Navigating the Grey Zones: A Practical Guide to Ethical Decision-Making for Mediators

Posted on 18/09/2025 by Dr Samantha Hardy

Samantha Hardy
This article has been republished with permission. The original publication can be found at The Conflict Management Academy.

The Conflict Management Academy has been running “The Mediator’s Dilemma Series” events this year, in which mediators explore a challenging hypothetical and discuss how they would deal with the dilemmas at various stages of the process. These events have been well attended and the discussions enlightening (and sometimes heated!) but what struck me after having reviewed the sessions so far is that the ethical decision making process used by participants was, well to be frank, rather ad hoc.

When mediators talk about ethics, the conversation often centres on principles we all know well: impartiality, confidentiality, and self-determination. But knowing the principles is not the same as knowing what to do when those principles collide. Real-life mediation can place us in grey zones where personal values, professional obligations, and competing priorities pull us in different directions.

In those moments, gut instinct is rarely enough. It’s worth asking: how do we make ethical choices in a way that is both principled and defensible?

Ethics and ethical dilemmas

Ethics is the process of questioning, discovering, and defending our values, principles, and purpose (The Ethics Centre). In mediation, ethical questions arise when two or more principles we hold dearly seem to conflict creating an ethical dilemma. This might be as simple as a clash between our personal sense of fairness and our professional obligation to respect parties’ self-determination.

Ethical dilemmas are not just theoretical. They appear in intake interviews, joint sessions, private caucuses, and even after a mediation has concluded. They can be subtle, like sensing one party is being unduly influenced, or dramatic, like discovering information that could prevent harm to someone outside the mediation.

Personal and Professional Ethics

Many mediators underestimate the role of personal ethics in their professional life. Personal ethics are shaped by upbringing, culture, religion, and life experience, and they inevitably influence how we perceive conflicts and decisions.

For example, imagine being strongly pro-euthanasia, and being asked to mediate a dispute about whether someone should be able to access it. You might be able to set aside your views and remain impartial. Or you might find your values so engaged that you cannot mediate without bias or at least without the appearance of bias.

Professional ethics overlay our personal values. In Australia, mediators might refer to the AMDRAS Code of Ethics, the International Mediation Institute’s Code of Professional Conduct, or for lawyer-mediators the Law Council of Australia’s guidelines. These frameworks outline key principles, but they don’t tell us what to do in complex, context-specific dilemmas. They also don’t rank principles or explain how to decide when they are in tension.

Where Our Professional Ethics Come From

Professional ethics in mediation draw from multiple sources:

Codes of conduct issued by professional bodies (AMDRAS, IMI, etc.).
Legislation (e.g. family law provisions prioritising child welfare, or mandatory reporting laws).
Court cases that discuss ethical aspects of mediator conduct.
Academic scholarship that analyses ethical principles and categorises dilemmas.

Because no single document covers everything, mediators need a working knowledge of multiple sources and the ability to interpret them in light of the case at hand.

Ethics of mediation

Various academics and practitioners have tried to produce lists of ethical principles for mediators. There are examples in the reading list below.

In my opinion, one of the most practical tools comes from Robert Baruch Bush, whose research in 1994 identified nine common categories (with numerous examples under each category) of ethical dilemmas mediators face:

Keeping within competency – avoiding work beyond your skill or qualification.
Preserving impartiality – managing bias or perceived bias.
Maintaining confidentiality – between parties and with outsiders.
Ensuring informed consent – avoiding coercion, ensuring understanding.
Preserving self-determination / non-directiveness – resisting the urge to impose solutions.
Separating mediation from counselling or legal advice – knowing the boundaries.
Avoiding exposure to harm – preventing physical, emotional, or legal harm.
Preventing misuse of the process – deterring fishing expeditions, stalling tactics, or intimidation.
Handling conflicts of interest – both actual and perceived.

Here’s a handy infographic that summarises Bush’s categories for easy reference:

But what should we actually do?

While codes and guidelines identify principles, they rarely tell you how to make a decision when those principles conflict. For example:

Is self-determination more important than informed consent?
When does preventing harm justify breaching confidentiality?
How should context, cultural norms, relationships, situational risks influence our choices?

Without a process, mediators risk falling back on ad hoc decisions, which are likely to be less well informed and harder to justify if challenged.

An Eight-Step Process for Ethical Decision-Making

The following approach has been adapted from social work and refined for mediation (originally by my colleague Olivia Rundle and I in an early article). It gives mediators a clear structure for navigating ethical dilemmas, with 8 steps (set out with more detail in the infographic below):

Clarify the dilemma
Identify stakeholders
Indentify applicable ethical principles
Consider context
Generate options
Evaluate options
Implement
Reflect

Common Options in Response to a Dilemma

While the “right” choice depends on the situation, mediators often consider options such as:

Doing nothing (rarely ideal, but sometimes appropriate).
Reality-testing with the parties.
Taking a break to seek advice from a mentor or colleague.
Disclosing the dilemma to one or both parties.
Withdrawing from the mediation.
Reporting to relevant authorities or taking protective action.

There are many more possibilities depending on the dilemma, the stage of the mediation, and the particular circumstances. It’s important that, like we ask our mediation clients to do in mediation, we generate as many options as possible, evaluate them and then create a specific action plan.

This is another thing I have noticed working with students in mediation training – they tend to come up with one option and work to justify it, rather than thinking about multiple and lateral options and then evaluating them.

