THE ETHICAL (OMPASS:
It's A Small World After AII:1 Cultural Competence for
Advocates in Dispute Resolution Processes
By Elayne E. Greenberg
Cultural competence has
become an ethical mand ate for all
neutrals and advocates who us e
dispute resolution . Even though
conflict is a universal phenom­
enon, our expression and choice of
how to resolve conflict is culture
specific. As our world becomes
increasingly smaller, and flatter.?
and our law practices become
glo?aliz~d, ethically responsible attorneys are recalibrating
their ethical compass and replacing their ethnocentric lens
with a culturally relative lens. Yes, even if you are a New
York attorney who disavows any international practice and
remains st eadfastly tethered to the N .Y. Rul es of Profes­
sional Conduct, you still need to be culturally competent.
After all, one out of three New Yorkers is foreign -born?
increasing the likelihood that your client-base will include
clients from other cultures. And, even if your clients ar e
not from a different culture, it is likely that your com- .
mercial clients will be engaging in our globalized busi­
ness world with individuals and corporations from other
cultures, extending your practice to global markets. Let 's
not forget that as the attorney, you bring your own cultural
values to the table." .
Culture shapes our values, our beliefs, our commu­
nication, and our responses to conflict. Attorneys must
understand how a client's culture influences the dynamics
of the attorney-client relationships and conflict resolution
choices" if we are to provide competent legal representa­
tion and fulfill our ethical obligations in attorney-client
communication," allocation of attorney-client responsibil­
ity,8 and attorney client counseling." This is a two part
series. In Part One, I will address cultural competence as
an ethical mandate . Specifically, I will address how attor­
neys should consider a client's culture as one determining
factor when communicating, counseling and m aking stra­
tegic decisions about dispute resolution. Then, in Part Two
which will appear in a subsequent edition of this journal,
I will di scuss how international ethical practice and codes
interface with and challenge the N .Y. Rules of Professional
Conduct.
Clients may belong to many cultures and subcultures
that impact how they interpret conflict, communicate '
about the conflict, relate to their lawyers, and engage in
conflict resolution processes. It is likely that your client
concomitantly belongs to several cultures, including: his
or ~er country of birth, gender, religion, the community of
residence, professional or business community, and any
- -- - - -- - - -- -_._ --­
NYSBA New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer
other affiliations that have the ir own distinct culture. One
challenging task is to figure out the culture or cultures that
influence your client. Moreover, your client ma y have dif­
ferent cultures of influence in the different contexts of the
attorney / client dynamics .
Adding to the challenge of understanding our clients'
culture, lawyers interpret their clients' behavior through
their own cultural lens.l'' After all, lawyers, too, are mem ­
bers of different cultures. According to Milton J. Bennett,
a noted scholar on culture, indiv iduals will interpret the
different cultural behavior of others based on where the
interpreter himself is in his own development of inter­
cultural sensitivity." Bennett offers that an individual's
evolution of cultural tolerance evolves on a spectrum from
ethnocen tr ic to ethnorelative stages. Beginning with the
ethnocentric stage of denial, continuing on to the stages
of defense, minimization, acceptance, and adaptation, the
most interculturally sensitive finally reach the ethnorela­
tive stage of integration Y In the stage of integration, the
individual is able to respectfully interpret the meaning
of differences among cultures, suspending judgment of
whether the difference is good or bad .l''
In his "Wheel of Culture Map," Chris Moore illustrates
how the dynamics of culture influence the problem-solving
behavior of all participants." According to Moore, in any
negotiations, there is a dynamic interplay between cultur­
ally specific attitudes and behavior and the broader social
con text in which the negotiation takes place. IS Culturally
specific attitudes that are influenced by a culture's broader
environment and social context include: views of relation­
ship, coopera tion; competition and conflict; communication 's
basic approach to negotiation; use of third parties; roles and
participation; time and space; and outcomes. These culturally
specific attitudes are shaped, in part, by the history, the natu­
ral environment and social structures of a culture that com­
prise the broader environment and social context if any
given culture. Additionally, the broader environment and
social context that influence culture specific attitudes and
problem-solving behavior also include: a culture's needs
and interests; sources andforms of power; and situations, prob­
lemsand issues. Thus, in Moore 's framework, we see how
an understanding of a given culture's broader environment
and social context may influence aspects of negotiating
behavior.
