Noting that using rules as policy instruments has some benefits, the author argues that they should be used with caution for ADR processes. Rules can limit or discourage choices by litigants and ADR professionals, inhibit innovations, and promote unreflective practice by practitioners.

Because of these risks, the author sets forth five principles: the use of a dispute resolution design framework to analyze policy options, the promotion of informed decisionmaking by disputants, openness to innovation, the development of comprehensive regulatory and policymaking strategies, and the maintenance of appropriate relationships between the legal system and other social institutions.

In making his argument, the author compares two approaches to policymaking for collaborative law. One approach, by Professor Christopher Fairman, involved a proposed ethical rule for collaborative law, published in the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 21(3). Fairman responded to the author's arguments in "Why We Still Need a Model Rule for Collaborative Law: A Reply to Professor Lande", Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 22(3).