Also, they tend to come up with an action plan (e.g. report to the authorities) that is vague and incomplete. For example, to whom will they report? What will they say? Will they identify themselves? Will they share this decision with their parties?). In hypothetical activities we can be vague with no consequences, but in the real world we must act quickly and precisely. The more we practice precision in our hypothetical scenarios, the more we will be prepared in the event we face a dilemma in our practice.

Consequences of Acting Unethically

Potential outcomes include:

Legal liability – rare, but possible if conduct breaches laws.
Harm to parties or others – physical, emotional, financial.
Complaints and sanctions from professional bodies.
Damage to reputation – to the individual and the profession in general.
Missed opportunities for learning if we don’t reflect and share experiences.

In reality many unethical actions go unchallenged, but that doesn’t make them harmless. The absence of consequences is not the same as the presence of integrity.

Why Practice Matters

Trying to work through these eight steps in the heat of a mediation can be difficult. That’s why it’s valuable to rehearse using hypothetical scenarios (the mediation equivalent of a fire drill)! Practising with such scenarios in training, supervision, or reflective practice groups builds your repertoire of responses and your confidence in applying them.

Building an Ethical Culture in Mediation

Ethical competence isn’t just an individual skill. It’s a cultural norm we build together. By talking openly (within confidentiality limits) about ethical challenges, we normalise the idea that dilemmas are part of practice, not a sign of failure. We also expand our collective “library” of ways to handle them.

That might mean:

Incorporating ethical decision-making practice into professional development.
Participating in reflective practice groups or “mediator’s dilemma” forums.
Sharing anonymised case studies in articles, webinars, or conferences.
Encouraging a mindset of curiosity and humility, rather than certainty.

Ethics in mediation is rarely about black-and-white rules. It’s about learning to navigate the grey zones with care, courage, and a willingness to be accountable for our choices. With a clear process, a solid grounding in principles, and regular practice, mediators can face ethical challenges with confidence and model the integrity that gives our profession its credibility.

But it can be difficult to navigate this grey area. What happens when mediation meets mystery, debate, and high-stakes decision-making? Welcome to The Mediator’s Dilemma, an interactive event series that takes you to the heart of some of the toughest dilemmas mediators face.

The Mediator’s Dilemma is inspired by Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals, with each session you will be immersed in a fictional yet realistic mediation scenario that is filled with ethical quandaries, unexpected twists, and moments where the path forward isn’t clear. As the story unfolds, you’ll face the same challenges as the mediator in the story.

The facilitator will guide you through the unfolding drama, pausing at critical “dilemma moments” to ask for audience engagement. Discuss with fellow mediators from diverse backgrounds. Whether you’re stepping into your first session or reflecting on decades of experience, The Mediator’s Dilemma offers something for everyone.

RESOURCES:

Boulle (2023) Mediation and Conciliation in Australia, Chapter 10.
Hardy and Rundle (2012) Applying the inclusive model of ethical decision making to mediation. James Cook University Law Review.
AMDRAS Practice Standards (2024) Code of Ethics
IMI Code of Professional Conduct
Law Council of Australia Ethical Guidelines for Mediators, 2011.
Robert A. Baruch Bush (1994) A study of ethical dilemmas and policy implications. Journal of Dispute Resolution 1.
Omer Shapira (2021) Mediation Ethics: A practitioner’s guide. American Bar Association.

OTHER USEFUL RESOURCES ON ETHICS IN MEDIATION:

Akin Ojelabi, L. (2023). The Challenges of Developing Global Ethical Standards for Mediation Practice In: Comparative and Transnational Dispute Resolution, Routledge, Oxford, United Kingdom
Robert A. Baruch Bush (2019) A pluralistic approach to mediation ethics: Delivering on mediation’s different promises. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 34:459-536.
Zachary R. Calo (2024) Artificial intelligence and mediation ethics. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 26:211-233.
Cohen, “A Taxonomy of Dispute Resolution Ethics” in M Moffitt and R Bordone (eds), The Handbook of Dispute Resolution (Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 2005), Ch 16, p 244.
Rachael Field (2012) Mediation ethics in Australia: A case for rethinking the paradigm. James Cook University Law Review 19:41-69.
Rachael Field and Neal Wood (2006) “Confidentiality: An ethical dilemma for marketing mediation?” Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 17(2): 79-87.
Rachael Field and Jonathan Crowe (2020) Mediation ethics: From theory to practice.
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Ethics and Professionalism in Non-Adversarial Lawyering, 27 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 153, 167-68 (1999).
Mary Anne Noone and Lola Akin Ojelabi (2014) Ethical challenges for mediators around the globe: An Australian perspective. Journal of Law and Policy 45: 145-193.
Mary Anne Noone, Lola Akin Ojelabi and Lynn Buchanan (2018). Ethics and justice in mediation.
Joseph Stulberg (1995) Bush on mediator dilemmas. Journal of Dispute Resolution 57-71.
Ellen Waldman (2011). Mediation Ethics: Cases and Commentaries. Jossey-Bass.

Mediator Dilemmas, Reflective Practice, and the Artistry of Ethical Judgment

Posted on 04/09/2025 by Dr Claire Holland

Dr Claire Holland

Why Mediator Dilemmas Matter

Mediation is often described as structured and principled. An approach that empowers parties to find their own way through conflict with the support of a neutral third party. At its best, mediation provides a space where voice, dignity, and autonomy are protected. Yet, despite this aspirational framing, the reality of practice is rarely straightforward.

