ABSTRACT

This chapter describes a matrix of dilemmas presented by new forms of practice in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that are simply not resolved by existing rules of ethics for lawyers and third-party neutrals, when roles played in ADR are sufficiently different and complex to require their own "rules." It reviews some of the concrete ethical issues facing at the cross-roads, to suggest that current adversarial conceptions of lawyer's ethics. The chapter provides a brief intellectual history of ADR and legal ethics to develop the context and discusses some specific instances of ethical dilemmas in ADR. The development of the ADR movement recapitulates many of the issues of American jurisprudence. ADR contemplates the creation of new and different roles—tasks and practices are derived from legal, therapeutic, economic and problem-solving disciplines. The great variety of roles and tasks taken on by third-party neutrals demonstrates the failure of the adversary model to provide standards of acceptable behavior in the areas.