http://works.bepress.com/christopher_fairman/13/

The author defends his proposed model rule for collaborative law, published in an earlier edition of this journal, in response to criticism arguing that such a step is unnecessary. The author asserts that the current ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not provide adequate ethical guidance for lawyers working in collaborative law. For example, the current Model Rules authorize "puffing," or the misrepresentation by an attorney of a client's "perceptions, interests, and intentions" (p 716). The author argues such a practice would be detrimental to the collaborative law process, which requires candor from all participants. The author highlights other areas in which the Model Rules contradict the collaborative law process. The author concludes that adding a new rule specifically addressing collaborative law would add "clarity to the ethical foundation" (p 737) of this developing field.

The author first proposed the model rule in "A Proposed Model Rule for Collaborative Law," Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Vol. 21(3). This subsequent article is in response to "Principles for Policymaking About Collaborative Law and Other ADR Processes" by John Lande, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, Vol. 22(3).