802.12.Alternative dispute resolution.
Ch. 802: Pleadings, Motions and Pretrial Practice · Last amended 2019 · Last verified July 15, 2026
Full Text of Section 802.12
Official Notes
Comment, 2008: See s. 807.05, formal requirements to render binding agreements reached in an action or special proceeding. In some cases, such as family law cases, court approval is required for an agreement to be effective.
NOTE: Sup. Ct. Order No. 05-05 states that “the comments to Wis. Stat. §§ 807.05 and 802.12 are not adopted but will be published and may be consulted for guidance in interpreting and applying the statutes.”
Judicial Council Note, 1993: This section provides express statutory authority for judges to order that litigants attempt settlement through any of several defined processes. The parties may choose the type of process, the service provider, and the manner of compensating the service provider, but the judge may determine these issues if the parties do not agree. Subsection (2) (b) prohibits the judge from requiring the parties to submit to binding arbitration without their consent; this restriction preserves the right of trial by jury. Nor may the judge order nonbinding arbitration, summary jury trial or multiple facilitated processes without consent of all parties; these restrictions allow the parties to opt out of the typically more costly settlement alternatives. Lawyers have a duty to their clients and society to provide cost-effective service. The State Bar encourages lawyers to provide volunteer service as mediators, arbitrators and members of settlement panels. Subsection (3) sets forth several special considerations for family actions. Even when the parties consent to binding arbitration, the court retains the responsibility of ensuring that the arbitration award in custody, placement, visitation and support matters conforms to the applicable law. The court is not bound to confirm the arbitrator’s award. Rather, it must review the arbitrator’s decision in light of the best interest of the child. If following this review the court finds that the arbitration process and its outcome satisfy the requirements of all applicable statutes, the court may adopt the decision as its own. Miller v. Miller, 620 A. 2d 1161, 1166 (Pa. Super. 1993). Reasons for deviating from child support guidelines must be in writing or made part of the record. The Judicial Council has petitioned the Supreme Court to conduct a review and evaluation of this rule after it has been in effect for three years.
Plain-English Summary
Section 802.12 defines a menu of settlement alternatives: binding arbitration, direct negotiation, early neutral evaluation, focus group, mediation, mini-trial, moderated settlement conference, nonbinding arbitration, and summary jury trial, each with its own procedure and degree of formality. A judge who determines a case is suited to one of them may order the parties to select a settlement alternative, including a requirement that they participate personally, though a party aggrieved by that order gets a hearing to challenge it, and the order cannot delay the trial date, discovery, or other scheduled matters unless every party consents.
The parties choose which alternative to use and who provides it; if they cannot agree, the judge picks the least costly option likely to bring them together, but cannot force binding arbitration, nonbinding arbitration, summary jury trial, or more than one alternative without everyone’s consent. If the parties cannot agree on a provider, the judge can appoint one, and if they cannot agree on how to pay for it, the judge directs payment of reasonable fees and expenses, potentially through an escrow deposit.
Family cases under chapter 767 get their own rules: every alternative is available except focus group, mini-trial, and summary jury trial; a guardian ad litem, once appointed, must join any settlement alternative touching custody, placement, visitation, support, or another interest of the ward; binding arbitration awards on property division, maintenance, and attorney fees get confirmed and folded into the judgment; and an arbitration award covering custody, placement, visitation, or support can be confirmed only if it includes detailed findings, the arbitrator certifies that all applicable statutory requirements were met, and the court independently finds those requirements were satisfied. Except for binding arbitration, everything said or done in a settlement alternative is treated as compromise negotiations and mediation for evidentiary purposes.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a Wisconsin judge force me into mediation without my consent?
A judge can order the parties to select a settlement alternative and participate personally, but cannot force binding arbitration, nonbinding arbitration, a summary jury trial, or more than one alternative, without everyone’s consent.
What settlement alternatives does section 802.12 define?
Binding arbitration, direct negotiation, early neutral evaluation, focus group, mediation, mini-trial, moderated settlement conference, nonbinding arbitration, and summary jury trial.
Do family law cases have different rules under this section?
Yes. Actions affecting the family under chapter 767 exclude focus group, mini-trial, and summary jury trial, and a settlement alternative touching custody, placement, or support may require a guardian ad litem and independent court confirmation that statutory standards were met.
Can a judge order binding arbitration on child custody in a Wisconsin family case?
Only if the parties, including any guardian ad litem, agree to it, and the court confirms the resulting award includes detailed findings and satisfies the statutory requirements governing custody and placement decisions.
Are statements made during a court-ordered settlement alternative admissible at trial?
Except for binding arbitration, they are treated as compromise negotiations and mediation for evidentiary purposes, which generally limits their use.
Amendment History
History: Sup. Ct. Order No. 93-13, 180 Wis. 2d xv; 1995 a. 225; 1997 a. 191; 1999 a. 9; 2005 a. 443, s. 265; 2019 a. 95.