Attention is focused on issues such as whether there should be a practitioners' code of ethics, whether practitioners should be required to have specialized training and certification, and whether attempts should be made to institutionalize the field. Primary obligations of third-party neutrals are delineated, including (1) presenting a clear definition of the process and fostering trust of the parties in it, (2) providing a means for assessing intervention success, (3) disclosing facts that could possibly affect impartiality, and (4) being reliable with respect to nondisclosure of confidential information. The practitioner's possible responsibility to the public for the outcome of a dispute settlement and other ethical issues are highlighted. Unanswered questions concerning the role of the third-party neutral are detailed; the balance of power between disputing parties is shown to underlie some of these questions. The debate over certification of practitioners is described, and the need for training programs to address various ethical issues as< well as process techniques is considered. Finally, the future of dispute resolution is explored, and some of the barriers to institutionalization, including resistance from attorneys who perceive the field as a threat to their livelihood, are discussed.