Resolution of a family case headed for trial is rarely stalled by unsettled law. More often, distrust, fear, and a conflict narrative each side experiences as truth are the culprits. Rule 604 of the Idaho Rules of Family Law Procedure provides Idaho courts with an important late‑stage tool for pre-trial resolution: the Judicial Settlement Conference (JSC).[1] Rule 604(a) defines a JSC as a voluntary process in which the magistrate judge facilitates communication and assists negotiations, while “the nature, extent, and results” remain within the parties’ sole control.

The authors have observed JSCs settle cases that had been at impasse after early-stage mediation. Conversely, we have also witnessed conferences lose momentum when parties or counsel were unprepared, or the judge was not provided with the information or resources to assist in settlement. What follows are judge‑friendly best practices grounded in Rule 604 and informed by professional dispute-resolution techniques.

Benefits of a Judicial Settlement Conference

Timing Is Important. Early mediation can be undermined by “information poverty.” Incomplete disclosure and discovery leave parties guessing about facts, motives, and risk. When information is missing, parties tend to fill gaps pessimistically, hardening distrust and reinforcing adversarial narratives. A JSC under Rule 604 is typically set later in litigation after completion of meaningful financial disclosures, discovery, and requested evaluations. Although many parties may resolve at early stages in litigation for good reasons, late‑stage negotiation has a built‑in advantage that the parties can negotiate with a clearer picture of their case.

Counsel’s Presence Can Change Outcomes. Rule 604(d)(1) requires parties and counsel to participate fully and in good faith, with lead counsel and parties present. This requirement cures a feature of Idaho’s family law mediation rules that can hamper settlement—attorneys are prohibited from mediation conferences unless the mediator requests their presence or the court orders it.[2] In late stages of a family law matter, real‑time advice from parties’ attorneys can keep settlement discussion productive. Attorneys also help clients analyze the risks and benefits of settlement offers without feeling abandoned, as can happen in mediation without counsel present. Thus, a late-stage JSC requiring attorney presence may be more successful than a standard late-stage mediation session if conducted without attorneys.

A Judge Can Reality‑Test Without Taking Ownership. The judge’s role can include evaluative discussions that would carry more weight than with other neutrals. It is generally assumed that a facilitative approach has been attempted during earlier mediations, thus, at a JSC, the parties can benefit from the judge’s perspective and general approach to family law matters. This will be discussed further below.

Choosing the Right Model: Presiding Judge or Settlement Judge

Use The Right Neutral at The Right Moment.Rule 604 permits a JSC conducted by a non‑presiding settlement judge or by the presiding judge (with a written waiver). The choice should be intentional.

The non-presiding judge model can facilitate more candor and confidentiality. When a different judge conducts the JSC, Rule 604(e)(2) provides that matters discussed will not be communicated to the presiding judge unless all parties stipulate. That confidentiality often encourages parties to be more candid about the real barriers to settlement and their risks in trying the matter.

On the other hand, the presiding judge model provides greater authority and can reduce a subtle form of gamesmanship in family law cases where a party may prefer to take their chances with the assigned judge where they do not appreciate the evaluation of their case by the settlement judge. Rule 604(f)(3)(B) authorizes the presiding judge to have substantive discussions about the case—reviewing probable evidence, discussing strengths and weaknesses, law, arguments, possible outcomes, and appropriate settlement. This rule intentionally offers judges powerful tools to facilitate resolution, although to what extent they are used will vary greatly among judges as each case may require.

If the presiding-judge model is selected, the waiver required by Rule 604 includes a provision many litigants may not fully appreciate. Rule 604(f)(3)(D) warns that information discussed in a presiding‑judge JSC (other than a settlement offer) may be used “for any purpose,” including as evidence at trial. This provision, unless properly explained with clearly set boundaries, can cause parties either to shut down (and the conference fails) or speak freely and later feel ambushed. A short explanation at the outset as to what is confidential, what is not, and why, protects the process.

Optional Participants: Use the Right Help at the Right Time

Rule 604(d)(2) allows judges to authorize a mental health professional, an attorney-mediator, or the family court services manager to participate. When used in the right cases, these professionals reset conflict narratives and engender productive decision-making. An attorney-mediator can be especially useful when the main barriers to resolution are unrealistic expectations or matters of law and evidence. Sometimes, clients may not properly hear their attorney’s concerns about the risks of trial, but hearing those concerns echoed by an attorney-mediator can help a party appreciate the possible outcomes and negotiate accordingly. Rule 604 contemplates such evaluative conversations, and many parties benefit from hearing the same message from another legal professionals, where a judge would perhaps not want to wade so heavily into those types of discussions with the parties.

In custody cases, Family Court Services personnel can also add practical structure and guidance on best practices for shared custody, insight on child development, and refocus parents’ attention to toward the best interests of the children.

When using professional assistance at a JSC, a particularly effective approach is employing staged involvement. For example, the optional professional can meet briefly with each side (or with counsel) first to identify the sticking points and the emotional landmines. The judge can then enter the negotiations with an informed and simplified agenda based on information these professionals gather. By meeting with the parties first, these neutral professionals can also assist attorneys to prepare their clients for the settlement discussions ahead, encouraging parties to maintain a forward looking, rather than retributive, perspective. The point is not to outsource the judge’s role; it is to reduce all-to-common obstacles so the judge’s time with the parties is focused and productive.

