Ethics in Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Issues, No Answers from the Adversary Conception of Lawyer's Responsibilities
Ethics in Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Issues, No Answers from the Adversary Conception of Lawyer's Responsibilities
复制标题
替代性争议解决中的道德：新问题，律师责任的对手概念没有答案
DOI：
10.4324/9781315204826-17
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Carrie Menkel‐Meadow
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Carrie Menkel‐Meadow
本文回顾了各种道德困境和问题所提出的新形式的实践中的“适当”的纠纷解决，并认为，传统的律师的规则，专业行为的示范规则，不能回答这些困境的问题，因为它的不同组织范式的对抗性的律师的角色。本文简要回顾了ADR的思想史和职业道德规范，以证明ADR作为机构或角色解决的法律的过程概念的变体，需要基于不同的组织目的和律师角色功能的一套规则。本文探讨了新的和当前的案例法等问题的利益冲突，第三方中立的责任和豁免，并讨论了道德监管的可能的主题，包括费用，保密，跨学科的做法，问责制ADR的结果，并探讨“宏观”正义问题和“微观”行为选择之间的差异。
This article reviews a variety of ethical dilemmas and issues presented by the new forms of practice in "appropriate" dispute resolution and argues that the conventional lawyers' rules, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, cannot answer questions about such quandaries because of its different organizing paradigm of adversariness in the lawyer's role. The article reviews, briefly, the intellectual history of ADR and professional ethics regulation to demonstrate that ADR, as a variant on legal process conceptions of institutional or role settlement, requires its own set of rules, based on different organizing purposes and functions of the lawyer's role. The article explores new and current case law on such issues as conflicts of interest, third party neutral liability and immunity and discusses possible topics of ethical regulation, including fees, confidentiality, transdisciplinary practice, accountability for ADR outcomes and explores the differences between "macro" justice issues and "micro" behavioral choices.