strong case management mindset were instrumental in launching and sustaining our ENE programs in Hennepin County. But I’ve also seen what happens when that support fades: The program loses steam.

That’s why I believe administrative buy-in is just as important as judicial leadership. Judges rotate, but court services staff and program coordinators often provide the long-term stability needed to keep ENE programs alive and evolving. Partnering with bar sections, local ADR organizations and even universities can also build resilience into the model.

Final Thoughts

Getting ENE off the ground, or reinvigorating it, doesn’t happen by accident. It takes more than a rule change or a bench order. It requires engagement, adaptability and a willingness to navigate both legal structures and legal culture.

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s this: When done thoughtfully, ENE doesn’t just help cases settle; it helps systems evolve.