Is the judge at a settlement conference the judge who will decide my case?

Usually not. In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the court states that the judge who would preside at trial does not conduct the settlement conference unless the parties stipulate in writing, and settlement discussions ordinarily may not be disclosed to the assigned judge. Other courts set their own rules, so the referral order and local rules control. A licensed attorney can explain how this works in a specific case.

Can a mediator or settlement judge force a settlement?

No. In both processes the neutral helps the parties negotiate but has no power to impose a settlement. The parties decide whether to agree. If they sign a settlement agreement, that agreement may be binding; if not, the case generally continues on the litigation track. Enforceability and documentation vary by court and jurisdiction, so a licensed attorney should review any agreement before it is signed.

Does court mediation cost money?

It depends on the court. In the Northern District of California, court-panel mediators volunteer up to two hours of preparation time and the first four hours of the mediation; after that, the session continues only if everyone agrees, and the mediator may charge an agreed rate. The same court states there is no charge to litigants for a magistrate judge settlement conference. Other courts and private mediators set different terms.

Which documents explain what a referral requires?

Generally the referral order from the assigned judge, the court's ADR local rules, and, for a settlement conference, the settlement judge's standing order or directions, which can cover submissions and attendance. In mediation, the mediator may give directions within the rules. These differ between courts and judges. This is general information, not legal advice; a licensed attorney can explain what a particular order requires.

Dispute Options

Settlement Conference vs Mediation: Who Runs Each

The Legal Storyboard · Updated 2026-10-12 · 7 min read

AbstractBoth are confidential, non-binding sessions where a neutral helps the parties try to negotiate a settlement; neither neutral can impose one. A settlement conference is led by a judicial officer, in federal court usually a magistrate judge, who may share views on the merits. Mediation is usually led by a neutral who is not a sitting judge and who generally does not evaluate the case. Rules vary by court and jurisdiction. This is general education, not legal advice; a licensed attorney can explain a specific referral.

Contents

Settlement conference vs mediation: what is the difference?
Why use one federal court as the example?
How do the two compare at a glance?
Who runs a settlement conference?
Who runs a court mediation?
Is the settlement judge the same as the trial judge?
Is either process binding?
Which documents control a referral?
What should a reader take from this comparison?
Sources

Settlement conference vs mediation: what is the difference?

A settlement conference and a court mediation are both confidential, non-binding sessions in which a neutral helps the parties to a lawsuit try to negotiate their own settlement. The main difference is who leads them. A settlement conference is run by a judicial officer, in federal court usually a magistrate judge. A mediation is usually run by a neutral who is not a sitting judge, often an experienced lawyer. Neither one can impose an outcome.

This is general legal education, not legal advice. Court programs, rules and orders vary by court, by state and by country. Anyone with a referral in a real case should have a licensed attorney explain what it requires.

Why use one federal court as the example?

Every federal district court has its own program. Federal law requires that "Each United States district court shall authorize, by local rule" the use of alternative dispute resolution, and it defines that term to mean a process "other than an adjudication by a presiding judge" in which "a neutral third party participates to assist in the resolution of issues in controversy" (28 U.S.C. § 651). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also list "facilitating settlement" among the purposes of a pretrial conference (Fed. R. Civ. P. 16).

This article uses the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a bounded example, because its ADR Local Rules describe both processes side by side. Those rules list three court-sponsored options: "Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE)", "Mediation", and "Settlement Conference with a Magistrate Judge." Other courts may use the same words for processes that work differently. For the wider family of options, see the dispute options hub.

How do the two compare at a glance?

The table below summarises the Northern District of California's own descriptions. It is a reading aid, not a substitute for the rules or an order in a specific case.

Question	Settlement conference	Court mediation
Who leads it?	A judicial officer, usually a magistrate judge	A mediator appointed from the court's panel of neutrals
Does the neutral give a view on the merits?	A settlement judge "might articulate views about the merits"	"The mediator generally does not give an overall evaluation of the case"
Can the neutral impose a settlement?	No	No
Which cases are eligible?	"All civil cases are eligible"	"All civil cases in which the parties are represented by counsel are eligible"
Cost to the parties	"There is no charge to the litigants"	Mediators volunteer "up to two hours of preparation time and the first four hours"
Main rule	ADR L.R. 7	ADR L.R. 6

Who runs a settlement conference?

Under ADR L.R. 7-1, "a judicial officer, usually a Magistrate Judge" "facilitates the parties' efforts to negotiate a settlement." A magistrate judge is a federal judicial officer who handles many pretrial matters but is a different person from the district judge assigned to decide the case. The rules add that a settlement conference "generally will be conducted by a Magistrate Judge," "but in some limited circumstances may be conducted by a District Judge" (ADR L.R. 7-2).