Mediators work in rooms populated with human beings whose lives are in flux, often carrying frustration, fear, and a history of fraught relationships. Emotions surge, narratives collide, and the “facts” of the matter are contested, incomplete, or strategically presented. In this unpredictable terrain, ethical dilemmas are inevitable. Should a mediator intervene to balance power? How should they respond when one party is overwhelmed? What if an agreement seems clearly unfair?

Such dilemmas do not have easy answers. They exist in what Donald Schön famously described as the “swampy lowland” of professional practice (1983). Schön’s work on reflective practice provides a powerful frame for understanding the artistry required of mediators. That is, an artistry that blends technique, intuition, ethics, and reflection in order to navigate dilemmas that cannot be resolved through formulaic responses. Lang and Taylor (2000) similarly argue that becoming a skilled mediator is not simply about mastering techniques but about developing reflective capacity. In their text The Making of a Mediator, Lang and Taylor integrate Schön’s reflective practitioner model into the ADR field. Lang in his 2019 text The Guide to Reflective Practice in Conflict Resolution further positions reflective practice as the cornerstone of professional growth in mediation and conflict resolution.

In this blog, I explore how reflective practice helps illuminate the complex ethical landscape of mediation. Drawing on a case study of a residential tenancy bond dispute, I show how reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action enable mediators to navigate dilemmas in the moment and build artistry over time. I then connect these ideas to broader scholarship in Australia and beyond, where the development of mediator artistry has been central to debates about ethics, professionalism, and mediator expertise.

The Reflective Practitioner in the “Swampy Lowland”

Donald Schön’s seminal text The Reflective Practitioner (1983) challenged dominant assumptions about professional knowledge. At the time, technical rationality (the belief that professional competence flowed from the application of scientific theory) was the prevailing model. According to this view, the professional problem was to apply rules, methods, and procedures correctly.

Schön, however, observed that in many domains, including planning, architecture, education, and counselling, practitioners worked not in well-ordered problem spaces but in messy, uncertain contexts. Here, problems were ill-defined, values were contested, and outcomes could not be predicted with precision. These were the “swampy lowlands” of practice (Schön, 1983, p 42).

To navigate this terrain, Schön introduced the concepts of:

Knowing-in-action: the tacit, often unspoken knowledge that practitioners draw on automatically in the course of doing. Much of what professionals know is embodied and experiential, rather than explicitly codified (p 49).
Reflection-in-action: reflection that occurs in the moment of practice itself such as a fluid, improvisational interplay between thinking and doing (similar to a jazz musician improvising with other players) (p 54).
Reflection-on-action: deliberate reflection that occurs after an event, allowing practitioners to make sense of what happened and plan differently for the future (p 61).

Aligning with the views of Lang and Taylor (2000) and Lang (2019), mediators operate squarely in Schön’s swamp. Every mediation involves multiple unknowns: unpredictable dynamics between parties, shifting emotional intensity, cultural nuances, and competing ethical obligations. While codes of conduct provide necessary guidance, they cannot dictate every move. The mediator must learn to improvise by engaging in a “conversation with the situation” (p 79), as Schön put it, where each action invites feedback, and the practitioner adjusts in real time.

A Case Study: Mediator Dilemmas in a Tenancy Bond Dispute

To illustrate, this is an example case drawn from numerous personal experiences in tenancy mediations. These disputes often involve recurring participants, such as property managers representing landlords, who become adept at navigating the process. They sit across from tenants who may be experiencing mediation for the first time, which can create a power imbalance that raises ethical and procedural questions.

The scenario: A tenant, Jacob, seeks the return of his $2,600 bond. Opposite him sits Sarah, a property manager representing the landlord. Sarah is confident, well-prepared, and armed with condition reports, inspection photos, and invoices. Jacob, by contrast, is distressed, under-prepared, and reliant on narrative rather than evidence.

From the outset, a mediator is confronted with dilemmas:

Power imbalance: How should the mediator address the contrast between Sarah’s professional confidence and Jacob’s emotional vulnerability?
Procedural fairness: Can a process be “fair” when one party cannot effectively participate? Should the mediator slow the pace, summarise evidence, or even suggest Jacob seek advice, knowing this may frustrate Sarah?
Knowledge from prior mediations: The mediator recalls that Sarah often claims full invoice amounts despite regulatory provisions that might reduce the actual amount that can be claimed (such as the age of damaged carpet). Is it ethical to draw on that memory in this mediation?
Advice vs information: In private session, Jacob asks bluntly whether he is “legally entitled” to the bond. Where is the line between providing neutral information and slipping into legal advice?
Unfair agreement: Jacob ultimately agrees to accept a $300 return, with $2,300 dispersed to the landlord, seemingly out of fatigue and resignation. Should the mediator intervene if the settlement feels unjust?
Emotional breakdown: After agreement, Jacob breaks down, expressing hopelessness and despair. What is the mediator’s duty of care in relation to his wellbeing?

Each of these dilemmas places the mediator at a crossroads. There is no single “correct” answer. Instead, the mediator must reflect-in-action, balancing ethical obligations, professional role boundaries, and human sensitivity in the moment.

Reflection as Ethical Compass

Why does reflective practice matter here? Because mediation dilemmas are not only practical, they are also ethical. A mediator who blindly follows procedure may preserve neutrality on paper, but fail to achieve fairness in reality. Conversely, a mediator who overcompensates for a vulnerable party may risk undermining the perception of impartiality.

