Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators: The Nine Standards

The Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators are nine ethical principles that govern how mediators handle their cases, their parties, and their profession. They were first issued in 1994 and revised in 2005 through a joint effort by the American Arbitration Association, the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution, and the Association for Conflict Resolution.¹ The nine Standards cover self-determination, impartiality, conflicts of interest, competence, confidentiality, quality of the process, advertising, fees, and advancement of the profession.

Who Wrote Them and Whether They Bind You

The Standards do not carry the force of law on their own. They become enforceable only when a court, state agency, or regulatory body formally adopts them.¹ Even where they have not been adopted directly, courts and disciplinary bodies often treat them as establishing a standard of care against which a mediator’s conduct can be measured. A mediator who departs sharply from them can face professional consequences without any statute making the Standards mandatory.

Standard I: Self-Determination

Self-determination is the central principle of the whole framework. The parties, not the mediator, decide how the process will proceed and what the outcome will be. A mediator facilitates. The mediator does not decide who is right, propose a binding resolution, or push anyone toward a particular settlement.¹

For self-determination to be real, the mediator has to confirm that each party understands the process and the issues involved. If someone appears unable to make reasoned decisions, the mediator should pause and suggest consultation with a lawyer, financial advisor, or other appropriate professional. Every participant also keeps the right to walk away at any point. No one can be forced to continue negotiating or to accept a settlement.

Standard II: Impartiality

A mediator must conduct every session free from favoritism, bias, or prejudice, and must also avoid conduct that gives the appearance of partiality.¹ Even small cues matter: body language, the order in which parties are addressed, the amount of time spent in private caucus with each side.

A mediator who cannot handle a particular case impartially must decline it before it begins. If the problem emerges mid-session, the obligation is to withdraw rather than push through.

Standard III: Conflicts of Interest

Standard III creates an affirmative duty to identify and disclose conflicts. A conflict includes any past or present personal, professional, or financial relationship with a party or their attorney that could reasonably raise questions about the mediator’s neutrality.¹ A mediator who previously consulted for a firm now representing one of the parties, for instance, must disclose that relationship as soon as practicable.

Disclosure is ongoing. If a new connection surfaces mid-session, the mediator must inform all parties immediately. Disclosure alone is not always enough. When a conflict is serious enough to undermine the integrity of the process, the right move is to withdraw entirely, even if both parties say they are comfortable continuing. The obligation also extends past the mediation itself: a mediator should avoid later professional relationships with the parties that could call the completed process into question.

Standard IV: Competence

A mediator should accept a case only when they have the training, experience, and skill to satisfy the reasonable expectations of the parties.² Competence covers subject-matter familiarity, awareness of relevant cultural dynamics and power imbalances, and understanding of the procedural expectations of the forum.

The Standards themselves do not prescribe specific training hours; those requirements come from individual states and court systems and vary considerably. Family and domestic relations mediators often face higher requirements than general civil mediators. Competence is also not a one-time qualification. If a mediator realizes mid-case that the issues exceed their competence, the ethical response is to withdraw or bring in a co-mediator with the needed expertise.

Standard V: Confidentiality

A mediator must keep confidential all information obtained during the mediation, unless the parties agree otherwise or the law requires disclosure.¹ Parties will only speak candidly if they trust that their offers and disclosures will not surface later in court. Without that trust, mediation accomplishes little.

Many jurisdictions reinforce the principle by statute. Roughly 13 states have adopted the Uniform Mediation Act, which creates an evidentiary privilege protecting mediation communications from compelled disclosure. When a mediator reports back to a referring court, the report is typically limited to logistics: the date the mediation ended, who participated, whether a settlement was reached, and whether further proceedings are planned. The substance stays out of the record.

Confidentiality has limits, and the mediator should spell them out at the start. Mandatory reporting obligations for child abuse, elder neglect, and threats of imminent physical harm override the general rule in most jurisdictions. Communications used to plan or carry out a crime are usually unprotected as well.

Standard VI: Quality of the Process

Standard VI makes the mediator responsible for how the session actually runs. The mediator must promote safety, procedural fairness, timely progress, and mutual respect among all participants.¹ If one party is dominating the conversation or using intimidation tactics, the mediator has to intervene so that everyone has a genuine opportunity to be heard.

This Standard also addresses bad-faith participation. If a party is using the mediation solely to delay litigation or gather information, the appropriate response may be to suspend or terminate the session rather than let the process be weaponized.

Standard VII: Advertising and Solicitation

All advertising and solicitation must be truthful and not misleading with respect to the mediator’s qualifications, experience, services, and fees.¹ A mediator cannot promise a particular outcome, guarantee a settlement, or overstate their track record. The mediator’s perceived neutrality is the foundation of the practice, and inflated marketing cuts into it directly.

Standard VIII: Fees and Other Charges

Before the mediation begins, mediators must give each party complete information about fees, expenses, and any other charges.¹ That means hourly rates, any flat fees, administrative costs, cancellation policies, and travel expenses on the table at the outset. The Standard does not fix what a mediator can charge. It fixes the obligation to be transparent about whatever is charged.

Standard IX: Advancement of Mediation Practice

Standard IX is the most aspirational of the nine. It asks mediators to act in ways that advance the profession as a whole, including:¹

Making mediation available to people who might not otherwise afford it, including reduced-rate or pro bono work when appropriate.
Encouraging diversity within the field so the mediator pool reflects the communities it serves.
Helping newer mediators through training, mentoring, and professional networking.
Participating in public education about what mediation is and when it is useful.
Contributing to research on mediation effectiveness, including gathering participant feedback when possible.

The Standard also asks practitioners to respect differing approaches within the field. Mediators hold genuinely different views on how directive a mediator should be, whether evaluative techniques are appropriate, and how to handle serious power imbalances. Standard IX asks practitioners to engage with those disagreements constructively rather than treat their own approach as the only legitimate one.

How the Standards Are Enforced

Consequences for violating these principles depend on the jurisdiction and the mediator’s affiliations. Private dispute resolution organizations generally investigate complaints internally and may remove a mediator from their roster. Some states have created formal disciplinary committees with authority to investigate and adjudicate complaints. At the extreme end, sufficiently coercive or abusive behavior during a mediation can give a court grounds to set aside the resulting settlement.

Suing a mediator for malpractice is difficult. Some jurisdictions extend a form of quasi-judicial immunity that blocks claims regardless of merit. Others provide limited statutory immunity that protects mediators unless they acted with intentional wrongdoing or malice. Even where no immunity applies, confidentiality rules restrict the evidence a plaintiff can present, and because the parties themselves made the decision to settle, proving that the mediator’s conduct caused harm is a tall order. For most practical purposes, the enforcement mechanism for the Model Standards is professional discipline rather than private litigation.

1
International Centre for Dispute Resolution. Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators
2
International Centre for Dispute Resolution. Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators