Ethics: First, Do No Harm — EngagingConflicts.com
Vickie Pynchon started a good brainstorming on ethics in mediation over at Settle It Now! She invited my comments, which I repeat below. Please read her post and compiled comments for the full context.
ETHICS: FIRST, DO NO HARM
Thank you, Vickie, for writing about this issue and inviting comments directly. This seems a really good way to get some focused brainstorming in!
I have one primary thought/concern about ethics as sometimes practiced in this field (assuming we are a field). My shorthand definition of ethics is: First, do no harm. When we look at short lists of ethics we see this with their emphases on client determination and transparency. This list should be short and it should be clear.
I distinguish ethics from professional obligations, which might be shorthanded as “then, do good.” I am concerned about the blurring of lines between the two. Do we really want it an ethicial issue whether or how one advances the field? For example, I oppose mandatory “pro bono”, whether it’s in mediation or in the practice of law. In law, at least in New Mexico, we are not ethically required to provide pro bono services, but it is our professional obligation to aspire to provide them. That leaves it to the attorney to consider what she can afford in terms of time, money and energy. Yet, I’ve sat in meetings with a combination of practicing attorneys, practicing mediators, state bar staff, court staff, and a judge where it has been stated there is a requirement that the attorney provide pro bono services. When the people who set up programs misunderstand an aspiration as an ethical obligation, they can also then more easily set up mandatory pro bono within their programs. In New Mexico, most state and city, government and judicial ADR programs require mandatory pro bono from their mediators. I understand the budgetary constraints programs work with, and that this is the primary reason they don’t want to pay for all services rendered. At the same time, I believe a confusion of a professional aspiration for pro bono with an ethical obligation helps program designers appear to justify their nonpayment for services. I believe it harms the solo practitioner who seldom can afford the same scale of pro bono that larger or richer offices can handle, and harms the field by demeaning the value of its services. (This confusion also perhaps helps fuel some of the intolerance of other forms of practice that Diane writes about!)
