By Febriantoro Suardy

I. Introduction 

With the adoption of MCR 2.410 by our Supreme Court, Michigan stands out as a leader in court-ordered Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) programs. ADR is now integral within the Michigan court system.  ADR programs are generally available in any civil case.  The court has the authority, after consultation with the parties, to order that a case be submitted to an appropriate ADR process.  Additionally, the rules explicitly allow the court to order ADR at any time. As for the forms of ADR that the court may order, they include a wide range, such as case evaluation, mediation, domestic relations mediation, and child protection mediation.  When the court orders a case to an ADR process, it may require the respective counsels, parties and other necessary persons or entities to participate in ADR proceedings.  The trial court’s authority to compel participation of non-parties is critical, as lienholders or insurance companies or others may have actual authority or an interest in the settlement. Failure to participate in ADR proceedings may result in a default sanction or dismissal of the case. 

MCR 2.410 provides an extensive framework for court-ordered ADR programs in Michigan. This framework regulates (i) the scope of cases to which an order may be given, (ii) the forms of ADR available at the court’s disposal, and (iii) the timing during a case proceeding within which the court may issue the order. 

Let’s compare Michigan’s program to 19 sister states’ court-ordered ADR programs. The comparison shows that, although there are some similarities in one or multiple aspects, none of these 19 states provides a more extensive approach to court-ordered ADR programs than Michigan does. 

II. The Scope of Cases to which an Order May Be Given

Cases in which an order may be given, break this down into the following categories: (a) generally any civil cases, with or without explicit carve-out cases, (b) only specific cases, (c) a combination of the previous categories, and (d) not applicable. The following table shows the distribution of states for each category.

Some of the carve-outs (Category (a)) include:  cases involving domestic violence, physical or psychological abuse where alleged victims have expressed unwillingness to participate in an ADR process, violations of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Laws Code, the amount of controversy (below $7,500), civil commitment matters, adoption proceedings, and juvenile delinquency.  Of this list, Michigan only excludes cases where physical or psychological abuse has occurred and the alleged victim does not wish to participate in ADR.  
 
Oklahoma allows each circuit court to choose whether to participate.  Iowa and Nebraska limit court-ordered ADR program to family matters. Ohio applies the program to probate matters. New York’s court-ordered ADR program applies only to cases under its commercial division.

III. The Forms of ADR Available at The Court’s Disposal

A court has several forms of ADR available: (a) only mediation, (b) mediation and arbitration (or another form of ADR), (c) multiple forms of ADR, (d) a combination of the previous categories and (e) not applicable. The following table shows the distribution of states for each category. 

In states with multiple forms of ADR, like Michigan, the court may specify the particular ADR forms covered by their program (as in Colorado) or use general language to describe other ADR methods or processes (as in Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Utah).

IV. The Timing During a Case Proceeding When the Court May Order ADR

Michigan grants the trial court broad discretion. ADR may be ordered at any time. The possible approaches to when the court may issue the order are: (a) at any time, (b) before trial, (c) not explicitly stated, (d) a combination of either of the previous categories, and (e) not applicable.

V. Discussion of the 19 States Court-ADR Program

In analyzing the  19 states’ positions on court-ordered ADR across three perspectives: the scope of cases, ADR forms, and ADR timing, the following graphs emerge:

A. Scope of cases

The chart classifies the scope of cases into generally all civil cases, only specific cases, combination, and not available. 

B. Forms of ADR

The chart classifies the forms of ADR into only mediation, mediation and arbitration or another form, multiple ADR forms, a combination of previous categories, and not available.

C. ADR Timing

The chart classifies the timing during a case within which a court may order an ADR into any time, before trial, not explicitly stated, a combination of previous categories, and not available.

VI.  Conclusion

The charts demonstrate that Michigan is at the forefront of ADR. Michigan has the broadest ADR program, and allows for ADR to occur at any point in the life of the case.  As the forerunner on ADR,  Michigan is the state that has the best opportunity to expand to systemically incorporate Peacemaking and Restorative Justice, as a concurrent available path for all litigants into its State Court Justice System.

Febriantoro Suardy (Toro) earned his law degree in Indonesia in 2018 and typically handles corporate transaction matters, litigation, and arbitration cases. In 2025, he received his LLM degree at the University of Michigan Law School. He wishes to especially thank Judge Timothy Connors for his mentorship, both in and out of the classroom.