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.
38 S. Tex. L. Rev. 407-454
Scholarly Commons Citation
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie, "Ethics in Alternative Dispute Resolution: New Issues, No Answers from the Adversary Conception of Lawyers’ Responsibilities" (1997). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. Paper 1744.