ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Many lawyers are now involved in mediation, either as a mediator or as a legal representative for one of the parties to the mediation. These roles raise a host of new ethical dilemmas for lawyers. The focus of the literature to date concerns the ethical complexities faced by mediators. Comparatively little attention has been given to the ethical position of legal representatives. This paper identifies some common ethical issues which arise in mediation from the perspective of legal representatives for the parties. It focuses on the issue of disclosure of information (an issue which itself raises questions about honesty as against misrepresentation and openness or candour as against nondisclosure) and suggests how the issue might be resolved using the current rules of professional conduct governing lawyers in two common law jurisdictions, those of Australia and the United States. Each jurisdiction has taken a different approach on the issue. In the US, legal representatives owe mediators the same duties of disclosure as they owe to their opponents. In Australia, it seems that legal representatives may owe mediators the same duties as they owe to the judges. This paper will argue that the approach taken in the US (based on the much criticized rule 4.1 of the American Bar Association Model Rules) is to be preferred.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationLaw across Nations
Subtitle of host publicationGovernance, policy & statutes
EditorsS Kiekegaard, P Kiekegaard
Place of PublicationHellerup, Denmark
PublisherInternational Association of IT Lawyers
Pages614-627
Number of pages13
ISBN (Print)978-87-991385-9-3
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Event2011 IATL Legal Conference - Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
Duration: 19 Sep 201122 Sep 2011
Conference number: 8th
http://www.lspi.net/2011/

Conference

Conference2011 IATL Legal Conference
CountryCyprus
CityNicosia
Period19/09/1122/09/11
Internet address

Fingerprint

lawyer
mediation
moral philosophy
jurisdiction
duty of disclosure
common law
literature

Cite this

Wolski, B. (2011). ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation. In S. Kiekegaard, & P. Kiekegaard (Eds.), Law across Nations: Governance, policy & statutes (pp. 614-627). Hellerup, Denmark: International Association of IT Lawyers.
Wolski, B. / ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation. Law across Nations: Governance, policy & statutes. editor / S Kiekegaard ; P Kiekegaard. Hellerup, Denmark : International Association of IT Lawyers, 2011. pp. 614-627
@inproceedings{a9ed4fb443354c59a6f09e1695c10a34,
title = "ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation",
abstract = "Many lawyers are now involved in mediation, either as a mediator or as a legal representative for one of the parties to the mediation. These roles raise a host of new ethical dilemmas for lawyers. The focus of the literature to date concerns the ethical complexities faced by mediators. Comparatively little attention has been given to the ethical position of legal representatives. This paper identifies some common ethical issues which arise in mediation from the perspective of legal representatives for the parties. It focuses on the issue of disclosure of information (an issue which itself raises questions about honesty as against misrepresentation and openness or candour as against nondisclosure) and suggests how the issue might be resolved using the current rules of professional conduct governing lawyers in two common law jurisdictions, those of Australia and the United States. Each jurisdiction has taken a different approach on the issue. In the US, legal representatives owe mediators the same duties of disclosure as they owe to their opponents. In Australia, it seems that legal representatives may owe mediators the same duties as they owe to the judges. This paper will argue that the approach taken in the US (based on the much criticized rule 4.1 of the American Bar Association Model Rules) is to be preferred.",
author = "B Wolski",
year = "2011",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-87-991385-9-3",
pages = "614--627",
editor = "S Kiekegaard and P Kiekegaard",
booktitle = "Law across Nations",
publisher = "International Association of IT Lawyers",

}

Wolski, B 2011, ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation. in S Kiekegaard & P Kiekegaard (eds), Law across Nations: Governance, policy & statutes. International Association of IT Lawyers, Hellerup, Denmark, pp. 614-627, 2011 IATL Legal Conference , Nicosia, Cyprus, 19/09/11.

ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation. / Wolski, B.

Law across Nations: Governance, policy & statutes. ed. / S Kiekegaard; P Kiekegaard. Hellerup, Denmark : International Association of IT Lawyers, 2011. p. 614-627.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionResearchpeer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation

AU - Wolski, B

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Many lawyers are now involved in mediation, either as a mediator or as a legal representative for one of the parties to the mediation. These roles raise a host of new ethical dilemmas for lawyers. The focus of the literature to date concerns the ethical complexities faced by mediators. Comparatively little attention has been given to the ethical position of legal representatives. This paper identifies some common ethical issues which arise in mediation from the perspective of legal representatives for the parties. It focuses on the issue of disclosure of information (an issue which itself raises questions about honesty as against misrepresentation and openness or candour as against nondisclosure) and suggests how the issue might be resolved using the current rules of professional conduct governing lawyers in two common law jurisdictions, those of Australia and the United States. Each jurisdiction has taken a different approach on the issue. In the US, legal representatives owe mediators the same duties of disclosure as they owe to their opponents. In Australia, it seems that legal representatives may owe mediators the same duties as they owe to the judges. This paper will argue that the approach taken in the US (based on the much criticized rule 4.1 of the American Bar Association Model Rules) is to be preferred.

AB - Many lawyers are now involved in mediation, either as a mediator or as a legal representative for one of the parties to the mediation. These roles raise a host of new ethical dilemmas for lawyers. The focus of the literature to date concerns the ethical complexities faced by mediators. Comparatively little attention has been given to the ethical position of legal representatives. This paper identifies some common ethical issues which arise in mediation from the perspective of legal representatives for the parties. It focuses on the issue of disclosure of information (an issue which itself raises questions about honesty as against misrepresentation and openness or candour as against nondisclosure) and suggests how the issue might be resolved using the current rules of professional conduct governing lawyers in two common law jurisdictions, those of Australia and the United States. Each jurisdiction has taken a different approach on the issue. In the US, legal representatives owe mediators the same duties of disclosure as they owe to their opponents. In Australia, it seems that legal representatives may owe mediators the same duties as they owe to the judges. This paper will argue that the approach taken in the US (based on the much criticized rule 4.1 of the American Bar Association Model Rules) is to be preferred.

UR - http://www.iaitl.org/publications.html

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 978-87-991385-9-3

SP - 614

EP - 627

BT - Law across Nations

A2 - Kiekegaard, S

A2 - Kiekegaard, P

PB - International Association of IT Lawyers

CY - Hellerup, Denmark

ER -

Wolski B. ADR ethics: Regulating disclosure in mediation. In Kiekegaard S, Kiekegaard P, editors, Law across Nations: Governance, policy & statutes. Hellerup, Denmark: International Association of IT Lawyers. 2011. p. 614-627