Toward a Theory of Reciprocal Responsibility Between Clients and Lawyers: A Comment on David Wilkins’ \u3ci\u3eDo Clients Have Ethical Obligations to Lawyers? Some Lessons from the Diversity Wars\u3c/i\u3e

On my plane flight to attend the American Association of Law Schools meeting at which Professor David Wilkins presented his paper, Do Clients Have Ethical Obligations to Lawyers? Some Lessons From the Diversity Wars, the pilot requested passengers to assist the flight attendants in their principal duty of providing safety to all passengers, following a recent incident with mid-flight turbulence in which one person died and several were injured. The pilot reminded us that service was only a secondary function of the flight attendants, with their principal duty being to ensure that all of us traveled and arrived safely, and that we should assist the flight attendants (not just cooperate with them) in this effort. Aha!, I thought, our culture is moving to a recognition of reciprocal responsibilities between providers and recipients of service, and that is what Professor Wilkins\u27 paper is about. It is also about the familiar recognition that ethical responsibilities are often complex and contradictory, with multiple sources of law and ethics guiding choices and behavior

The Lawyer As Consensus Builder: Ethics For a New Practice

In this Article, I explore the roles of lawyers in alternative dispute resolution ( ADR ), including traditional roles in arbitration and new roles in mediation and facilitation. I also discuss how conventional ethics rules for lawyers fail to provide guidance and best practices for lawyers who serve in these new roles. State legislatures and professional associations, such as the American Arbitration Association ( AAA ), the Center for Public Resources Institute for Dispute Resolution ( CPR ), and the Association of Conflict Resolution, have adopted ethical codes for mediators and arbitrators. Select professional associations are also developing best practice guides for the provision of ADR services; however, the lack of clarity in the Model Rules is a serious problem. The failure of the Model Rules to recognize the role of lawyers in peacemaking, dispute prevention or resolution, and legal problem solving marks an absence in what is publicly recognized as among the most important roles a lawyer performs - that of a constructive lawyer. Furthermore, the Model Rules misrepresent the legal profession by assuming that representing clients in adversarial matters is the only role lawyers fulfill. Such an assumption fails to give adequate guidance to a lawyer who fulfills a broader, and perhaps, more significant role than that of a hired gun

Regulation of Dispute Resolution in the United States of America: From the Formal to the Informal to the ‘Semi-formal’

The story of ADR in the US is one of ‘co-optation’ of what was to be a serious challenge to formalistic and legalistic approaches to legal and social problem solving and is now highly institutionalized by its more formal use in courts. At the same time, use of private forms of dispute resolution in mediation, arbitration and newly hybridised forms of dispute resolution among disputants who can choose (and afford) to leave the formal justice system (in both large commercial matters and private family matters) has resulted in claims of increased privatization of justice, with consequences for access to justice in different areas of legal dispute resolution. These consequences include difficulty of access to some forms of private dispute resolution for those who cannot afford them and claims that, with mass exits from the formal system by those who can afford to ‘litigate’ elsewhere, there is less interest in judicial service and reform. In addition, in recent years consumers and employees have been subjected to contractual commitments to mandatory arbitration, sustained by the US Supreme Court, which has all but eliminated choice about where to resolve certain kinds of disputes. All of these claims are highly contested by practitioners, judges and scholars of the American legal system

What Trina Taught Me: Reflections on Mediation, Inequality, Teaching and Life

Trina Grillo and I trained together as mediators, met together as law teachers, commiserated together as women and civil rights activists, and laughed and cried together as friends. I shall miss her wise counsel, her sensible judgment, her measured indignation, her gentleness and her razor sharp perceptions about the world, across, through and with her gender, race, class, and human identities. I shall miss her words, her presence, her body, her corporeal essence, but she will always be with me and my students in her spirit and through her contributions to our work. In this Essay I want to reflect on some of what Trina gave me over the years in the hope that her contributions will continue to be heard, considered and listened to

Ethics in Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Issues, No Answers from the Adversary Conception of Lawyers’ Responsibilities

The romantic days of ADR appear to be over. To the extent that proponents of ADR, like myself, were attracted to it because of its promise of flexibility, adaptability, and creativity, we now see the need for ethics, standards of practice and rules as potentially limiting and containing the promise of alternatives to rigid adversarial modes of dispute resolution. It is almost as if we thought that anyone who would engage in ADR must of necessity be a moral, good, creative, and, of course, ethical person. That we are here today is deeply ironic and yet, also necessary, as appropriate dispute resolution struggles to define itself and insure its legitimacy against a variety of theoretical and practical challenges

The Historical Contingencies of Conflict Resolution

This article reviews the historical contingency of theory and practice in conflict engagement. World War II and the Cold War produced adversarial, distributive, competitive, and scarce resources conceptions of negotiation and conflict resolution, as evidenced by game theory and negotiation practice. More recent and more optimistic theory and practice has focused on party needs and interests and hopes for more party-tailored, contingent, flexible, participatory and more integrative and creative solutions for more than two disputants to a conflict. The current challenges of our present history are explored: continued conflict in both domestic and international settings, the challenge of “scaling up” conflict resolution theory and the problematics of developing universal theory in highly contextualized and diverse sets of conflict sites. The limits of “rationality” in conflict resolution is explored where feelings and ethical, religious and other values may be just as important in conflict engagement and handling

