The managerial concept arises in the judicial systems as a consequence of the transformations implemented by the "new public management" on the Rule of Law at the end of the 20 th century. These transformations were driven by the redefinition of the bureaucratic model of Max Weber by the efficiency paradigm, as a basis for the legitimacy of the public action. The expression "case management", in particular, is the result of the reforms occurred in the American and English civil procedural rules, whose different frameworks do not allow a full acceptance of its original meaning. However, it is possible to identify a common managerial rationality, based on the legitimacy of the judicial process for its efficiency, whose achievement stems from the encouragement of consensus. The search for efficiency must reflect, on the one hand, speedy conflict resolutions with lower transaction costs. On the other hand, it must satisfy the parties´ perception of fairness. Thus, the use of consensus seems to be able to foster both aspects of efficiency, as it promotes faster and cheaper solutions, not only in terms of merit, but also with regard to pretrial settings, when compared to court rulings. The consensual conduction of a case, whether for the use of alternative dispute resolution -ADR, or preparing it for adjudication, is defined as consensual case management. In this scenario, judicial activity is concentrated on the review on the validity of ADR choices and procedural agreements, which is considered absolutely necessary in light of the public nature of Justice and its need to ensure due process of law. Therefore, consensual case management implies on new roles for court actors through: agreements on the facts of the dispute, burdens, faculties, evidences, scheduling of proceedings, etc. Furthermore, consensus on procedural issues, even of a public nature, although not binding to the judicial authority in this case, can still represent efficiency gains that satisfy the managerial rationality of the civil procedure. In this context, both evaluative and facilitative mediations tend to promote consensual case management, as they can allow an impartial third party to foster confidential communication. Conflict, therefore, is perceived as a consequence of emotions, perceptions and behaviors on the one hand, and on the other, as the development of three stages, naming, blaiming and claiming. Court-annexed mediation is more efficient in fostering consensual case management than pure negotiation between the parties and than judicial driven negotiation. That occurs because parties generally do not fully engaje in negotiation with regard to the procedural aspects of a case by themselves, nor do judges find it appeling to hold conferences for this purpose. In this sense, three series of qualitative empirical research were conducted, which, within the methodological limits adopted, indicated a trend, in the studied sample, towards greater efficiency of Court-annexed evaluative and facilitative mediation for the consensual case managem...