John Barkai offers another analytical framework!" to
help discern your client's cultural influences. Barkai has
synthesized the work of cross-cultural scholars such as
Hall and Hofstede and identifies cultural dimensions that
I Spring 2011 I Vol.
4
I No.1
9
practiti oner s mi ght co ns id e r w he~ co m m~Ln i.c~ ti ng w ith
clients: high or low context; pow~r~d~stnl1ce; ln d ~ v [d tlnl vs.
collectivism; masculinity vs.jer/lln1nrty; nll/lnglllty tolerance;
short-term us. long-term orientatioll.
Is your client communicating from a high context or
low context culture?
Th ail and a nd Sou th Ko re a characte ristica lly focus more o n
coope ra tio n, rel at ionship s 'an d sec ur ity" Again,. th is cu l­
tu ral dimen sion mi ght shape th e choi ce o f co n tll.ct resol u­
tion for u m, th e way yo u r clien t engages in conflic t resolu ­
tion and th e fa vo red o p tio ns to be co nside red .
Does your client come from a culture that favors
specificity or ambigUity?
Peo pl e fro m lo w co ntex t cu ltures s uc h as th e Ll.S,
Nor the rn an d Wes te rn Euro pe , Ca nada a nd Aus tra lia
often co mm unica te in a d irect a nd exp licit ma nne r, sayi ng
wha t the y m ea n.!" Co nsequ ently, th e lis tene r is less likely
to listen beyond th e spoke n words to u nd erst and w ha t is
ac tua lly being com m u n ica ted. In di rec t co n tras t, co m m u­
nicati o n w ith ind iv id ua ls from hi gh co n tex t cu ltu res suc h
as those from C h ina, Indi a, Mexico a nd Ja pa n requi res th e
a tto rney to listen beyond th e spoke n w ord a nd under ­
s tan d the non-v erbal importan ce of hist ory, sy m bo lism,
g ro u p p articipati on, principles a nd hier a rch y. II! T he re fore,
w he n yo u r c lient says, " yes " o r " no ," th e utter an ce ma y
m ean w ha t is ac tua lly sa id o r m ay mean so me thi ng e lse ,
in part, de te rmi ne d by wh ether yo u r cl ient is from a high
o r low con tex t cu ltu re .
Cu ltures have differen t to le ra nce for structure and a m ­
big uity. Hi gh un certain ty avo id ance cu ltu res s uc h as Ja p~ n ,
Spai n, Gr eece, So u th Korea a nd Portugal all ha ve rul e-o n­
25
en ted cu ltu res th at res pec t la w s, ru les and co n trol. C h.ar­
ac teristic of s uch cu lt ures th at favor s peci fici ty a nd aVOId
a m bigu ity, p eopl e pre fe r str uc ture and p redic ta b le ritu al in
di spu te resol uti on processes.P In fact, unfam iliar beha v­
io r is likel y to br eed mistrust .V Cu ltu res s uch as th ose in
Ind ia, th e U.s., China and Denmark a re more comfortable
with e ng ag ing in free-flow ing exc h a nge without adh ering
to clearly defined rules. 28 As tu te a tto rneys w ill und erst and
th at d is p u te res o lu tion p roc esses s uc h as negot iat ion o r
med iat ion s ho u ld be tail o re d to acco m moda te yo ur cl ient's
pre fe rence for deg ree of s tr uc ture.
How are hierarchical relationships or power valued in
that culture?
Is your client from a culture that has a long-term or
short-term orientation?