Introduction & Coda, Multi-Party Dispute Resolution, Democracy and Decision Making: Vol. II of Complex Dispute Resolution

The Complex Dispute Resolution series collects essays on the development of foundational dispute resolution theory and practice and its application to increasingly more complex settings of conflicts in the world, including multi-party and multi-issue decision making, negotiations in political policy formation and governance, and international conflict resolution. Each volume contains an original introduction by the editor, which explores the key issues in the field. All three volumes feature essays which span an interdisciplinary range of fields, law, political science, game theory, decision science, economics, social and cognitive psychology, sociology and anthropology and consider issues in the uses of informal and private processes, as well as more formal and public processes. The essays question whether the development of universal theoretical insights about conflict resolution is possible with variable numbers of parties and issues and in multi-cultural and multi-jural settings. Each volume also presents a coda, summarizing key issues in the field and suggesting further avenues for research. The second volume (and the introductory essay here) applies the theoretical foundations and practices of primary processes in dispute resolution–negotiation, mediation, arbitration and some hybrid processes in both public and private, informal and formal settings to more complex multi-party and multi issue settings, and asks whether foundational theories must be altered when there are more parties and issues. What difference do larger numbers make in theory and practice of dispute resolution and decision making? Other theoretical and empirical observations of the role of third party neutrals and facilitators in multi-party settings are explored, and applied disciplines such as game theory and decision sciences are applied to complex dispute resolution settings. Illustrations of uses of these processes in different substantive areas, e.g. legal disputes, public policy decision making, politics and governance, environmental matters, institutional relations, and high conflict settings are provided. The volume collects classic articles in multi-party, multi-issue theory and practice while interrogating the issues of how the numbers of parties and issues, different contexts and cultures challenges our efforts to create generalizable theory and practice of human conflict resolution. The review essay also discusses recent efforts to seek correspondences and learning from application of conflict resolution theory and practice to the work on deliberative democracy and political decision making. The coda suggests avenues for future research. Some attention is paid to issues of ethics and political theory, as well as evaluation of efficacy, in the use of third party facilitators in public policy and governance disputes

Taking the Mass out of Mass Torts: Reflections of a Dalkon Shield Arbitrator on Alternative Dispute Resolution, Judging, Neutrality, Gender, and Process

Life in the modem and post-modem world has changed our understanding of many traditional legal matters. Although many died from plagues, wars, and some shipping and agricultural accidents in the years which preceded the Industrial Revolution and modem breakthroughs in medicine, the twentieth century has given rise to group injury and death -it unprecedented levels, all as we march toward growth, progress, and greater goods for greater numbers. Mass progress has resulted in mass injury, which in turn has transformed individualized justice into mass justice. Whether structured as large class actions or as thousands of individual cases dealing with the same accident, product, or chemical, lawsuits claiming compensation for the harms caused by the fruits of production of a mass industrialized society proliferate in our legal system and challenge many of the basic tenets of American, adversarial, common law adjudication

Correspondences and Contradictions in International and Domestic Conflict Resolution: Lessons From General Theory and Varied Contexts

Does the field of conflict resolution have any broadly applicable theories that work across the different domains of international and domestic conflict? Or, are contexts, participants, and resources so domain specific and variable that only thick descriptions of particular contexts will do? These are important questions which have been plaguing me in this depressing time for conflict resolution professionals, from September 11,2001 (9/11), to the war against Iraq. Have we learned anything about conflict resolution that really does improve our ability to describe, predict, and act to reduce unnecessary and harmful conflict? These are the questions I want to explore in this essay, all the while knowing that I will ask more questions than I have answers to. My hope is to spark more rigorous attention to the possibility of comparative dispute resolution study and practice, using key concepts, theories, empirical studies, practical wisdom, and experiential insights to spark and encourage more multi-level and multi-unit analysis of some of our shared propositions

Do the Haves Come Out Ahead in Alternative Justice Systems? Repeat Players in ADR

Marc Galanter\u27s essay, Why the Haves Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change (Why the Haves Come out Ahead), published twenty-five years ago, set an important agenda for those who care about the distributive effects of legal processes, including those of us who have been engaged in jurisprudential, intellectual, and empirical debates about the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative and conventional legal procedures. As a document of legal intellectual history, this Article was formed in the crucible of the Legal Mobilization and Modernization program at Yale Law School that spawned so many law and . . . studies, including legal pluralism, law and society, critical legal studies, and in its own way, even law and economics studies. A seminal work in the socio-legal studies canon, Galanter\u27s article demonstrates the complex patterns of how law and legal institutions actually work, beyond descriptions of legal doctrines and assumed efficacy and penetration of law. In some senses, it is a continuation of legal realism, reminding us of the importance of studying the legal institutions in which the law is embedded and suggesting, at its end, how we might reform or adjust those institutions to produce optimal social change (in this case, redistribution of resources and delivery of justice)