Why ADR must be a mandatory subject in the law degree : A cheat sheet for the willing and a primer for the non-believer

The profession of law is deeply steeped in tradition and conservatism, which influences the content and pedagogy employed in law faculties across Australia. Indeed, the practice of law and the institutions of legal education are in a relationship of mutual influence; a dénouement which preserves the best aspects of the common law legal system, but also leaves the way we educate, practice and think about the role of law resistant to change. In this article, the authors lay down a challenge to legal education orthodoxy and a call to arms for legal academic progressivists: that alternative dispute resolution (ADR) should be a compulsory, stand alone subject in the law degree. The authors put forward 10 simple arguments as to why every law student should be exposed to a semester-long course of ADR instruction.

Lawyering and Positive Professional Identities

Lawyering and Positive Professional Identities aims to help law students successfully navigate the demands of law studies and legal practice through the development of positive professional legal identities. It does this by focusing on the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for law students to be motivated and engaged learners, and psychologically healthy individuals. The text will fill an important gap for many law schools seeking to enact the threshold learning outcomes for law by addressing these important topics in their curricula. It is a valuable guide for all law students who wish to maximise their success and chances of thriving at law school and beyond. Positive lawyering knowledge and practice are central themes of this book, with a particular emphasis on lawyers’ roles as upholders of the rule of law, as dispute resolvers and as ethical professionals. Throughout, the authors provide practical, experience-based advice on the development of core skills for legal education and practice.

Women and ADR

Alternative dispute resolution, or ‘ADR’, is defined by the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council as: … an umbrella term for processes, other than judicial determination, in which an impartial person assists those in a dispute to resolve the issues between them. ADR is commonly used as an abbreviation for alternative dispute resolution, but can also be used to mean assisted or appropriate dispute resolution. Some also use the term ADR to include approaches that enable parties to prevent or manage their own disputes without outside assistance. A broad range of ADR processes are used in legal practice contexts, including, for example, arbitration, conciliation, mediation, negotiation, conferencing, case appraisal and neutral evaluation. Hybrid processes are also used, such as med-arb in which the practitioner starts by using mediation, and then shifts to using arbitration. ADR processes generally fall into one of three general categories: facilitative, advisory or determinative. In a facilitative process, the ADR practitioner has the role of assisting the parties to reach a mutually agreeable outcome to the dispute by helping them to identify the issues in dispute, and to develop a range of options for resolving the dispute. Mediation and facilitated negotiation are examples of facilitative processes. ADR processes that are advisory involve the practitioner appraising the dispute, providing advice as to the facts of the dispute, the law and then, in some cases, articulating possible or appropriate outcomes and how they might be achieved. Case appraisal and neutral evaluation are examples of advisory processes. In a determinative ADR process, the practitioner evaluates the dispute (which may include the hearing of formal evidence from the parties) and makes a determination. Arbitration is an example of a determinative ADR process. The use of ADR processes has increased significantly in recent years. Indeed, in a range of contemporary legal contexts the use of an ADR process is now required before a party is able to file a matter in court. For example, Juliet Behrens discusses in Chapter 11 of this book how the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) now effectively mandates attendance at pre-filing family dispute resolution in parenting disputes. At the state level, in Queensland, for example, attendance at a conciliation conference can be required in anti-discrimination matters, and is encouraged in residential tenancy matters, and in personal injuries matters the parties must attend a preliminary compulsory conference. Certain ADR processes are used more commonly in the resolution of particular disputes. For example, in family law contexts, mediation and conciliation are generally used because they provide the parties with flexibility in terms of process and outcome while still ensuring that the negotiations occur in a positive, structured and facilitated framework. In commercial contexts, arbitration and neutral evaluation are often used because they can provide the parties with a determination of the dispute that is factually and legally principled, but which is also private and more timely than if the parties went to court. Women, as legal personalities and citizens of society, can find themselves involved in any sort of legal dispute, and therefore all forms of ADR are relevant to women. Perhaps most commonly, however, women come into contact with facilitative ADR processes. For example, through involvement in family law disputes women will encounter family dispute resolution processes, such as mediation. In this chapter, therefore, the focus is on facilitative ADR processes and, particularly, issues for women in terms of their participation in such processes. The aim of this chapter is to provide legal practitioners with an understanding of issues for women in ADR to inform your approach to representing women clients in such processes, and to guide you in preparing women clients for their participation in ADR. The chapter begins with a consideration of the ways in which facilitative ADR processes are positive for women participants. Next, some of the disadvantages for women in ADR are explored. Finally, the chapter offers ways in which legal practitioners can effectively prepare women clients for participation in ADR. Before embarking on a discussion of issues for women in ADR, it is important to acknowledge that women’s experiences in these dispute resolution environments, whilst often sharing commonalities, are diverse and informed by a range of factors specific to each individual woman; for example, her race or socio-economic background. This discussion, therefore, addresses some common issues for women in ADR that are fundamentally gender based. It must be noted, however, that providing advice to women clients about participating in ADR processes requires legal practitioners to have a very good understanding of the client as an individual, and her particular needs and interests. Some sources of diversity are discussed in Chapters 13, 14 and 15.