Reflection provides a compass in these grey zones. It allows mediators to:

Integrate theory and practice: Reflection bridges the gap between principles (such as neutrality and self-determination) and their messy application in practice.
Maintain ethical awareness: By questioning not only what they do but why, mediators can avoid drifting into unconscious bias or complacency.
Support emotional regulation: Reflection enables practitioners to notice their own triggers (perhaps frustration at a repeat-user’s tactics, or empathy for a vulnerable party) and to regulate responses appropriately.
Adapt strategically: Reflection encourages creativity in the moment, enabling mediators to shift structure, language, or process design to re-balance participation.

In short, reflective practice turns ethical dilemmas from paralysing obstacles into opportunities for professional growth and responsive practice.

The Development of Artistry in Mediation

Schön used the term artistry to describe the culmination of reflective practice as the ability to act intuitively, creatively, and ethically in uncertain situations. Artistry goes beyond technical competence. It is not simply knowing the steps of a mediation, but knowing how and when to adapt them.

Australian scholarship has made significant contributions to theorising and applying this concept in mediation. The recently revised Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation System (AMDRAS, 2025) explicitly integrates reflective practice, professional judgment, and ethical decision-making into its competency framework, embedding artistry as a national standard. Across the literature, artistry is framed as adaptive expertise and flexible judgment (Spencer, 2024; Spencer & Hardy, 2014; Boulle, 2011), grounded in reflective learning and ethical responsibility (Douglas & Ojelabi, 2023, 2024). Field (2007, 2022) advances this discussion (aligning with Lang, 2019) by emphasising “ethical artistry,” in which mediators combine empathy and neutrality with critical attention to power and justice. Similarly, Douglas and Goodwin (2015) present artistry as a distinctive form of professional competence, where the true effectiveness of a mediator lies not in technical skill alone but in the creative and intuitive responsiveness to the dynamics of a dispute. Hardy (2010) further underscores the role of narrative and emotional competence, highlighting that artistry requires engaging with parties’ stories in ways that acknowledge emotion while fostering constructive reframing. At the same time, Condliffe and Holland (2025, in press) caution that reflective practice has limits, and that real-world, contextual experience is indispensable to developing artistry, a challenge recognised and reinforced in the AMDRAS standards.

Lang (2019) reinforces the idea that reflective practice is not optional, but core to conducting ethical and competent mediation. Lang makes the case that ethical judgement cannot be separated from reflective practice, and that reflection is the key to helping practitioners clarify what values guide them, and how they should act consistently with those values.

Taken together, this body of work positions artistry as a central dimension of mediation practice in Australia, conceptualised as the integration of technical skill, reflective judgment, ethical responsiveness, and creative adaptability.

Reflection-in-Action: Improvisation as Ethical Skill

The tenancy mediation scenario illustrates reflection-in-action vividly. When Jacob becomes increasingly distressed, the mediator must decide: allow him to continue, risking further escalation, or intervene, risking perceived bias. This decision is not made in abstract; it is made in real time, shaped by Jacob’s clenched fists, Sarah’s glazed expression, and the emotional temperature of the room.

Here, reflection-in-action operates like jazz improvisation. The mediator draws on tacit knowledge of communication, body language, and conflict dynamics. They may reframe Jacob’s narrative to bring clarity, pause to re-balance engagement, or shift into private session. Each choice is both action and reflection, and each choice brings new opportunities for feedback that shapes the next move.

This improvisational quality is what makes mediation both challenging and deeply human. As Schön suggested, reflection-in-action is like a conversation with the situation. For mediators, that conversation involves listening not only to words, but to silences, tones, and the subtle cues that indicate when power is tilting or emotions are destabilising the process.

Reflection-on-Action: Building Capacity Through Learning

Equally vital is reflection-on-action. After the mediation, the practitioner can revisit the dilemmas encountered. Did my intervention support or hinder fairness? Did I unconsciously align with one party? Should I have paused the mediation for advice?

Such reflection can occur individually through journaling, or collectively through supervision, peer consultation, or structured professional development. By analysing decisions and their impacts, mediators convert tacit impressions into explicit learning. Over time, this strengthens their capacity for artistry in future cases.

One innovative forum that supports this reflective process is the Conflict Management Academy’s Mediator’s Dilemma series, a monthly seminar inspired by Geoffrey Robertson’s Hypotheticals. Each session presents a fictional yet realistic mediation scenario filled with ethical quandaries, narrative twists, and moments of uncertainty. As the scenario unfolds, participants are invited to step into the mediator’s shoes at critical decision points, debating possible actions, exploring consequences, and engaging with the complexity of real-world dilemmas. The interactive format encourages practitioners to articulate their reasoning, challenge their own assumptions, and learn from the diverse perspectives of colleagues.

For mediators, the series offers a rare and valuable opportunity: a safe space to rehearse responses to high-stakes situations without the pressure of live practice. This collective reflection not only sharpens technical decision-making but also deepens professional artistry by fostering creative, context-sensitive approaches. In this way, the Mediator’s Dilemma Series complements traditional reflective practices (such as journaling and supervision) by embedding reflection-on-action within a dynamic, collaborative community of practice. It transforms abstract ethical challenges into lived, shared experiences, ensuring that mediators refine their judgment, resilience, and artistry for future cases.

Source: Mediator’s Dilemma Series 2025 – Conflict Management Academy

The Ethical Heart of Artistry

It is tempting to think of artistry as primarily about skill or style. But artistry in mediation is inseparable from ethics. Each improvisation is bounded by questions of neutrality, fairness, justice, and care.

