Lawyers behaving badly in mediations : lessons for legal educators

This article will discuss some real life case examples of what will be termed “lawyers behaving badly” where it will be argued that legal representatives have not performed as effectively as they could have in mediation settings. These instances of “lawyer misbehaviour” will be grouped under several broad headings: the Process Thwarter, the Zealous Adversarial Advocate, the Misguided Advisor, the Distributive Bargainer, the Passive Advocate, and the Legal Takeover. Reflecting on these situations will provide guidance to legal educators as to the specific areas of dispute resolution knowledge and skills that future lawyers need to learn and develop.

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.

Best practice in the training, appointment and remuneration of members of dispute boards for large infrastructure projects

This paper reports part of a qualitative study into evolving practice in the implementation of the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) construction dispute resolution technique, a variant of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) concept used in the US and Canada. Data was collected through a focus group interview of 20 highly experienced dispute resolution practitioners from engineering and the law. The group was assembled from members of FIDIC-NET with direct experience of project DABs. The part reported here concerns practice and procedure for establishing DABs. The main findings are that: constitution of the DABs is often delayed because of either project owners' ignorance of the DAB process or deterrence by the cost of the DABs; such owners also tend to insist on appointing DAB members from local engineers and lawyers without sufficient understanding of the DAB process; rates of remuneration of DAB members vary widely; the training provision for DAB membership and advocacy skills is inadequate; the process of selecting candidates for DAB membership and negotiating the tripartite agreement between each member and the contractual parties needs to be navigated with great care to avoid raising ethical problems. The research contribution is threefold. First, it highlights the importance of realistic fees for DAB members within a standard framework in achieving timely establishment of a board that works well as a team. Second, it illustrates the use of qualitative focus group interview to study the impact of new contract terms from multiple stakeholder perspectives. Finally, it identifies areas where further research is needed.

Are the financial services external complaints resolution schemes subject to judicial review?

In Australia seven schemes (apart from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal) provide alternative dispute resolution services for complaints brought by consumers against financial services industry members. Recently the Supreme Court of New South Wales held that the decisions of one scheme were amenable to judicial review at the suit of a financial services provider member and the Supreme Court of Victoria has since taken a similar approach. This article examines the juristic basis for such a challenge and contends that judicial review is not available, either at common law or under statutory provisions. This is particularly the case since Financial Industry Complaints Service Ltd v Deakin Financial Services Pty Ltd (2006) 157 FCR 229; 60 ACSR 372 decided that the jurisdiction of a scheme is derived from a contract made with its members. The article goes on to contend that the schemes are required to give procedural fairness and that equitable remedies are available if that duty is breached.

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

The construction industry has long been burdened with inherent adversarial relationships among the parties and the resulting disputes. Dispute review boards (DRBs) have emerged as alternatives to settle construction-related disputes outside courts. Although DRBs have found support in some quarters of the construction industry, the quantitative assessment of the impact of DRBs has not been adequately addressed. 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). Quantitative measures of performance were developed and analyzed for each category. Projects that used DRBs faced reduced costs and schedule growth (6.88 and 12.92%, respectively) when compared to non-DRB projects (11.53 and 28.96%). DRBs were also found to be effective in avoiding and settling disputes; the number of arbitration cases reduced consistently after DRB implementation, and DRBs have a success rate of 97% in settling disputes for which DRBs were used. Moreover, costs of DRBs were found to comprise a relatively small fraction (i.e., approximately 0.3%) of total project budgets. It was concluded that DRBs were effective dispute prevention and resolution alternatives with no significant adverse effects on project performance.

