Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 111.05

As amended through October 28, 2024

Rule 111.05 - Collaborative Law

(a)Collaborative Law Defined. Collaborative law is a process in which parties and their respective trained collaborative lawyers and other professionals contract in writing to resolve disputes without seeking court action other than approval of a stipulated settlement. The process may include the use of neutrals as defined in Rule 114.02(b), depending on the circumstances of the particular case. If the collaborative process ends without a stipulated agreement, the collaborative lawyers must withdraw from further representation.

(b)Deferral from Scheduling. Where the parties to an action request deferral in a form substantially similar to Form 111.03 and the court has agreed to attempt to resolve the action using a collaborative law process, the court shall defer setting any deadlines for the period specified in the order approving deferral.

(c)Additional ADR following Collaborative Law. When a case has been deferred pursuant to subdivision (b) of this rule and is reinstated on the calendar with new counsel or a collaborative law process has resulted in withdrawal of counsel prior to the filing of the case, the court should not ordinarily order the parties to engage in further ADR proceedings without the agreement of the parties.

Minn. Gen. R. Prac. 111.05

Adopted Oct. 29, 2007, eff. 1/1/2008.

Advisory Committee Comment-1994 Amendments

This rule is new. This rule is intended to establish a uniform, mandatory practice of dealing with scheduling in every case by some court action. The rule does not establish, however, a single means of complying with the scheduling requirement nor does it set any rigid or uniform schedules. In certain instances, other rules establish the event giving rise to the requirement that the scheduling procedures be followed. See, e.g., Rule 141 (condemnation .scheduling triggered by appeal of commissioner's award); 144.01 (wrongful death scheduling triggered by filing paper in wrongful death action, not proceedings for appointment of trustee). Because applications to compel or stay arbitrations are, by statute, authorized to be handled by the District Court in a summary matter and without the commencement of a separate action, it is appropriate that they be exempted from the formal case scheduling requirements of Rule 111.

Although the rule allows parties to submit scheduling information separately, this information may also be submitted jointly and required to be submitted jointly. In many cases, the efficient handling of the case may be fostered by the parties meeting to discuss scheduling issues and submitting a joint statement.

The rule contemplates establishment of a separate deadline for completion of an independent medical examination because the Task Force believes that it is frequently desirable to allow such an examination to take place after the conclusion of other discovery. The rule does not create any specific schedule for independent medical examinations, but allows, and encourages, the court to consider this question separately. The timing of these examinations is best not handled by rigid schedule, but rather, by the exercise of judgment on the part of the trial judge based upon the views of the lawyers, any medical information bearing on timing and the status of other discovery, as well as the specific factors set forth in Minn. R. Civ. P. 35. The Task Force considered a new rule expressly to exempt the use of requests for admissions pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 36 from discovery completion deadlines in the ordinary case. The Task Force determined that a separate rule exempting requests for admissions from discovery deadlines in all cases was not necessary, but encourages use of extended deadlines for requests for admissions in most cases. The primary function served by these requests is not discovery, but the narrowing of issues, and their use is often most valuable at the close of discovery. See R. Haydock and D. Herr, Discovery Practice section 7.2 (2d ed. 1988). Because requests for admissions serve an important purpose of narrowing the issues for trial and resolving evidentiary issues relating to trial, it is often desirable to allow use of these requests after the close of other discovery.

Advisory Committee Comment-2007Amendment

Rule 111.05 is a new rule to provide for the use of collaborative law processes in matters that would otherwise be in the court system. Collaborative law is a process that attempts to resolve disputes outside the court system. Where court approval or entry of a court document is necessary, such as for minor settlements or entry of a decree of marriage dissolution, the court's role may be limited to that essential task. Collaborative law is defined in Rule 111.05(a). The primary distinguishing characteristic of this process is the retention of lawyers for the parties, with the lawyers' and the parties' written agreement that if the collaborative law process is not successful and litigation ensues, each lawyer will withdraw from representing the client in the litigation.

Despite not being court-based, the committee believes the good faith use of collaborative law processes by the parties should be accommodated by the court in two ways. First, as provided in new Rule 111.05(b), the parties should be able to request deferral from scheduling for a duration to be determined appropriate by the parties. This can be accomplished through use of new Form 111.03 or similar submission providing substantially the same information. Second, if the parties have obtained deferral from scheduling for a collaborative law process that proves unsuccessful, the action should not normally or automatically be ordered into another ADR process. The rule intentionally does not bar a second ADR process, as there may be cases where the court fairly views that such an effort may be worthwhile. These provisions for deferral and presumed exemption from a second ADR process are also made expressly applicable to family law matters by a new Rule 304.05.

.