For instance, consider the final stage of the tenancy case, where Jacob reluctantly agrees to an unfavourable settlement. Technically, party self-determination has been respected. Yet the mediator senses the outcome is more about resignation than genuine agreement. Here, artistry involves discerning how far to probe for informed consent without crossing into advocacy. It is not simply about what works procedurally, but what is ethically sound.

This intertwining of artistry and ethics reflects what Field and Crowe (2020) describe as a contemporary, relational approach to mediation ethics. The authors suggest that rather than relying solely on procedures or rules, effective mediation calls for ethical responsiveness to the unique circumstances of each dispute and the self-determination needs of the parties. Practitioners must combine procedural skill with self-awareness, empathy, and the courage to act in ways that safeguard fairness, even when situations are uncertain or ambiguous. In this view, a mediator’s ethical judgment is not an abstract ideal but a guiding force that shapes their real-time adaptability, allowing them to navigate complex dynamics with both integrity and artistry.

The Mediator as Reflective Artist

Mediators inhabit a professional landscape defined by complexity, ambiguity, and ethical tension. Reflective practice enables mediators to navigate dilemmas ethically, adapt strategically, and cultivate artistry.

The tenancy case illustrates the challenges vividly: power imbalance, vulnerability, unfair settlements, and emotional breakdowns. In such moments, there is no formulaic answer. Instead, the mediator must improvise by thinking and acting simultaneously, guided by reflective awareness.

Over time, these reflective engagements shape artistry. It is constant aim of achieving truly intuitive, responsive, and ethically grounded practice that distinguishes not just competent mediators, but exceptional ones. As the profession continues to evolve, it must guard against overemphasis on procedural compliance at the expense of reflective artistry. For it is in the “swampy lowlands” of practice and amid the human messiness, that the true value of mediation lies.

Reference List

Boulle, L. (2011) Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Condliffe, P., & Holland, C. (2025, In Press). Conflict Management: a practical guide, 7^th Ed. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Douglas, K., & Akin Ojelabi, L. (2024). Civil dispute resolution in Australia: A content analysis of the teaching of ADR in the core legal curriculum. Adelaide Law Review, 45(2), 341–370.
Douglas, K., & Akin Ojelabi, L. (2023). Lawyers’ ethical and practice norms in mediation: Including emotion as part of the Australian guidelines for lawyers in mediation. Legal Ethics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2023.2238281
Douglas, K., & Goodwin, D. (2015). Artistry in mediator practice: Reflections from mediators. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 26(3), 172–181.
Field, R. (2022). Australian dispute resolution. LexisNexis Butterworths.
Field, R., & Crowe, J. (2020). Mediation ethics: From theory to practice. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Field, R. (2007). A Mediation Profession in Australia: An Improved Framework for Mediation Ethics. Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal, 18(3), 178-185.
Lang, M. D. (2019). The guide to reflective practice in conflict resolution. Rowman & Littlefield.
Lang, M. D., & Taylor, A. (2000). The making of a mediator: Developing artistry in practice. Jossey-Bass.
Mediator Standards Board. (2025). Australian Mediator and Dispute Resolution Accreditation System (AMDRAS) standards. Mediator Standards Board. https://msb.org.au
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Spencer, D. (2024). Principles of dispute resolution (4th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
Spencer, D., & Hardy, S. (2014). Dispute resolution in Australia: Cases, commentary and materials. Thomson Reuters.

The central role of party self-determination in mediation ethics

Posted on 19/12/2017 by Jonathan Crowe

Written by Professors Rachael Field and Jonathan Crowe. The post is a version of a paper delivered at the 6th ADR Research Network Roundtable, 4 -5 December 2017.

RF and JC Image

The dominant paradigm of mediation ethics has traditionally given a central role to the notion of mediator neutrality. However, this focus has been criticised in recent decades for being unrealistic and overlooking the power dynamics between the parties. In our forthcoming book, Mediation Ethics: From Theory to Practice, we advocate a new paradigm of mediation ethics focused on the notion of party self-determination. Why, then, is party self-determination a suitable candidate for this role?

The justification for making party self-determination the primary ethical imperative of mediation centres on two main arguments. The first argument is that the possibility of achieving self-determination for the parties is what distinguishes mediation from other dispute resolution processes and makes it a distinct and valuable process in its own right. The second argument is that the achievement of party self-determination provides a principled foundation for the legitimacy of the mediation process. We discuss these arguments briefly below.

Mediation as a distinct process

Party self-determination is the key factor distinguishing mediation from litigation and other dispute resolution processes, because mediation provides the parties with the ultimate power to decide how to resolve their dispute. A mediator’s role is to use their expertise so as to enable and empower the parties to reach their own decision. This characteristic of mediation is special and distinct.

This point is emphasised by the fact that in litigation, arbitration, and even conciliation processes, the focus is not on enabling and empowering the parties to take control of their dispute and to reach an outcome of their own determination. Rather, the focus is on the third party decision-maker or specialist judging the merits of the parties’ cases and imposing a decision. Such adjudicative activity is generally guided by objective norms or criteria—most often centred on the law. There is limited opportunity for party self-determination in such processes.

Party self-determination in mediation is also distinctive because it is relational—grounded in connection, cooperation and collaboration. This concept of self-determination is very different from an atomistic notion of autonomy that emphasises privacy and self. An atomistic conception of self-determination arguably underpins the adversarial legal system, because each party is encouraged to advocate single-mindedly for their own interests. In mediation, by contrast, party self-determination does not exist on an individual level; rather, it is holistic and relational, encompassing the needs and interests of both parties. If only one party experiences self-determination, the process has not succeeded in its aims.

