Teaching dispute resolution ethics in the law curriculum

Dispute resolution processes such as mediation are now central to contemporary legal practice. For this reason it is critical that the law curriculum includes instruction on mediation ethics, so that law graduates enter the profession equipped to deal with ethical dilemmas arising in this context. However, our recent content analysis of the unit outlines for professional responsibility subjects in Australian law schools indicates that this important area of legal ethics is often excluded from the curriculum. In most Australian law schools, dispute resolution subjects (where mediation ethics might also be considered) continue to be offered as stand-alone electives in the law degree. This means that many law students are graduating without the ethical knowledge and judgment-making skills needed in dispute resolution environments. This is contrary to the intentions of the Threshold Learning Outcomes for Law. This paper argues that the current paucity of mediation ethics instruction in the Australian law curriculum is problematic, given mediation’s relevance to contemporary legal practice. The paper discusses the importance of including mediation ethics in the law curriculum, and the importance of dispute resolution more broadly as a mandatory component of the law degree in Australia. It offers an outline of a possible mediation ethics module that could be included in professional responsibility subjects.

Implementing the self-management threshold learning outcome for law : some intentional design strategies from the current curriculum toolbox

There is a growing awareness of the high levels of psychological distress being experienced by law students and the practising profession in Australia. In this context, a Threshold Learning Outcome (TLO) on self-management has been included in the six TLOs recently articulated as minimum learning outcomes for all Australian graduates of the Bachelor of Laws degree (LLB). The TLOs were developed during 2010 as part of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s (ALTC’s) project funded by the Australian Government to articulate ‘Learning and Teaching Academic Standards’. The TLOs are the result of a comprehensive national consultation process led by the ALTC’s Discipline Scholars: Law, Professors Sally Kift and Mark Israel.1 The TLOs have been endorsed by the Council of Australian Law Deans (CALD) and have received broad support from members of the judiciary and practising profession, representative bodies of the legal profession, law students and recent graduates, Legal Services Commissioners and the Law Admissions Consultative Committee. At the time of writing, TLOs for the Juris Doctor (JD) are also being developed, utilising the TLOs articulated for the LLB as their starting point but restating the JD requirements as the higher order outcomes expected of graduates of a ‘Masters Degree (Extended)’, this being the award level designation for the JD now set out in the new Australian Qualifications Framework.2 As Australian law schools begin embedding the learning, teaching and assessment of the TLOs in their curricula, and seek to assure graduates’ achievement of them, guidance on the implementation of the self-management TLO is salient and timely.

Autonomy supportive curriculum design : a salient factor in promoting law students' wellbeing

There is increasing awareness and concern about law students' elevated distress levels amongst members of the Australian legal academy and the broader legal community. Disproportionately high levels of psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, have been consistently documented in decades of research on American law student samples. Questions about whether these trends were an American phenomenon, and due to 'differences in demographics, pedagogy and culture' may not apply to Australian law students, began to be empirically addressed with the publication of the Brain and Mind Research Institute's Courting the Blues monograph in 2009. Amongst other findings, the comprehensive research in this monograph indicated that more than one-third of the surveyed law students from Australian universities experience high levels of psychological distress. Recent empirical research at a number of individual Australian law schools reveals similar trends, suggesting that aspects of the legal education experience may contribute to widespread distress levels amongst law students in Australia, as in the United States.

The Threshold Learning Outcome on self-management for the Bachelor of Laws degree : a proposed focus for teaching strategies in the first year law curriculum

The Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC) Discipline Scholars for Law, Professors Sally Kift and Mark Israel, articulated six Threshold Learning Outcomes (TLOs) for the Bachelor of Laws degree as part of the ALTC’s 2010 project on Learning and Teaching Academic Standards. One of these TLOs promotes the learning, teaching and assessment of self-management skills in Australian law schools. This paper explores the concept of self-management and how it can be relevantly applied in the first year of legal education. Recent literature from the United States (US) and Australia provides insights into the types of issues facing law students, as well as potential antidotes to these problems. Based on these findings, I argue that designing a pedagogical framework for the first year law curriculum that promotes students’ connection with their intrinsic interests, values, motivations and purposes will facilitate student success in terms of their personal well-being, ethical dispositions and academic engagement.

An elegy for Greg Ham: Copyright law, the Kookaburra case, and remix culture

The ‘Kookaburra’ case was a tragic and controversial copyright dispute, highlighting the need for copyright law reform by the Australian Parliament. In the Kookaburra case, a copyright action was brought by Larrikin Records against Men at Work’s song ‘Down Under’, alleging copyright infringement of the ‘Kookaburra’ song composed by Marion Sinclair. The dispute raised a host of doctrinal matters. There was disquiet over the length of the copyright term. There were fierce contests as to the copyright ownership of the ‘Kookaburra’ song. The litigation raised questions about copyright infringement and substantiality – particularly in relation to musical works. The ‘Kookaburra’ case highlighted frailties in Australia’s regime of copyright exceptions. The litigation should spur the Australian Law Reform Commission to make recommendations for law reform in its inquiry Copyright and the Digital Economy. This article provides a critical evaluation of the options of a defence for transformative use; a defence for fair use; and statutory licensing. The ‘Kookaburra’ case also examines the question of appropriate remedies in respect of copyright infringement. The conclusion considers the implications of the Kookaburra case for other forms of musical works – including digital sampling, mash-ups, and creative remixes. It finishes with an elegy for Greg Ham – paying tribute to the multi-instrumentalist for Men at Work.

