27 discuss the non-binding opinion. One is best to take a pragmatic approach and go with whatever works. 2. Settlement Conferences Once again, briefs have been exchanged and provided to the judge. There may not be the same agreement on facts. Liability may be in issue and settlement conferences are often utilized when there  is a strong possibility of contributory negligence. The  technique employed by some  judges is risk assessment. This is an  attem pt, with the assistance of counsel, to, based on the best available information, make a determ ination  of a percentage on the likely outcome of trial. This is an art, not a science. The parties are invited to set out the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the judge hopefully facilitates a frank and open discussion, hopefully to arrive at a meritorious settlement. The clients may or may not contribute to discussions, depending on the circumstances. There is no reason why a settlement conference cannot be held even where there is general agreement on the facts. However, in my models, what distinguishes a settlement conference from a mini trial is that without general agreement on facts, a judge will not usually be  in a position to provide a non-binding opinion at a settlement conference. There will clearly be exceptions and in a settlement conference a judge may well forecast the likely outcome of a trial in percentage terms. For example, “I think the Plaintiff’s chances of winning are about 75%.” If appropriate, caucusing may also be used during settlement conferences. These models are my personal creations and are presented in an attempt to analyze the different practices that have arisen by different judges in what will always be a developing field of non- traditional judicial approaches. The anecdotal evidence suggests that mini trials are more favoured in Edmonton while settlement conferences are more favoured in Calgary. I have no idea why. Some  lawyers have a preference for one or the other of these models. The pre-JDR  meeting can assist these lawyers. They should ask and reach agreement with the judge as to what is to happen at the JDR. One of the few areas of unhappiness is lawyers who think they are getting a mini trial and instead get a settlement conference. Make your needs known to the judge. 3. Early Neutral Evaluation This model has been used in other countries with considerable success. The literature  indicates it has much appeal to non-adversarial lawyers. It usually arises in jurisdictions which have structured case management procedures and involves a judge meeting at an early stage with  the lawyers. It will occur before discoveries and before expert reports and clearly requires an attitude of open disclosure based on “will-say” statements. One of the objects is to avoid selection of “hired gun” experts who are known clearly as either Plaintiff or Defence experts. An attempt is made to agree on one expert, e.g. an  orthopedic  surgeon  or a psychiatrist who will provide  the sam e information to both sides, thereby giving a shared basis for future settlement discussions. In some cases frivolous matters can be disposed of quickly and, in others, issues can be delineated and a settlement conference held once the agreed experts’ reports have been received. I suspect that most of the litigation bar would be hesitant to use something as unconventional as E.N.E. So many of the Bar seem to think that they have to go through the entire process of lengthy discoveries, selection of experts and getting all of their ducks in order before they can even consider settlement. Pity!