Principled and legitimate outcomes

A second argument for emphasising party self-determination is that it provides a principled foundation for the legitimacy of the process. Party self-determination can be said to lead to principled outcomes because it reflects foundational values of our legal, social and political order. These include traditional liberal values, such as consent, autonomy, respect, privacy and dignity. However, they also include relational values, such as empathy, emotional expression and interpersonal dialogue.

These values highlight the importance of party involvement and collaboration in the negotiation, creative option generation and decision-making components of mediation. In mediation, the parties can achieve a principled outcome because they are deeply and thoroughly involved in working through the issues, discussing their individual and mutual perspectives, and developing the terms of the final resolution. Party engagement also promotes the personal dignity of the parties, particularly when the result is to avoid the inevitable costs and uncertainties of litigation.

Party self-determination also promotes principled outcomes because it yields a form of real world justice. Many disputes take place in a context where the parties have different needs, priorities and values. Parties value different things, and also value things differently. This means that compromises and trade-offs are an inevitable and constructive part of the process. Compromise, then, does not mean the process is unprincipled or illegitimate. Rather, the value of compromise represents a key principle in its own right. It can lead to a more principled and legitimate result than rule-based or adversarial approaches. The notion of party self-determination recognises and embodies this important value.

Honesty and Candour in Mediation: Are They in Short Supply?

Posted on 14/12/2016 by Associate Professor Bobette Wolski

Mediation, like negotiation, is at its most basic a process of communication between parties in dispute. The aim in mediation is to find a mutually agreeable solution. The success of mediation might well depend on the ‘honesty’ and ‘candour’ of the parties and their representatives. The parties must be honest and open enough to find a zone of agreement.

The terms honesty and candour need to be defined. Elsewhere I have defined ‘honesty’ as a concept which concerns the accuracy of information conveyed, while ‘candour’ is a concept which goes to the heart of whether or not information is conveyed at all.

Honesty the flower: credit Creative Commons see below

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11758041@N08/13891817217/”>Dave_A_2007</a>

While it makes sense for the parties to be honest and open enough to find a mutually acceptable solution, only a fool would rush into a mediation and reveal, at the outset, their BATNAs, WATNAs, and bottom lines.

As for mediators, they are constantly handling information gleaned from the parties in dispute. Often they have to run ‘messages’ back and forth from separate sessions with the parties.

This short discussion looks at the obligations, if any, which fall upon the mediation participants and mediators to be honest and candid.

Parties and their representatives – duties owed to mediators and to each other

Agreements/Legislation

Standard form agreements to mediate and relevant legislation do not usually impose an obligation to be honest and/or candid, although they often require parties to ‘cooperate’ with each other and with the mediator to carry out tasks such as isolation of issues in dispute, exploration of options and so on. Many legislative schemes require the parties to participate in good faith. The terms ‘cooperation’ and ‘good faith’ (and ‘genuine effort’) are rarely defined in agreements to mediate or by relevant legislation but the courts have discerned some common elements (eg attendance at the mediation by someone with authority to settle). Some guidance on behaviour which is not inconsistent with good faith in mediation is also available from cases and commentaries. Good faith does not require a party to act against self-interest and it does not require a party to take ‘any step to advance the interests of the other party’.[1] Good faith does not require the parties to engage in total disclosure. There is no requirement to reveal all of one’s negotiation goals and bottom lines.

Lawyers, as agents for their clients, are also bound by the obligation to act in good faith. A lawyer cannot mislead the mediator or his or her opponent about a material fact for it is recognised that such action (or inaction, where a false statement needs to be corrected) constitutes bad faith.

Negotiation Convention

It is sometimes assumed that interest-based negotiation, which underlies the facilitative model of mediation, requires honesty and candour. Negotiators adhering to an interest-based approach might explain their positions and interests (and refrain from misleading on these matters) with the idea of finding a solution that meets each parties’ interests, but the prescription to be honest and forthcoming with information stops at positions and interests. There is no requirement under this model of negotiation to disclose one’s BATNA or bottom lines.

Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers

If the parties are legally represented, the level of regulation intensifies. Legal representatives are subject to the ‘law of lawyering’ including the rules of conduct of the legal profession. These rules set out obligations owed by lawyers to courts and tribunals, clients, opponents and other parties.

Lawyers cannot mislead or deceive the court on any matter. They must advise the court of any adverse legal authorities and legislation. They must be honest and courteous to clients. They must not mislead or deceive their opponents. They must treat everyone with whom they interact, with honesty and courtesy.

Aside from the requirement to advise the court about adverse legal authorities and legislation, the rules do not impose a positive obligation to reveal information unless it is necessary to correct a half-truth or to correct a prior statement which has since become false.

The rules in relation to clients, opponents and others are easily transferable to mediation. The rules in relation to courts are an awkward fit in mediation. It seems that practitioners must treat mediators as courts (see the definition of ‘court’ in the professional conduct rules). If this is the case, practitioners must never mislead or deceive a mediator and they must reveal adverse legal authorities and legislation. I say that this is an awkward fit because mediators do not make substantive decisions and, unless he or she is an evaluative mediator, a mediator seems to have no need for information on adverse authorities and legislation. What is clear is that practitioners do not have to reveal other information either to the mediator or to an opponent save if it is necessary to correct a half truth or correct a statement which has become false (and of course, the practitioner must not reveal information without the consent of the client).

