Back to:

MAIN QUESTIONS AND POINTS ON ENLARGING THE CANON
VIS-À-VIS ADR ETHICS:

	On Negotiation Ethics (Ethics of Advocates)	On Mediation Ethics (Ethics of Third Parties)
Enlarging the Research Agenda:	1. How can we tie the ethics of legal advocacy to moral theory about honesty, fairness, etc? There is a lot to learn from moral philosophy. 2. There is also a lot that bargaining analysts can give to moral philosophy: modern moral theory-particularly contractarianism and contractualism-is increasingly based in bargaining analytics. We can contribute to that debate. My own work in this area focuses on questions such as: ~ the moral significance of the model rules; ~ whether there is a moral duty to cooperate in bargaining ~ what honesty and fairness require in bargaining	1. Almost everything remains up for grabs. Should we have uniform ethics rules? What should they be-and how uniform? How should they be enforced and institutionalized? 2. Traditional assumptions are ripe for reconsideration: What does neutrality require? How important is confidentiality? 3. How to deal with third party processes in new contexts: in deal-making, in ombuds offices, in institutional settings? My own work in this area focuses on questions such as: ~ rethinking neutrality: the use of contingent fees by mediators ~ the use of mediation in contract formation (deal-making) as opposed to traditional disputes
Enriching the Teaching Agenda:	1. How to make moral/ethical theory practical and incorporate it as a skill in a practice-oriented course? 2. How to integrate ethics into a negotiation or mediation curriculum, rather than have it as one stand-alone day during the semester? 3. How to integrate these materials into standard Professional Responsibility courses and other core courses that touch upon negotiation and third party processes? There is a tremendous need for new teaching materials on negotiation ethics: cases, videos, exercises, etc. How can we facilitate the development and exchange of such materials?