Hi gh distance power cul tures like La tin a nd South
America, Ara b co u ntries a nd the Phi lippines cond uc t
th emsel ves in a way th at res pects lead er ship a nd hi er ar­
chy in decision m a kin g. !? Low dis ta nce power cu ltu res
such as the U.s., Great Brita in, Aus tralia and Isra el are
a bou t mu tu al ity a nd equali ty.-" Your clien t's perception of
h ier archical relation sh ips ma y influen ce th e law yer-cl ient
re lat ionsh ip, s ha pi ng ho w th e clien t treat s you a nd how
th ey wo uld li ke to be treated .
Cul tu res wi th lo ng-term o rie n ta tio n, s uc h as m an y
Asian countries, revere traditio n, a s tro ng work ethic, a nd
lifelong persona l ne tworks.l? Su ch cultures a re buoyed by
th e bel ie f th at if yo u sac rifice now, yo u w ill be re w a rd ed
in th e fu tu re .3o On th e o the r end of th e s pe ct ru m , cu ltures
w ith shor t-te rm o rie nta tio n, like m an y Wes te rn co u n tries,
belie ve th e ir effor ts shou ld prod uce imm edi at e results."
More rap id cha nge is so ug ht, not rul es o r trad itions w h ich
wo u ld s ta ll progress.F Expectedl y. th ose from lon g-term
a nd sho rt-te rm cultu res m a y have a ntagon istic interac­
tions, with sh o r t-te rm co un tr ies viewi ng th os e fro m long­
term cu ltu res as s to dgy a nd o ld w orld , while th ose from
lon g-term cu ltu res vie wing th os e from short-term c u ltures
as irresponsibl e.P
Does your client place greater value on the self or the
group?
Indi v idu als from an indi v idualistic cu ltu re like th e
U.s. ar e lik el y to place g rea ter va lue o n th e indi vidu al
wh en co n te m p la ting option s to resol ve co n flicr." Individ­
uals be lo ngi ng to co llec tiv is t socie ties tend to place g rea ter
va lue o n op tio ns th at w ill be ne fit th e ir grou p o r soc iety,
ra the r th an the individual. Th is cu lt ura l di mension ma y
influence w ho are th e ap propria te people to part icip at e in
th e co nflict reso luti o n foru m and w hi ch re med ies migh t
be accep tab le.
Is your client from a culture that values masculinity or
femininity?
For some of yo u, the terms ma sculinity and feminini ty
m a y evoke o ther meani ngs be yon d the intended dis tinc ­
tion in this co n text be twee n assert ive ness a nd coopera tive­
ncss.22 Masc u line cu ltu res , s uc h as tho se in Ja pa n, Ge rma­
ny, the Uni ted Sta tes, Mexico and A rab co u n tries, rein for ce
q ua lities s uc h ,15 co m pe tition, ac hieve me n t, p o wer, an d
accumu latio n of weal th .23 In di rec t con tras t. femin ine
cu ltu res, such as th ose fou nd in Sca ndi navia n co u n tries,
10
Int egrat in g th ese di sc ret e cultura l di mens ion s in to o u r
le gal pra ct ice, we a pp rec ia te that o u r client's cu ltu re a nd
o ur ow n cu ltur e ha ve prac tica l e thic a l im p lica tio ns . Fo r
exa m p le, a tto rneys w ho are co mply ing wi th Ru le 1.2(a ),
th e Sco pe of Represe n ta tio n and A lloca tion of Authori ty
Betwee n C lie n t an d La w yer.r' ma y find th at th e objec tives
a nd m ean s of clie n t representat ion m ay a lso be c u ltu ra lly
influenced by a client's pre fer e nce for rela tio ns h ips th at a re
ega lita ria n or hierarch ial ; allegiance to o u tco m es tha t favo r
th e interests o f th e in divid ua l or the group; conduct that is
predom ina n tly asse rtive or coo pe rative ; and ou tco mes tha t
p ro mo te immedia te o r long term gai ns .