Mediators – duties owed to participants

The NMAS Standards

Assuming that a mediator is accredited under the NMAS and ‘bound’ by the scheme’s Practice Standards (PS), the mediator owes a duty of honesty in regard to matters of advertising and promotion of mediation. But that may be the extent of the mediator’s obligation for honesty under the PS. The mediator might owe an obligation to act with ‘integrity’ but the meaning of that term is not clear.

Rules of Professional Conduct for Lawyers

If the mediator is a lawyer, he or she is still subject to the law of lawyering.

Lawyer mediators owe obligations to the court (not to mislead or deceive). A lawyer mediator is still a lawyer and could not, for example, be a party to a fraud committed during mediation.

The rules governing the relationship of lawyers and opponents seems to have no application to mediators. Mediation participants are not the mediator’s opponents.

Mediation participants are not clients in the traditional sense.

It may be that participants are best considered to be ‘others’ (they are certainly not courts). If this assumption is correct, mediators are obliged to treat mediation participants with honesty and courtesy but there is, at least under the legal profession’s rules, no requirement for candour.

What is the safest course?

The best advice for parties (and their legal representatives) is to reveal information slowly and cautiously. If information is conveyed, care must be taken to ensure that it is accurate. Lawyer mediators must also take care to ensure that any information they convey is accurate. Since there is no general duty of candour, all those who participate in mediation – including mediators – must think before they talk. At times, they may want to take refuge in a silent ‘safe harbour’.

[1] United Group Rail Services Limited v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 177 (3 July 2009) [76] (Allsop P).

Reviewing of recent books on mediation and ethics

Posted on 18/11/2016 by Associate Professor Becky Batagol

By Dr Bobette Wolski, Faculty of Law, Bond University

In this post, Dr Wolski provides a quick summary and compares two recent texts on mediation and ethics.

Ellen Waldman, Mediation Ethics: Cases and Commentaries 2011

Many of our readers will be familiar with Professor Waldman’s book titled ‘Mediation Ethics: Cases and Commentaries’ published in 2011 by Jossey-Bass. This is only the second text of which I am aware to deal exclusively with the ethical complexities of mediation practice. Waldman’s text is ground-breaking in that it adopts a case-specific problem-solving approach to the subject. (The first text was a collection of essays edited by Phyllis Bernard and Bryant Garth, titled ‘Dispute Resolution Ethics: A Comprehensive Guide’ published by the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution in 2002.) According to Professor Waldman, one of the primary aims of her text is to showcase the diverse thinking in the field of mediation and to offer guidance to mediators on how to navigate the ‘murky ethical terrain’ that they are likely to encounter in practice.

waldman-ethics

There are thirteen chapters in Waldman’s text. The first, written by Professor Waldman, discusses the ‘underlying values of mediation, its regulatory codes, and emerging models of practice’. The values identified by Waldman are: disputant autonomy, procedural fairness, and substantive fairness. Each of the remaining 12 chapters deals with a particular ethical topic by using two or more case scenarios to illustrate the tension that may exist between these core values. Of continuing interest is the tension between the promotion of disputant autonomy (eg by helping disputants make informed decisions) and concern that basic norms of fairness and equity are not violated.

The case scenarios in each chapter are followed by commentaries from two (and sometimes more) leading dispute resolution scholars who explain what they would do in the circumstances presented and why. Contributors to the book are well known to us. They include: Forrest (Woody) Mosten, Lela Love, Jacqueline Nolan-Hayley, Julie Macfarlane, Dwight Golann, Art Hinshaw, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Harold Abramson. These commentators do not always agree on what to do. The diversity of mediation approaches is evident: facilitative, evaluative, narrative, transformative. Here Waldman is able to highlight the very different conclusions that experienced practitioners and scholars reach when analyzing what constitutes ‘right action’ in any particular mediated case. However despite these different end-points, there is a commonality in the way commentators approach problems presented in the case studies ie the authors identify the values that are important to them, the priority that they give to these values, and the action plan that they would adopt.

Mediator Responsibility and Justice

The issue of mediator responsibility for outcome fairness is a central theme tying the chapters together. In the end, Waldman’s own opinion shines through: mediators ‘ought to bear some responsibility for ensuring that mediated outcomes meet minimal standards of fairness’ though she acknowledges that the idea ‘remains controversial and has yet to gain traction’ (email with Professor Waldman dated 10 November 2016).

Professor Waldman is also very interested in the concept of justice in mediation, a topic she explores in greater depth with Dr Lola Akin Ojelabi (see Ellen Waldman and Lola Akin Ojelabi, ‘Mediators and Substantive Justice: A View from Rawls’ Original Position’ (2016) 30 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 391).

Waldman’s book is written is an accessible easy-to-read style, with mediation and conflict resolution professionals in mind. While the book will be useful for a range of people – students of dispute resolution, academics seeking inspiration for their classes, researchers and policy makers, and anyone else seeking thoughtful analysis of mediation’s many unresolved issues, the real strength of the book is in its practice orientation.

Omer Shapira, A Theory of Mediators’ Ethics: Foundations, Rationale, and Application 2016

More recently another excellent text on mediation ethics has become available that being Omer Shapira’s text entitled ‘A Theory of Mediators’ Ethics: Foundations, Rationale, and Application’ published this year by Cambridge University Press.

shapira

Many readers will be familiar with Dr Shapira’s earlier work in articles such as ‘Exploring the Concept of Power in Mediation: Mediators’ Sources of Power and Influence Tactics’ (2008-2009) 24 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 535; and ‘Joining Forces in Search for Answers: The Use of Therapeutic Jurisprudence in the Realm of Mediation Ethics’ (2008) 8 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 243.