The settlement judge's style can be more evaluative than a mediator's. The rule states that "Some settlement Judges use Mediation techniques," and that "A settlement Judge might articulate views about the merits of the case or the relative strengths" "and weaknesses of the parties' legal positions." The court's settlement conference page adds that "The settlement judge has no power to impose settlement and does not attempt to coerce a party" to accept terms.

The court's page also notes that "Most magistrate judges have standing orders setting forth their requirements for settlement conferences." Those standing orders, rather than any general description, set the practical details for a given judge.

Who runs a court mediation?

ADR L.R. 6-1 describes mediation as "a flexible, non-binding, confidential process in which a neutral person (the mediator)" "facilitates settlement negotiations." The mediator "improves communication across party lines," "probes the strengths and weaknesses of each party's legal positions," and "helps generate options for a mutually agreeable resolution to the dispute."

In this court, the mediator comes from a panel of neutrals rather than the bench. The court's mediation page says "The court's ADR staff appoints a mediator who is available and has no apparent conflicts of interest." Panel qualifications include "Admission to the practice of law for at least seven years (if a lawyer)" and "Experience in communication and negotiation techniques," and "Non-lawyer mediators are appointed only with the consent of the parties."

Two figures shape the cost, and the second is the one people skip. Under ADR L.R. 6-3(c), "Mediators shall volunteer up to two hours of preparation time and the first four hours in a Mediation." After four hours, the session continues only if all parties and the mediator agree, and the mediator may then charge an hourly rate or another rate "that all parties agree to pay."

Mediation also has a broader reach than a purely legal negotiation. The rule describes "its capacity to expand traditional settlement discussion and broaden resolution options," "often by exploring litigant needs and interests that may be formally independent of the legal issues in controversy." For how mediation differs from a process where the neutral does decide, see mediation vs. arbitration.

Is the settlement judge the same as the trial judge?

Ordinarily, no. A settlement conference involves a judge, but not usually the judge who will decide the case.

The Northern District's settlement conference page states: "The judge who would preside at trial does not conduct the settlement conference unless the parties stipulate in writing." The rule itself provides that "Upon written stipulation of all parties, the assigned Judge, in the exercise of his or her discretion," "may conduct a settlement conference" (ADR L.R. 7-2).

The separation is reinforced by confidentiality. ADR L.R. 7-4(a) says information from a settlement conference may not be "Disclosed to the assigned Judge," and the commentary records that "It is the established practice in this district that a settlement Judge does not, formally or informally," "disclose to the assigned Judge the substance of any settlement discussions." Mediation has a parallel rule: communications "ordinarily may not be disclosed to the assigned judge." Both rules list limited exceptions, which is one reason the exact text matters.

The roles of the assigned judge, who rules on motions and presides at trial, are covered in court basics.

Is either process binding?

Neither process produces a decision. In both, the parties decide whether to settle. The mediation page states: "The parties may agree to a binding settlement. If no settlement is reached, the case remains on the litigation track." A settlement agreement the parties choose to make can be binding, and its terms deserve careful review before anyone signs.

Enforceability, documentation and what happens to the case afterwards depend on the court, the governing law and the agreement. Those are questions for a licensed attorney.

Which documents control a referral?

A general comparison cannot say what a particular referral requires. In the Northern District of California, "A case may be referred to ENE, Mediation or a Settlement Conference only by order of the assigned Judge" (ADR L.R. 3-4(a)). The documents that typically govern are:

The referral order from the assigned judge, which names the process.
The ADR Local Rules, particularly ADR L.R. 6 for mediation and ADR L.R. 7 for settlement conferences.
The settlement judge's standing order, for a settlement conference. Under ADR L.R. 7-3, "Within any constraints fixed by the referring Judge," the settlement judge notifies the parties of the date and time and of requirements for pre-conference submissions and attendance.
The mediator's directions, for a mediation, within the limits the rules set.

These documents address attendance, written statements and timing, and they differ from one judge or case to the next. ADR L.R. 7-3 sets out detailed attendance rules for organisations, government bodies and insurers. This article does not summarise those obligations; the controlling order and a lawyer's reading of it decide them.

What should a reader take from this comparison?

The comparison answers a vocabulary question: who leads each session, whether that person may share a view of the case, and how each is kept separate from the trial judge. It does not answer which process suits a case or how to prepare.

This varies by jurisdiction. Confirm the local rule and any order in the case, and take specific questions to a licensed attorney.