The artist is a thief: A book review

Stephen Gray is a writer and law lecturer who has been living in Darwin since 1989. He started out writing formal legal pieces about how copyright law had unsuccessfully sought to accommodate Aboriginal art. Such work led him to further investigate the philosophical questions underlying the legal issues affecting both traditional and urban Indigenous people. Gray has also explored matters of bioprospecting in relation to Indigenous biological resources. He has investigated the introduction of a label of authenticity into Australia. Gray has also published a number of articles about other legal issues affecting Indigenous people. He has explored such topics as native title, customary law, alternative dispute resolution, and criminal law. Gray has recently been awarded The Australian/ Vogel Literary Award for his novel The Artist is a Thief. He was inspired to write a book after being sent out to a community on a possible copyright claim as part of his job in the law faculty of Northern Territory University: "I wrote an academic article and then a more philosophical piece talking about the copyright act and the way it doesn't really protect traditional artists who have a very different view of the place of their art. The pieces were interesting, but I felt there was something more there that needed a fictional expression as well." It is ironic that such a self-conscious and sophisticated meditation upon appropriation and authenticity should win The Australian/ Vogel Literary Award. The inaugural award in 1980 was won by Paul Radley, who later revealed his books were mostly written by his uncle, and in 1993 it was won by Helen Demidenko, aka Darville, who had lied about her Ukrainian background and family history.

Comparison of the effects of litigation and ADR in South-East Queensland

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, such as arbitration, are often used instead of litigation to resolve construction disputes, as industry folklore considers litigation overly expensive and time-consuming. But is this actually the case? Do the people most involved in construction dispute resolution agree? What are the real advantages and disadvantages of using litigation or ADR? When, if ever, is litigation the most appropriate way of resolving construction disputes? To answer these questions, this paper first provides a review of the literature on the use of litigation and ADR for construction dispute resolution. This is followed by the results of a survey of construction and legal personnel with moderate to extensive experience of dispute resolution in the Australian South-East Queensland construction industry. The main results of this are that, in addition to litigation being more expensive in money and time than ADR methods, the nature of the existing relationship between the parties has an important effect on the resolution process, what happens after an unsuccessful ADR and, if adversarial, is more likely to lead to litigation. The results are then validated and verified by one of the most experienced practitioners in claims and disputes in the whole of Australia.

Civil Procedure — Commentary and Materials, 6th Edition

This book provides a comprehensive analysis of the practical and theoretical issues encountered in Australian civil procedure, including alternative dispute resolution. Each chapter features in-depth questions and notes together with lists of further reading to aid understanding of the issue. It also examines and discusses each substantive and procedural step in the trial process. Topics include jurisdiction of a court to consider a matter, alternative dispute resolution, limitations of actions, commencing proceedings, group proceedings, pleading, summary disposition, gathering evidence, affidavits, interlocutory procedures, settlement, trial and appeal, costs Each of the state, territory and federal procedures is covered.

Civil Procedure

This text provides a summary of Australian procedural law to its bare essence to assist students to rapidly come to grips with the main principles, theories and reality of civil litigation. The LexisNexis Study Guide series is designed to assist students in learning the foundations for effective, systematic exam preparation and revision. In each chapter of LexisNexis Study Guide - Civil Procedure, Stephen Colbran, Roger Douglas, Sheryl Jackson and Molly Townes O'Brien clearly identify and explain the pertinent and often difficult topics within civil procedure. The most important and recent cases are summarised to consolidate practical understanding of the theoretical concepts involved in civil procedure.

Success factors in an alliancing contract : a case study in Australia

Many studies have been carried out in relation to construction procurement methods. Evidence shows that there needs to be a change of culture and attitude in the construction industry, moving away from traditional adversarial relationship into cooperative and collaborative relationship. At the same time there is also an increasing concern and discussion on alternative procurement methods, drifting away from traditional procurement systems. Relational contracting approaches have become more popular in recent years, and have appeared in common forms such as partnering, alliancing and relationship management contracts. This paper reports the findings of a survey undertaken with a private organisation based on an alliance project during its design stage, identifying the critical factors that influence the success of the alliance project. Legal aspects focusing on dispute resolution in alliancing are also highlighted.