An analysis of dispute review boards and settlement mediation as used in the Australian construction industry

If there is a silver lining to the adversarial, dispute-prone nature of the building and construction industry, it can be found in the concomitant rise of innovative dispute resolution mechanisms. Time, cost and relationship concerns have meant that the formal adversarial system holds little appeal for disputing parties. As these alternative forms of dispute avoidance/resolution have matured in Australia over the last 20 years, attention has turned to the key characteristics of each process and their suitability to the building and construction industry. This article considers the role of dispute review boards (DRBs) and mediation as two alternative methods for avoiding/resolving disputes in the construction industry. Criteria are established for evaluating the efficacy of these procedures and their sensitivity to the needs of construction industry disputants. The ultimate conclusion reached is that DRBs represent a powerful, yet underutilised dispute resolution tool in Australia, and possess many industry-specific advantages that more traditional forms of alternative dispute resolution (particularly mediation) do not provide.

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).

NEC Contracting: Evaluation of the Inclusion of Dispute Review Boards in lieu of Adjudication in the Construction Industry in the United Kinddom

The construction industry is renowned for spending vast sums in the resolution of disputes, but never in the prevention. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the New Engineering Contract (NEC) to determine whether or not adjudication has become misaligned with the contract’s objective of promoting effective management. In doing so, the paper examines dispute review boards in order to ascertain if they could be a viable alternative to adjudication. A sequential mixed methodology is adopted including a detailed literature review, eight semi-structured interviews, culminating in the circulation and analysis of a questionnaire, to record the significance of the factors identified. The research concludes that the majority of individuals agree that dispute review boards would be more aligned with the NEC. The familiarity of members, the potential to curb rogue behaviour of parties and the proactive nature of the board are flagged as positive features, however the cost aspect requires further investigation. The reservations made in the study about adjudication, such as the priority given to speed over accuracy and also the adversarial nature of the process, suggest that a preventative step prior to proceeding to adjudication would coincide more with the three core themes of the NEC Contract and therefore, be a positive addition.

The role of emotional intelligence on the resolution of disputes involving the electronic health record

Numerous authors have expressed concerns that the introduction of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) will lead to an escalation of disputes. Some disputes will concern the accuracy of the record whereas others will arise simply due to greater access to health care records. Online dispute resolution (ODR) programs have been successfully applied to cost-effectively help disputants resolve commercial, insurance and other legal disputes, and can also facilitate the resolution of health care related disputes. However, we expect that health differs from other application domains in ODR because of the emotional engagement patients have with their health and those of loved ones. In this study we will be looking at whether the success of an online negotiation is related to how people recognise and manage emotions, and in particular, their Emotional intelligence score.

Disputes resolution : can Bim help overcome barriers?

Many researchers consider disputes as part of the project lifecycle. Although preventative actions exist, it is not utterly possible to avoid them. Once the disputes arise, an appropriate resolution technique should be adopted. Common perception is referring to a resolution method either internally or via a third party; which may also be binding by law. The resolution process requires attention to the disputed claims. Hence, deep investigation of the claims and choosing the appropriate method is crucial for the successful project delivery and reputation of the industry.

Preparation of disputed claims and resolution process also faces many debates. Conducting To effective dispute resolution requires attention to proper preparation and presentation of the incurred events. All the required information should be acquired to estimate and present the claim, for a smooth settlement. As an integrated digital model of the project, BIM, stores all the information of the projects in detail. Retrieval of the required information for the disputed issues can easily be obtained from the model. It is also possible to embed the construction schedule, change orders and variations, specifications and financial data such as cash flow along with the multidisciplinary drawings. As this model stores all the information at every particular time and phase, disputes can be concluded quick and accurate.

In this research, using a case study and literature review, disputes and resolution processes are deeply studied. A BIM model is created to investigate benefits on overcoming the challenges; during claiming, and resolution of the disputes. It is seen that the claims are prepared faster and more accurate in a visualized environment provided by BIM. Furthermore, substantiating and presenting the disputes for the resolution purpose was incomparable to the traditional methods. The conclusions recommend that; even the project did not adopt a BIM model earlier; it can be created for a smooth process, during claiming and resolution of disputes.

The Brazilian experience in dispute settlement

Includes bibliography