What are the ethical rules that apply to mediators and guide their conduct? Are mediators of diverse styles of practice governed by different rules of ethics? Are separate codes of ethics required for mediators of diverse styles of practice? Professor Robert A. Baruch Bush, the most influential legal figure associated with the theory and practice of transformative mediation, has called in a recent article for the adoption of a pluralistic approach to mediation ethics that recognizes the diversity in the practice of mediation and responds with tailored standards of ethics that fit that diversity. Professor Bush makes several novel and far-reaching arguments. First, that existing codes of ethics for mediators are either “unitary,” based on one dominant value, or “combination,” based on more than one value. Second, that facilitative mediation is based on the value of fairness-protection while transformative mediation is based on the value of party self-determination. Third, that fairness-based codes are suitable for facilitative mediators but do not fit the transformative practice, while self-determination-based codes are suitable for transformative mediators but do not fit the facilitative practice. This argument is illustrated using a case scenario. Fourth, that there is an existing code that is consistent, from beginning to end, with the transformative practice. And fifth, that every jurisdiction should adopt two separate codes: one for facilitative mediators and one for transformative mediators. I join Professor Bush in the call for pluralism in mediation ethics, but disagree with his analysis and line of reasoning. First, I argue that there are no unitary codes of ethics, only combination codes. Second, that the role definitions suggested for facilitative and transformative mediators mistakenly include a normative element and therefore lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the ethical obligations of mediators. Third, that the code presented as suitable for transformative practice equally fits facilitative mediators and offers the mediator of the case scenario the same ethical guidance that the facilitative code does. Fourth, that the Proposed Model Code, developed and defended in A Theory of Mediators’ Ethics, is capable of guiding both transformative and facilitative mediators. And fifth, that true ethical pluralism in mediation ethics requires a rigorous and systematic exploration of the distinctive ethical features of each mediation style and their implications for mediator practice.I conclude that until a unique sense of transformative mediators’ ethics is developed and justified, the Proposed Model Code will continue to offer ethical guidance to all mediators, transformative mediators included