Practice and Procedure : Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ss 131 and 237(1)

In Jacobs v Woolworths Limited [2010] QSC 24 Jones J was required to determine whether a worker who had lodged an application for compensation for an injury outside the time prescribed under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”) was precluded from seeking common law damages for that injury. This determination depended upon the proper construction of s 131 of the Act, and what was to be understood by the words “worker who has not lodged an application for compensation for the injury” for the purpose of s 237(1)(d).

Mediation ethics in Australia : a case for rethinking the foundational paradigm

In contemporary Western society, including Australia, professional mediation practice has developed with a specifically defined foundational approach - a problem-solving, facilitative method, in which the mediator's intervention is centred on providing the parties with a series of formal steps to assist their communication and to steer them towards a self-determined and mutually agreeable resolution of the issues in dispute. Facilitative mediation developed, in part, as a response to the adversarial system of law and justice. In that system the parties are said to lose control of their dispute, and a decision is imposed on them which invariably puts one party in a losing position. Facilitative mediation has offered an alternative to this inevitable outcome by offering the parties a democratic, cost-effective, party-centred, empowering, interests-based and principled option for resolving their dispute.

Litigating law of the sea disputes using the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System

The interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) may be the source of many disputes. UNCLOS introduced an à la carte menu for dispute settlement with a number of options for international dispute resolution, including a compulsory procedure entailing binding decisions. While drafting this ambitious and complex system of dispute settlement, the drafters had to negotiate many delicate compromises to secure a system for the uniform interpretation of the Convention. The aim of this paper r is to explore why litigation using the UNCLOS dispute settlement system is, or is not, a preferred mode of settlement for law of the sea disputes.

Analysis of construction dispute review boards

This paper presents the results of a research project undertaken to assess the impact of DRBs on the construction program of a large scale highway agency. Three dimensions of DRB impact were assessed: (1)influence on project cost and schedule performance, (2) effectiveness of DRBs in preventing and resolving construction disputes, and (3) costs of DRB implementation. The analyses encompass data from approximately 3,000 projects extending over a 10 year period (2000-2009).

Lock the gate: Fracking, investor-state dispute settlement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

There has been much debate about the relationship between international trade, the environment, biodiversity protection, and climate change.The Obama Administration has pushed such issues into sharp relief, with its advocacy for sweeping international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. There has been much public concern about the impact of the mega-trade deals upon the protection of the environment. In particular, there has been a debate about whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership will promote dirty fracking. Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership transform the Pacific Rim into a Gasland?There has been a particular focus upon investor-state dispute settlement being used by unconventional mining companies. Investor-state dispute settlement is a mechanism which enables foreign investors to seek compensation from national governments at international arbitration tribunals. In her prescient 2009 book, The Expropriation of Environmental Governance, Kyla Tienhaara foresaw the rise of investor-state dispute resolution of environmental matters. She observed:'Over the last decade there has been an explosive increase of cases investment arbitration. This is significant in terms of not only the number of disputes that have arisen and the number of states that have been involved, but also the novel types of dispute that have emerged. Rather than solely involving straightforward incidences of nationalization or breach of contract, modern disputes often revolve around public policy measures and implicate sensitive issues such as access to drinking water, development on sacred indigenous sites and the protection of biodiversity.'In her study, Kyla Tienhaara observed that investment agreements, foreign investment contracts and investment arbitration had significant implications for the protection for the protection of the environment. She concluded that arbitrators have made it clear that they can, and will, award compensation to investors that claim to have been harmed by environmental regulation. She also found that some of the cases suggest that the mere threat of arbitration is sufficient to chill environmental policy development. Tienhaara was equally concerned by the possibility that a government may use the threat of arbitration as an excuse or cover for its failure to improve environmental regulation. In her view, it is evident that arbitrators have expropriated certain fundamental aspects of environmental governance from states. Tienhaara held: As a result, environmental regulation has become riskier, more expensive, and less democratic, especially in developing countries. This article provides a comparative analysis of the battles over fracking, investment, trade, and the environment in a number of key jurisdictions including the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Part 1 focuses upon the United States. Part 2 examines the dispute between the Lone Pine Resources Inc. and the Government of Canada over a fracking moratorium in Quebec. Part 3 charts the rise of the Lock the Gate Alliance in Australia, and its demands for a moratorium in respect of coal seam gas and unconventional mining. Part 4 focuses upon parallel developments in New Zealand. This article concludes that Pacific Rim countries should withdraw from investor-state dispute settlement procedures, because of the threat posed to environmental regulation in respect of air, land, and water.