The Ethics of NDAs in Mediation and Arbitration – An Online Colloquium

Text

Description automatically generated

Nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) were originally designed to protect trade secrets and proprietary information, but now they have expanded to cover a wide variety of issues, from workplace harassment and discrimination to product liability to commercial settlements. NDAs have become a preferred constraint because they are indefinite / forever; and they are now becoming much broader in scope, frequently constraining parties from even sharing their experiences with family members or friends, work colleagues or professional therapists.

Many mediators and arbitrators have integrated NDAs into their decisions or settlement agreements, but there has been little discussion of the ethical considerations that go along with the use of NDAs in dispute resolution.  Is there an interest to be protected in preserving the public’s right to know?  In protecting third parties who might be affected by hiding this information? Are vulnerable people being told they must agree to sign an NDA as a precondition for resolution, and then being intimidated into lifelong silence, even when they later feel the need to seek help or counseling?

In our online colloquium, we examined the current use of NDAs in arbitration and mediation and discuss how they can be utilized in line with ADR ethical guidelines.  We discussed the role of legislation and how much party autonomy should govern NDA drafting and use.  And we also identified some of the best practices that mediators and arbitrators can follow to ensure they balance the interests of their parties with the wider public interest.

You can watch the complete recording of the colloquium here –

Panelists:

  • Dr. Julie Macfarlane, University Professor and Professor of Law (Emerita) at the University of Windsor; Co-Founder, Can’t Buy My Silence a global campaign to limit the use of NDAs
  • Professor Brian Farkas, Cardozo Law School
  • Jody L. Newman, Employment lawyer/Mediator, of Counsel, Boston Law Collaborative

Moderators:

  • Prof. Nancy Welsh (Professor of Law, Director of Aggie Dispute Resolution Program, Texas A&M University School of Law)
  • Prof. Amy Schmitz (Professor of Law, The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law)

Sponsors and Supporters

Texas A&M University School of Law

The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law

Arbitrate.com and Mediate.com

Read these next

Category

Arbitration Conversation No. 12: Arbitrator Katherine Haennicke from AAA

In this episode of the Arbitration Conversation Amy interviews Arbitrator Katherine Haennicke from the American Arbitration Association about pro se parties in arbitration. https://youtu.be/vYmj9pTWh1I

By Katherine Haennicke, Amy Schmitz
Category

Canada – Appeal/Set Aside Not Designed to “Save the Parties from Themselves”

This article was first published on the Arbitration Matters blog, here. In Singh v Modgill, 2022 ABQB 369, Justice Feasby denied the Applicants’ application to set aside and for permission to...

By Lisa C. Munro
Category

Canada – Award Challenged for Legal Error, Denial of Natural Justice After Baseball Arbitration

This article first appeared on the Arbitration Matters blog, here. In 1150 Alberni Limited Partnership v Northwest Community Enterprises Ltd., 2021 BCSC 2053, Justice Groves heard a petition to set aside...

By Lisa C. Munro

Find an Arbitrator

X
X
X