Best Practices Judges Can Implement Right Away

Judicial Settlement Conferences are most effective when they are part of an intentionally sequenced process, rather than a single, stand-alone intervention.

1. Require a Candid Pre‑Conference Submission from Counsel. Rule 604(c) provides that the JSC order “may include provisions governing the process used by the judge.” Judges have wide latitude in finalizing that “process.” Judges may require the parties, through counsel, to reveal the issues truly at impasse, what offers have already been exchanged, the best evidence on each issue, and any concerns (protective orders, intimidation, substance use, mental health) that may be present in the case. In family law cases, the best pre-settlement statements are not legal briefs, but roadmaps to resolution. Many Idaho courts already have pre-JSC forms they send to attorneys.

Judges need more than party positions to settle cases. Asking counsel for their assessment of the best‑ and worst‑case outcome for each major issue and what evidence would drive the court to one end of that range, can be a good exercise for attorneys and their clients in preparation for the JSC. For represented parties, it can also be helpful to require counsel to state (in general terms) how much the client has already spent on litigation and what it will likely cost to try the case. Those numbers often bring the conversation back to reality. Pre-conference statements ensure that judges have the information necessary to make the best use of their time.

 Other jurisdictions have addressed the issue directly by formalizing JSC preparation. Family court rules in Cowlitz County, Washington, contain a blunt reminder that settlement conference time is “a valuable resource” and parties should be prepared not to “squander it.”[3] That same set of rules require a settlement conference affidavit with financial information, supporting documents, and proposed parenting plans and balance sheets (for property disputes). In Thurston County, Washington, courts use mandatory forms that require parties to identify prior mediation attempts and partial agreements, protective orders, and related issues before the court sets settlement conference dates.[4]^,[5]

Courts of Maricopa County, Arizona, use a readiness concept that may be worth borrowing. They require the parties certify that the discovery and disclosures needed to “meaningfully engage in the conference” are complete and that other settlement efforts have been exhausted.⁶ That is a direct antidote to the type of information poverty that may derail a JSC.

2. Confirm Full Settlement Authority and Realistic Expectations.Rule 604(d)(1) already requires persons with full authority to settle to attend. Judges can reduce last‑minute derailments by confirming early that each party understands what decisions may need to be made at the conference and require lead counsel’s presence, rather than another attorney from the firm. Often in family law, persons not a party to the case may have substantial influence or stake in its resolution (e.g., new spouse, grandparents, and other family). There may be very good reasons for this, such as coordination of schedules in a blended family.

However, it is important that each party understands that they must have full settlement authority and be prepared to make final decisions at the JSC. Therefore, unless the judge is permitting other stakeholders to be present at the conference, each party should be encouraged to discuss possible outcomes with their significant others prior to the JSC and be prepared to accept agreements made.

3. Reality-Test with Questions.Evaluative discussions need not rise to the level of an advisoryopinion but may instead take the form of questions that point to possible strengths or weaknesses in the case. For example, a judge may ask an attorney if they feel the proposed evidence would be enough to convince the court to adopt their client’s proposal or if they have considered logical counterarguments and practical concerns related to their client’s case. Such pointed questions not only alert the attorney to possible concerns of the court but may also cause the party to consider issues from a different perspective.

Informing the parties of the stance the court generally takes on certain issues may also provide additional insight to help resolution, particularly in matters where the law is not definitive and magistrates vary greatly in their individual approaches. Other states’ courts encourage this approach. For example, courts in Maricopa County, Arizona, direct “settlement officers” to “evaluate the strengths and weaknesses” of a case to assist the parties in reaching agreement.[6]

4. Solidify Partial Agreements Early.Rule 604(g) requires that full or partial resolutions be placed on the record as soon as reasonably possible, with both parties sworn under oath. Courts may find it worth considering putting partial resolutions on the record as negotiations progress if discrete issues can be safely severed. The rule itself contemplates putting as much on the record as possible after the Judicial Settlement Conference, but it does not specifically bar placing partial agreements on the record and continuing the conference on other issues.

Placing partial agreements on the record can prevent complete derailment of the settlement process. Many attorneys and mediators have no doubt experienced parties’ reluctance to be the last one to compromise on an issue in settlement negotiations. Those seemingly small end-of-day details can lead a party to throw out the entire agreement. This is devastating where parties, attorneys, and the judge may have put in hours of work plotting a settlement. For example, in one recent JSC that lasted roughly six hours, the parties reached agreement on every issue but one. The remaining issue was addressed with a clear evaluative opinion from the judge, but one party perceived that final concession as a “loss” and responded by retracting all agreements on other issues. Although not always possible, had the parties stipulated terms for partial agreements along the way, at the very least they would have narrowed issues for trial. It may also have avoided the final grandstanding all together, where the power to withhold all prior agreements would not have been available.