In a no the r exa m p le, Rul e 1.4 B"v' ad d ressing a ttorney I
clie nt co m mu n ica tio n, im p licitly req u ires a tto rneys to dis­
ce rn th e cu ltura l nu ances o f th ei r cl ients' co m m u n icat ions
to full y und erstand a client's objec tives a nd to e ns u re th at
a clien t has g ive n info rmed co nsen t to their re presents -
NYSBA New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer
I Spring
2011
I Vol. 4
NO.1
tion choi ces . One critica l det erminant in ensuring effec­
tiv e co m m unica tion is wh eth er yo ur client is from a high
co ntex t or low con tex t culture. Mo reov er, wh en compl yin g
with Rul e] .48( a)(2),36 whi ch requires attorneys to consult
with their clien ts about the means by whi ch the client
objectives a re to be accom pli shed, cult ur a lly sensitive at ­
torneys mi ght also want to di scuss which a re their client's
preferred dispute resolution forums given their client's
cult ura l pr eferen ces for structure or ambiguity.
15
Sec id.
16 .
See Jo hn Bark ai, Cultu ral Dime nsionInt erests, the Dance oj Negotiat ion,
alld Wen/ her Forecasling: A Pcrspcctirc an Cross-Cultural Negotiation
and Displite Rcsotinio», 8 PEl'I'. Disr. RFSOL. L.]. 403 (2007-2 00S).
17.
Sec id. a t 408.
1S
See id. at 408-D9
] 9.
Sec id. at 412.
20.
Sec id.
21. Sef id.il t413.
22.
By wa y of a th ird illustration, wh en an attorn ey is act­
ing as ad visor accord ing to Rule 2.1,37 the attorney must
als o be cognizant of how not only of the law, but how the
moral, econ omic, social, psycho logica l and polit ical factor s
are all cu I tu rally infu sed co ns idera tions . The history and
other va lue- la den cultural determin ants might s hape the
advice a n attorney gives th e client.
Conclusion
Cultural heterogeneity is a pr acti ce reality. In ord er to
comport with th e true spirit and in tent of the ethical man­
d at es, advoca tes mu st co nsider how a client's culture, as
well that of th e ad vocate, m ight shape the attorney-client
relat ionsh ip . Culture is m ore than one item to consid er on
th e atto rney to-d o-list. Rath er, cultur ally sens itiv e law yers
need to assess o n an ongoing basis how cultura l influ­
ences ar e impa cting the ev er-ch ang ing d yn am ics of the
attorney / client relati on shi p. As o ur w orld gets increas­
ingl y smaller, cultura l com pe tency ha s become an ethical
requ isit e for a tto rn eys who us e d ispute resolutions.
Sec id. at 415.
23.
Srcid, a I4 15- 16.
24.
See id.
25
See id. at 417.
26 .
See id,
27.
Sec id.
28.
See id.
29.
Seeid. at 418.
30.
Jd.
3 1.
Sec id. aI 418-1 9.
32.
Sec id.
33.
See id. at 419,
34.
See MODELRUL ES or PROF' LCONDUCT R. ] .2(a) (1983) ("S ubject to
the provi sion s herein, a law yer sh all abid e by a client's decis ions
conce rning the objectives of repre se ntation an d, as requ ired by
Ru le 1.4, shall cons ult w ith the cie nt as to the mean s by wh ich th ey
a re pursu ed . A law yer sha ll ab ide by a client's decision w he the r
to se ttle a m atter. In a cr imina l cas e, the law yer sha ll abid e by the
client's d ecis ion, af te r co ns u lta tion w ith the lawyer, as to a p lea to
be entered, whe ther to waive ju ry trial and w het her th e client w ill
test ify."); see also MODEL RULESOF PROF 'LCONDUCT R. 1.2(b) (1983)
(" A lawyer's represe n tation of a client, includ ing repre sent ati on
by ap pointment , d oes no t cons titute an end orse me n t of the clien t' s
po litical, economic, soc ial or moral views or activities."); secalso
MODELRlJLES OF PllOF'1. CONDUCT R. U(c) (1983) (" A lawyer may
lim it the sco pe of repr esentati on if the limit ati on is reasonable und e r
the circums tan ces and the clien t g ives info rmed consent."); seealso
MODELRULES OFPROF'1. CONDUCT R. 1.2(d) (1983) ("A la wyer shall
not cou nsel a client to en gilge, or assis t a client , in condu ct that th e
lawyer kn ows is crim ina l or fraudulent , but a law yer m ay d iscus s
the legal co nse quences of any proposed co urse of con duc t w ith a
client and may counselor ass ist a clien t to m ake a goo d faith effort
to d ete rmine the val idi ty, sco pe, mean ing or a ppl icati on o f the
law.").