The freedom to tinker: Patent law and experimental use

This article considers the origins and the development of the defence of experimental use in patent law - the ’freedom to tinker'. It explores the impact of such an exemption upon a number of important industries - such as agriculture, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical drugs. This article takes a comparative approach in its analysis of patent law and experimental use. It highlights the competing norms, and lack of harmonization between a number of jurisdictions - including the United States, the European Union, and Australia. Section 2 provides a critique of the development of the common law defence of experimental use in the United States. It considers a series of precedents - including Roche Products Inc v Bolar Pharmaceuticals, Madey v Duke University, Integra Lifesciences I Ltd v Merck KgaA, and Applera v MJ Research. Section 3 explores the operation of patent law and experimental use in European jurisdictions. It looks at a number of significant precedents in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Italy, and Germany. Section 4 considers the policy debate in a number of forums over the defence of experimental use in Australia. It examines the controversy over Genetic Technologies Limited asking research organisations to obtain a licence in respect of its patents associated with non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. It also considers the inquiries of the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property, as well as the impact of the TRIPS Agreement and the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement. The conclusion contends that there is a need for a broad-based defence of experimental use for all the member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The alchemy of junk: patent law and non-coding DNA

This article considers the recent international controversy over the patents held by a Melbourne firm, Genetic Technologies Limited (GTG), in respect of non-coding DNA and genomic mapping. It explores the ramifications of the GTG dispute in terms of licensing, litigation, and policy reform, and—as a result of this dispute—the perceived conflict between law and science. GTG has embarked upon an ambitious licensing program with twenty seven commercial licensees and five research licensees. Most significantly, GTG has obtained an exclusive licence from Myriad Genetics to use and exploit its medical diagnostics in Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific region. In the US, GTG brought a legal action for patent infringement against the Applera Corporation and its subsidiaries. In response, Applera counterclaimed that the patents of GTG were invalid because they failed to comply with the requirements of US patent law, such as novelty, inventive step, and written specifications. In New Zealand, the Auckland District Health Board brought legal action in the High Court, seeking a declaration that the patents of GTG were invalid, and that, in any case, the Board has not infringed them. The New Zealand Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Economic Development have reported to Cabinet on the issues relating to the patenting of genetic material. Similarly, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has also engaged in an inquiry into gene patents and human health; and the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) has considered whether there should be a new defence in respect of experimental use and research.

Creation and copyright law: The case of 3D printing

The Australian Law Reform Commission is conducting an inquiry into copyright law and the digital economy in 2012 and 2013.The President, Rosalind Croucher, stated: “While the Copyright Act has been amended on occasion over the past 12 years to account for digital developments, these changes occurred before the digital economy took off. The Australian Law Reform Commission will need to find reforms that are responsive to this new environment, and to future scenarios that are still in the realm of the imagination. It is a complex and important area of law and we are looking forward to some robust debate and discussion during the course of this very important Inquiry.”

Estate contestation in Australia: An empirical study of a year of case law

This article reports on a study which reviewed all publicly available succession law judgments in Australia during a 12-month period. The article begins with a brief overview of the relevant Australian law and the method adopted for the case review to provide some context for the analysis that follows. It then shifts to its primary objective: to provide an overview of Australian estate litigation during this period with a particular focus on analysing the family provision contests, which comprised over half the cases in the sample. The article examines how many estates were subject to family provision claims, who were contesting them, and to what extent those challenges were successful. The article also considers variation in estate litigation across Australian states and the impact of estate size on contests. It concludes by identifying the themes that emerged from these judicial cases and outlines their significance for law and practice reform.

Re-thinking ancillary: Australian screen content in education

The use of Australian screen content in Australian schools and universities is undergoing rapid change due to digital and online distribution capacity on the supply side and digital and online affordance embedded in student cultures. This paper examines the ways in which Australian screen content and its distribution are beginning to adapt to educational usage. Issues facing content rights holders, distribution companies and emerging digital platforms reflect broad-based digital disruption patterns. Learning opportunities that can coincide with the growth in uptake of Australian screen content in Australia's education sector are not immune to the challenges posed by emerging digital consumption behaviours and issues of sustainability. At the same time, the growth in the use of digital and online screen content learning resources, under current copyright conditions, poses significant increases in the underlying cost structure for educational interests. This paper examines the innovations occurring in both the supply and the demand sides of Australian screen content and the expanded learning opportunities arising out of emerging digital affordances. Precedents in the UK are explored that demonstrate how stronger connections can be forged between nationally produced film and media content and a national curriculum. While addressing recent issues arising out of the Australian Law Review Commission's inquiry into copyright in the digital economy, the purpose of this discussion is not to assess policy debates about fair use versus fair dealing. What is clear, however, is that independent research is required that draws upon research-based evidence with an aim to better understanding the needs of the education sector against the transformative shifts taking place in digital-based learning materials and their modes of delivery.

