An interactive discussion session will be led by three experienced mediators, dealing with the prickliest ethical issues encountered in mediation: for experienced mediators, advocates and in-house counsel, who should come prepared to weigh in. Among the topics: What should be the limits of the requirement for good faith participation? Where are the lines drawn between puffing and outright lies and who determines and enforces those lines? Is the confidentiality of mediation sacrosanct and what are the duties of the various participants to each other to maintain that confidentiality? Plus other similar conundrums.
Concurrent Session F
Friday, April 04, 20149:00 AM-Friday, April 04, 201410:15 AM
SarahCole, Ohio State University, Moritz College of Law;
JenniferReynolds, University of Oregon School of Law;
JacquelineNolan-Haley, Fordham Law School
This panel will consider ethical issues arbitration and mediation create for parties without lawyers in those processes. Assistance to unrepresented parties may trigger unauthorized practice of law allegations. With arbitration, this occurs through the tradition of non-lawyer representation; in mediation, the UPL problem arises when mediators evaluate and offer legal advice. Other ethical issues arise. How is informed consent achieved? How is justice delivered? This session will consider the ethical problems that arise with representation as more claims enter these processes and what strategies should be implemented to assist parties in representing themselves effectively in mediation and arbitration.
Concurrent Session G
Friday, April 04, 201410:30 AM-Friday, April 04, 201411:30 AM
LolaAkin Ojelabi, School of Law, La Trobe University
In an effort to bring Rawls into the dialogue on mediation ethics, this presentation places the mediator in the original position and asks how he or she might approach issues of substantive justice in a mediation process. It surveys, briefly, a number of ethics codes drawn from different regions of the world and notes that different cultures have struck different balances regarding the mediator’s relationship to justice. We ask, what would a code drafted by mediation enthusiasts operating under the “veil of ignorance” look like? And given mediation’s use in power- asymmetry contexts, why doesn’t Rawls’ justice theory hold sway.
Concurrent Session H
Friday, April 04, 20141:00 PM-Friday, April 04, 20142:15 PM
G. DanielBowling, U.S. District Court for the N.D. of CA
The Standards are designed to serve as fundamental ethical guidelines for persons mediating in all practice contexts. They are said to serve three primary goals: to guide the conduct of mediators; to inform the mediating parties; and to promote public confidence in mediation as a process for resolving disputes. This interactive workshop will permit the participants to explore two questions: Should the Standards be ethical guidelines, or evolve into rules of professional conduct. Is there a distinction? Do the Standards really guide the conduct of mediators, and do they really inform the mediating parties about what to expect from mediators?
Concurrent Session I
Friday, April 04, 20142:30 PM-Friday, April 04, 20143:45 PM
DanielRainey, Southern Methodist University and The National Mediation Board;
HaroldColeman, American Arbitration Association
In the seminal book describing Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), Ethan Katsh and Janet Rifkin characterized technology as the “fourth party.” This panel of ADR and ODR experts will discuss ethical implications of using technology in a dispute resolution practice, and will offer advice about how to maintain ethical boundaries in various situations involving information and communication technology (ICT). The panel will address: ethical considerations for advocates and mediators; impact of technology on existing ethical guidelines for mediators; and, tips to avoid ethical problems involving technology. The session will feature a series of "ethical dilemmas" to discuss with the audience.