Literary agency quits US agents' group over paid-editing ethics rule
Dystel, Goderich & Bourret has resigned from the Association of American Literary Agents in protest over its new ethics code. The split was reported on 25 September 2026, according to Publishers Marketplace. It centres on one disputed permission.
The Association, known as the AALA, is the industry body for literary agents in the United States. Literary agents are the go-betweens who sell manuscripts to publishers and negotiate contracts for authors. Its Canon of Ethics is the membership rulebook that sets what agents can and cannot charge for.
At issue is paid editorial work, meaning charging a writer for feedback on a manuscript before any representation deal. The new Canon allows an agency to offer those paid services to non-clients whom it could later sign up as clients. It requires members to state in writing that providing the paid help does not indicate or imply future literary representation.
Dystel, Goderich & Bourret described that provision as a conflict of interest. The agency published an 'AALA Resignation Statement' on its website, saying that despite its longtime membership and respect for the work the AALA does, it cannot endorse the new Canon, as set out in its agency statement.
The Canon itself draws several lines around the practice. It says members must provide paid editorial services only to authors who have approached them directly for such services, according to the AALA text. The updated rules prohibit members from charging existing clients for edits made while preparing manuscripts for sale, as reported by Publishers Weekly. The same update allows agents to offer paid publicity services, meaning paid help to promote a book.
The 2026 Revised Canon was last updated on 28 August, and payment of AALA dues counts as acknowledgment of and agreement to abide by it. Publishers Weekly first reported the wider ethics update on 27 July 2026, in an article by Sam Spratford.
For writers watching from outside the trade, the dispute leaves two positions on record. One side says paid editing can be fenced off with a written disclaimer. The other says the fence is not enough.