35.
See MODELRULES Of' PROF 'L CONDUCT R. 1.4(b) (1983) (" A law yer
sh a ll ex pla in a matt er to the extent reaso nab ly necessa ry to
permit the client to m ak e informed d ecision s rega rd ing the
rep resen ta tion." ).
Endnotes
1.
RICHARD M. SHERMAN AND ROBERT M. SHERMAN, IT'S A SMALL WORLD
(ArrER ALL) (1964).
2.
Secgenerally THOMAS L. FRICDMAN, THEWORLD IS FI. AT: A BRI EF
HiSTORYor THETWENn"- FIRST CENTURY (Farra r, Stra us and G iroux
2005)
3.
The Nctoest N C111 Yorkers 2000, New York City Dep artment o f City
Planning Popu la tion Division (cha rting the di st ribut ion popu lation
by nativ ity for the year 2000).
4.
See Milton ] . Benn e tt, A Dcuclopmcnial Approach to Train ing/or
lnt rrcuhura! SCI/sitivity, 10 INT' L]. INTERCULTURALREL 179 (J986).
5.
See, e.g., MODELRULESOF PROF'1. CONDUCT R. 1.4 (1983) (requir ing
that lawy ers exp lain a ma tte r to the clien t in su ch a way that the
clie n t und er st an d s an d in a way that p ermits the clien t to mak e
informed decis ions regard ing rilE' representa tion).
36.
Sec id. (req u iring the law yer to " reaso nabl y consult w ith the
clie nt abo u t the me ans by w h ich the clien t's objective, are to be
accomp lished ").
See MODEL RU LES OF PllOF'LCON DUCT R. 1.4(a)(2) (1983) (" A law yer
shall reason abl y cons u lt w ith the client about the means by w hich
the clien t's objectives a re to be acco mplished .") .
37.
See MODEL RULES OF PROr'J~ CONDUCT R 2.1 (1983) ('' In rep rese n ting
a client, a lawyer sha ll exercise indepen de n t pro fessional judg me nt
and ren d er ca ndid ad vice. In renderin g ad vice, a lawyer may refe r
not on ly to law bu t to other considera tions suc h as moral, economic,
soc ial, psycho logica l and po litical factors that ma y be rele vant 10 the
client 's si tua tion .").
6
7.
Sec id. (d iscuss ing the lawy e r's ethica l ob liga tion s regard ing client
comm un ica tion s).
8.
Sec id.
9.
Sec MODEL RULES OF PImE'1. CONDUCT R 2.1 (1983) (d isc ussing the
la w yer 's e th ical ob liga tions rega rdi ng her role as couns elor).
10 .
Sec BENNElT, supra not e 4.
11
Id. a t 182.
12
!d ,
] 3.
Sec id. at ] 86
14.
C HRI S MOOH AND Pn ER WOODROW , HANDUOOKor GLOBAL AND
M ULTICULTURALN ECOTI ATION, p . 23 (20lO).
. _ - - - - -- - - -- -_._- --­
NYSSA New York Dispute Resolution Lawyer
-- -
Elayne E. Greenberg is Director of the Hugh L. Carey
Center at St. John's University School of Law and co­
chair of the New York State Bar Association's Dispute
Resolution Section Committee on Ethics, A special thank
you to Joshua Samples (2011) and Stephanie Y. Yeh (2012)
for assistance in the formatting of this article.
I Spring 2011 I Vol.
4
I
NO.1
11