Iowa R. Prof. Cond. 32:2.4
Iowa. R. Prof. Cond. 32:2.4
Comment
[1] Alternative dispute resolution has become a substantial part of the civil justice system. Aside from representing clients in dispute-resolution processes, lawyers often serve as third-party neutrals. A third-party neutral is a person, such as a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator, or evaluator, who assists the parties, represented or unrepresented, in the resolution of a dispute or in the arrangement of a transaction. Whether a third-party neutral serves primarily as a facilitator, evaluator, or decision maker depends on the particular process that is either selected by the parties or mandated by a court.
[2] The role of a third-party neutral is not unique to lawyers, although, in some court-connected contexts, only lawyers are allowed to serve in this role or to handle certain types of cases. In performing this role, the lawyer may be subject to court rules or other laws that apply either to third-party neutrals generally or to lawyers serving as third-party neutrals. Lawyer-neutrals may also be subject to various codes of ethics, such as the Code of Ethics for Arbitration in Commercial Disputes prepared by a joint committee of the American Bar Association and the American Arbitration Association or the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators jointly prepared by the American Bar Association, the American Arbitration Association, and the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution. In 1987, the Iowa Supreme Court adopted the Rules Governing Standards of Practice for Lawyer Mediators in Family Disputes, which is now the Standards of Conduct for Mediators, chapter 11 of the Iowa Court Rules. Lawyers engaged in mediation should carefully review these rules because they address matters of special concern and state different and more restrictive rules on conflicts of interest.
[3] Unlike nonlawyers who serve as third-party neutrals, lawyers serving in this role may experience unique problems as a result of differences between the role of a third-party neutral and a lawyer's service as a client representative. The potential for confusion is significant when the parties are unrepresented in the process. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer-neutral to inform unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them. For some parties, particularly parties who frequently use dispute-resolution processes, this information will be sufficient. For others, particularly those who are using the process for the first time, more information will be required. Where appropriate, the lawyer should inform unrepresented parties of the important differences between the lawyer's role as third-party neutral and a lawyer's role as a client representative, including the inapplicability of the attorney-client evidentiary privilege. The extent of disclosure required under this paragraph will depend on the particular parties involved and the subject matter of the proceeding, as well as the particular features of the dispute-resolution process selected.
[4] A lawyer who serves as a third-party neutral subsequently may be asked to serve as a lawyer representing a client in the same matter. The conflicts of interest that arise for both the individual lawyer and the lawyer's law firm are addressed in rule 32:1.12.
[5] Lawyers who represent clients in alternative dispute-resolution processes are governed by the Iowa Rules of Professional Conduct. When the dispute-resolution process takes place before a tribunal, as in binding arbitration (See rule 32:1.0(m) ), the lawyer's duty of candor is governed by rule 32:3.3. Otherwise, the lawyer's duty of candor toward both the third-party neutral and other parties is governed by rule 32:4.1.