A Professional Ethics Perspective

As its title suggests, in this new publication, Shapira attempts to construct a theory of mediators’ ethics – a theory he describes as ‘a professional ethics perspective’ based on role-morality and applied to a core definition of the mediator’s role. This is used as the theoretical basis for discussing and evaluating the ethical norms that govern mediators conduct, including existing codes of conduct for mediators.

Shapira argues that all mediators are placed in ethical relationships with mediation parties, the mediation profession, the public and their employers or principals and that these relationships produce certain ethical obligations. He goes on to explore the legitimate expectations of these groups and ultimately to propose a model code of conduct for mediators described as ‘a detailed set of norms of mediators’ ethics that can be rationally justified and defended with regard to mediators at large’.

This book will also be of value to ADR researchers, teachers and students, mediators and mediation participants, mediation organizations and programs, policymakers and ethical bodies.

Comparing the Books: Which is Best?

While there are practical guidelines in Shapira’s work, this is a heavy-weight text, more theory oriented than Waldman’s book, and in the end, more prescriptive in its approach. It is more about what mediators ‘ought’ to do.

Both books in their own way strive to provide guidance for mediators on how they might exercise discretion in making decisions on the many aspects of mediator conduct where there is a choice between competing values and contradictory courses of action. This is an exciting new direction for mediation professionals.

Ethics and the Mediation Community

Posted on 28/01/2014 by Jonathan Crowe

What does it mean to think communally about mediation ethics? It’s tempting to conceive ethics as a set of abstract rules or principles formulated by experts and then imposed from above. However, another way to think of ethics is as the product of a dynamic, community oriented process. Experienced mediators who seek to adopt an ethical attitude to their practice will notice patterns in their approaches to various disputes. Reflection upon these patterns then supplies the foundation for formulating general guidelines that arise organically from the process. This approach to identifying principles of mediation practice treats these principles are subsidiary to the situational nature of ethical judgments.

The model of mediation ethics sketched above is community oriented, rather than individualistic. This is because it recognises that the source of meaningful ethical guidelines lies in the accretion of experience in different mediation contexts over time. Mediators, then, can learn not just from their own practice, but from the experiences of others who accept the same general ethical outlook. Mediation ethics depends on the sharing of principles and guidelines throughout the mediation community. This makes full use of the store of knowledge reflected in the diverse experiences of mediators.

The community oriented model of ethics outlined above points to the importance of recognising mediation as a profession with its own specialties. This applies not only at the general level of recognising the distinctiveness of mediation, but also at the level of recognising the particular challenges that arise in, say, family mediation and allowing a store of knowledge to arise about the ethical guidelines applicable to family mediators. It may be that beyond the overarching value of party self-determination, different forms of mediation will generate quite different guidelines for ethical practice.

I do not mean to suggest there is anything radical or groundbreaking about this model. Indeed, I think it describes what already happens on an organic basis. However, the organic nature of ethics is not always fully appreciated. This results in the adoption of abstract principles that can distort or mask the evolved character of the guidelines practitioners actually follow. A mature model of mediation ethics will not hide the complexities of mediation behind the veneer of impartiality. It will embrace those complexities and challenge itself to develop ethical guidelines that can cope with them.

I’ve written previously about the evolution of ethical and legal judgments in my chapter on ‘Pre-Reflective Law’ in Maksymilian Del Mar (ed), New Waves in Philosophy of Law (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), as well as other publications. I’m interested in exploring further what this means for mediation theory and practice.

Dispute Resolution, in Person, for Real

Posted on 03/12/2013 by Associate Professor Becky Batagol

So, I’m excited!

Along with 13 other members of the ADR Research Network, we have been meeting in the glorious sunshine at Queensland University of Technology’s Garden Point Campus this week. Meeting for real, in person. With coffee in hand and fuelled by victuals kindly provided by QUT law school, we have be discussing the most difficult aspects of dispute resolution theory and practice.

The ADR Research Network was founded in 2012 by a group of dispute resolution academics from across Australia. We live and work in the far corners of this big country, from Hobart to Townsville, from the Gold Coast to Bundoora. Some of us are mediators, some lawyers, some legal philosophers, educators and we all live and breathe dispute resolution. We had all met at conferences before and read each others’ work over the years and a few of us have even written together. But we wanted to do more than just see each other occasionally and referee each others’ work: we wanted to engage with each other on what we are working on, we wanted to debate the hard stuff, we wanted to share a laugh.

As well as running this blog, we have decided to write a book together, based around the theme of changing professional identities for both lawyers and mediators in dispute resolution. The increased use of ADR and institutionalisation of processes such as mediation challenge us to rethink the role of lawyers and mediators in dispute resolution. Questions arise such as is mediation now a profession? Is there a single mediation community or are there multiple communities of mediation practice? How do we train lawyers to achieve justice in mediation? What is the basis of an ethical decision making process for mediators? How best do we define mediation and is that important? Should neuroscience affect mediator practice?

The most exciting thing about our book project is that it is so collaborative in nature. Each chapter will be written by a single author but with extensive feedback from the group as a whole and from individual authors. This will create a highly reflective and tightly structured collection that we hope will be central to understanding contemporary dispute resolution practice.

We are still writing and putting together a book proposal. To give you a sense of what we are all writing about, here’s a way to see the tweets we have made over the past few days at the workshop. We have been using the hashtag #adrresearchnetwork. These tweets summarise the ideas raised by each author in our chapters and some of our thoughts around the table as a group.

Stay tuned …