Copyright, fair use and the Australian Constitution

There has been much debate over recent years about whether Australian copyright law should adopt a fair use doctrine. In this chapter we argue by pointing to the historical record that the incorporation of the term 'copyrights' in the Australian Constitution embeds a notion of balance and fair use in Australian law and that this should be taken into account when interpreting the Australian Copyright Act 1968. English case law in the 18th and 19th centuries developed a principle that copyright infringement did not occur where a person had made a fair use of a work. Fair use was generally established where the defendant had made a productive use that did more than alter the original work for the purpose of evading liability, and where the defendant had made an original contribution to the resulting work. Additionally, fairness was shown by a use that did not supersede or prejudice the market for the original work. At the time of including the copyright power in the Constitution, the UK Parliament’s understanding of “copyrights” included the notion of fair use as it had been developed in U.K. precedent. In this chapter we argue that the work “copyrights” in the Australia Constitution takes its definition from copyright in 1900 and as it has evolved since. Importantly, the word “copyrights” is infused with a particular meaning that incorporates the principle of copyright balance. The constitutional notion of copyright, therefore, is not that of an unlimited power to prevent all copying. Rather, copyright distinguishes between infringing copying and non-infringing copying and grants to the copyright owner only the power to control the former. Non-infringing copying includes well-accepted limitations on the copyright owner’s rights, including the copying of ideas, the copying of public domain works and the copying of insubstantial parts of copyrighted works. In this chapter we argue that non-infringing copying also includes copying to make a fair use of a work. The sections that distinguish infringing copying from non-infringing copying in the Copyright Act 1968 are sections 36(1) and 101(1), which define infringement as the doing, without licence, of an “act comprised in the copyright”. An infringing copy is an act comprised the copyright, whereas a non-infringing copy is not. We argue that space for fair uses of copyrighted works is built into the Copyright Act 1968 through these sections, because a fair use will not produce an infringing copy and so is not an act comprised in the copyright.

Law student lifestyle pressures

One significant factor influencing student wellbeing is the degree to which their studies are subject to external lifestyle pressures. These pressures are relieved or exacerbated by choices students make around their approaches to study, and the amount of time they devote to work and leisure. This Chapter considers results from a 2012 survey of law students at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia. Those results are compared to results from a similar US law student survey, and comparable data from the UK and Australia more broadly. In addition, the UNSW study compares key lifestyle choices of undergraduate (LLB) and graduate (JD) law students. The significance of the analysis in this Chapter for understanding law students’ wellbeing is that comparing American and Australian law students’ lifestyle patterns provides insights into contextual variation between both groups, which is important to bear in mind when comparing American and Australian research on law students’ wellbeing, and appreciating the limits of such comparisons. In particular, much of the wellbeing literature to date has focused on course-based stressors, but in light of recent research indicating that improvements in students’ course-based experiences may not have a direct effect on law students’ elevated levels of psychological distress, it is important to understand the broader life pressures and stressors that may be impacting law students’ wellbeing.

The relationship between class participation and law students' learning, engagement and stress: Do demographics matter?

Student participation in the classroom has long been regarded as an important means of increasing student engagement and enhancing learning outcomes by promoting active learning. However, the approach to class participation common in U.S. law schools, commonly referred to as the Socratic method, has been criticised for its negative impacts on student wellbeing. A multiplicity of American studies have identified that participating in law class discussions can be alienating, intimidating and stressful for some law students, and may be especially so for women, and students from minority backgrounds. Using data from the Law School Student Assessment Survey (LSSAS), conducted at UNSW Law School in 2012, this Chapter provides preliminary insights into whether assessable class participation (ACP) at an Australian law school is similarly alienating and stressful for students, including the groups identified in the American literature. In addition, we compare the responses of undergraduate Bachelor of Laws (LLB) and graduate Juris Doctor (JD) students. The LSSAS findings indicate that most respondents recognise the potential learning and social benefits associated with class participation in legal education, but remain divided over their willingness to participate. Further, in alignment with general trends identified in American studies, LLB students, women, international students, and non-native English speakers perceive they contribute less frequently to class discussions than JD students, males, domestic students, and native English speakers, respectively. Importantly, the LSSAS indicates students are more likely to be anxious about contributing to class discussions if they are LLB students (compared to their JD counterparts), and if English is not their first language (compared to native English speakers). There were no significant differences in students’ self-reported anxiety levels based on gender, which diverges from the findings of American research.

Power-knowledge in Australian legal education: Corporatism's reign

How and why corporatism exists and persists within Australian law schools - as a form of knowledge, corporatism's success is attributable to the convergence of a range of historical, social and political contingencies.