The approach of securing partial agreements throughout negation is not new nor without precedent. For example, the Maricopa County, Arizona, settlement conference manual succinctly urges judges to “[a]ddress topics one at a time[,]” . . .and “[w]hen possible, nail down agreements before going on to the next topic.”[7]

A Short Checklist for a Rule 604 JSC

Before:

☐ Help parties select the JSC model (presiding judge or settlement judge) if they are pro se.

☐ Obtain any required written waiver.

☐ Confirm attendance of lead counsel.

☐Determine whether optional participants will assist (mediator, mental health professional, or family court services).

☐ Require exchange of settlement proposals and a short statement identifying the true points of impasse.

☐ Confirm completion of discovery and that each party has sufficient information to competently negotiate.

During:

☐ Set clear ground rules at the outset regarding confidentiality and the court’s approach toward settlement negotiations (facilitative vs. evaluative, or hybrid)

☐ Build in short breaks to manage fatigue and decision-making.

☐ Reality-test positions through strategic questioning.

☐ Secure and record partial agreements as they are reached, severing issues when appropriate.

After:

☐ Place all full or partial agreements on the record under oath—do not let parties leave without placing the agreements on the record.

☐ Set a firm, short deadline for final settlement document submission to the court.

☐ If remaining issues exist, assess whether a follow-up conference is likely to be productive.

Back to the Beginning

Consistent with IRFLP 101(d)’s directive that family cases be administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action, Idaho judges have authority to oversee the litigation process, including conducting Rule 604 judicial settlement conferences. The rules do not necessarily limit family law courts to only a couple of alternative resolution options, although the rules do provide extensive construct for mediation and judicial settlement conferences. For instance, Arizona family law courts have wide discretion and authority to “create, administer, approve, or authorize other ADR processes” to provide families with opportunities to resolve their dispute without litigation.[8]

Similarly, nothing in the rules prevent Idaho judges from crafting creative settlement opportunities for families. For example, some judges require that prior to a JSC, parties have at least one attorney-assisted mediation session.

The idea of courts taking the lead in facilitating resolution is implemented in San Diego, California, where courts are tasked with creating a “case resolution plan.”[9] By creating a dispute resolution plan from the outset of a case, parties and attorneys are given an excellent framework for pre-trial resolution. The cases that most need a JSC are rarely solved by one technique. They settle when the process is structured, information is complete, counsel is prepared and present to advise clients in real time, and the court uses its authority under these rules to dislodge parties from impasse. When used thoughtfully, a JSC is an excellent method to resolve cases that would otherwise have only ended with trial.

Colby Jones, JD, LLM is an attorney at Jones Law Partners in Boise, Idaho, and a dispute resolution educator. With a Master of Laws in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine University’s Straus Institute and a J.D. from Mitchell Hamline School of Law, he serves on the board of the Idaho State Bar’s Dispute Resolution Section and is listed on the Idaho Supreme Court roster of custody mediators and parenting coordinators. He is a TEDx speaker and published author on matters of dispute resolution.

Carol Barkes, CPM, MBA is a professional mediator, author, and conflict resolution specialist who has mediated and negotiated more than 14,000 civil and family law cases, including complex and international matters. A two-time TEDx speaker, she has also presented on conflict resolution and high-stakes communication at the United Nations. Carol is a lecturer at Boise State University and works with courts, attorneys, and dispute resolution professionals, drawing on negotiation theory, neuroscience, and more than a decade of full-time mediation experience.

[1] Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 604 (adopted June 12, 2023, eff. July 1, 2023), https://isc.idaho.gov/irflp604 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[2] Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 602(j)(2), https://isc.idaho.gov/irflp603 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025); Idaho R. Fam. L. P. 603(j)(2), https://isc.idaho.gov/irflp602 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[3] Cowlitz Cnty. Super. Ct. Loc. Civ. R. 91 (Wash.), https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.display&ruleid=superiorsupcwl291 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[4] Request/Response to Schedule Settlement Conference & Trial (Mandatory Form) (Thurston Cnty. Super. Ct. Fam. & Juv. Ct. rev. Oct. 11, 2021), https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/media/1629 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[5] Settlement Conference Statement (Thurston Cnty. Super. Ct. Fam. & Juv. Ct. rev. Oct. 24, 2023), https://www.thurstoncountywa.gov/media/1586 (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[6] Settlement Conferences, Super. Ct. Ariz. Maricopa Cnty., Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/court-resources/services/adr/settlements/ (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[7] Family Court Settlement Conference Guide, Super. Ct. Ariz. Maricopa Cnty. (pdf), https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/0cvjrlmq/family-settlement-conference-training-manual.pdf (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[8] Ariz. R. Fam. Law P. 66 (eff. Sept. 1, 2019), https://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/media/mrolcmcg/arflp-rule-66.pdf (last visited Dec. 29, 2025).

[9] Mandatory Settlement Conference General Information, SDSC Form D-047, at 1 (Super. Ct. Cal., Cnty. San Diego rev. July 2019), https://www.sdcourt.ca.gov/pls/portal/docs/page/sdcourt/generalinformation/forms/familyandchildrenforms/d047.pdf (last visited Dec. 30, 2025).