As the GPC Series 2016-17 draws to a close,  it is time to take stock and consider how both the data analysis and conversations from each event might inform the future of Dispute Resolution.

As an academic, I am wary to avoid drawing conclusions before the final analysis is complete; but as contributor to the series from design to data analysis , I would like to share some of the themes I see emerging from this ambitious project.

Emerging themes:

1. The move from ADR to DR
2. Consideration of the sophistication of parties may prove crucial
3. Education is key
4. Lawyers see things differently from other stakeholders, including parties.

1.The move from ADR to DR

When we started the project, there was contention among committee members about the definition of different dispute resolution processes. In particular, the definition of ‘ADR’. Is it alternative DR, appropriate DR..?

As the project gained momentum, conversations moved from the idea of there being two distinct poles of DR. At one end, the adjudicative processes (such as litigation and arbitration) where the process and outcome are determined for the parties, and at the other end, the non-adjudicative processes (such as mediation), where parties have the opportunity to be decision-makers.

From these conversations, two things became clear. First, many stakeholders were starting to see the benefits of hybrid processes such as med-arb. Secondly, there was a realisation that dispute-savvy parties desire tailored processes that require DR practitioners to be familiar with a range of skills across the DR process continuum.

As such, we are now in a world where we no longer have a strict delineation between adversarial processes and non-adversarial processes. Now, all processes can co-habit within the DR landscape.

GPC Executive Committee

Danielle Hutchinson facilitates discussion questions

Brains trust, including visionary Michael Leathes, Alex Oddy and Professor Barney Jordaan

Emma-May Litchfield collecting feedback from the experts in the room

Facilitating the London Pilot, February 2016

2. Consideration of the sophistication of parties may prove crucial

The GPC Series invited participants to pay attention to the parties’ perceptions. As a result, we now have evidence (see pp 48-50) that parties who are unfamiliar with DR processes have different wants, needs and expectations from dispute-savvy clients.

The GPC has revealed that the ‘experienced user’ and the ‘sophisticated user’ may not always be the same. Parties who are familiar with a single DR process may not be dispute-savvy, as they will view a dispute through a limited lens. A dispute-savvy client will be able to look at each dispute individually, and may anticipate a tailored solution that draws on  a variety of DR skill-sets.

As a consequence, if practitioners want to satisfy the wants, needs and expectations of their clients, they must consider the sophistication of the parties participating in DR processes.

Emma-May Litchfield and Danielle Hutchinson facilitating data collection at GPC Singapore

Executive Committee members: Emma-May Litchfield and Nadja Alexander

Panel discussion GPC Singapore

Resolution Resources and HSF at GPC Singapore

Facilitating the collection of the data at the inaugural conference GPC Singapore, March 2016

3.Education is key

This is not a new concept in the DR space. What has been made clear from the conversation is the importance of reviewing and reframing our educational focus.

This means education to facilitate change, rather than our current focus of building a heightened awareness about DR. Without careful thought,  DR professionals and academics may miss the opportunity to keep pace with the rapidly changing business world, which routinely incorporates pre-escalation and/or de-escalation systems into business models and dispute clauses into contracts.

Practical and skills-based training and education for both the legal and business communities will be the way of the future for those who do not wish to be left behind.

Dr Rachael Field, part of the panel facilitated by Steve Lancken, GPC Sydney

Local Responses Q4.2

Session 4 Wordcloud- Vision for the Future

Dr Rosemary Howell, part of the panel at GPC Sydney

Participating as a delegate at GPC Sydney, May 2017

4.Lawyers see things differently from other stakeholders, including parties.

Unsurprisingly, the cumulative results of the GPC quantitative data supports the idea that lawyers play an important role in DR. It is both a strength and a weakness. At many events lawyers were seen as having the most influence in bringing about change, but they were also seen as the most resistant to it.

As our colleague Dr Olivia Rundle has identified, there is ‘a spectrum of contributions that lawyers can make‘ in DR. Combine this with the idea that clients at different levels of sophistication want different things from their lawyers (see pp 66-69), and it becomes abundantly clear that, to move with the times, some lawyers may need to adopt a more flexible mindset, with room for both adversarial and non-adversarial strategies.

Lawyers who understand these challenges and adapt to them have the opportunity to play an integral role in the future of DR. Without this, they will be left behind.

Three generations of Australian DR academics: Danielle Hutchinson, Katelyn Hutchinson, Emma-May Litchfield and Dr Rosemary Howell

The beautiful Guildhall in London, July 2017

Final Panel session at GPC London: Where to now?

Local Organising Committee and Local Organising Committee representatives: Michael McIlwrath, Alex Oddy, Emma-May Litchfield and Andy Rogers

Celebrating how far we have come at the final GPC London, July 2017 

When considering the themes discussed in this blogpost, it is important to remember that the GPC Series 2016-17 collected data in relation to commercial dispute resolution. That said, there is feasibility for the insights gained from the project to prove fungible to other areas of DR. For example, family or community disputes.

I invite other academics to use the GPC to inform further research as we move from a series of Global Pound Conferences to a Global Pound Community.

The beautiful Guildhall in London, July 2017

On October 29, 2014, 150 of us, representing many stakeholder groups from more than 20 countries, attended an important convention held in London’s beautiful Guildhall. Called ‘Shaping the Future of International Dispute Resolution’ the convention was inspired by the energetic and far-sighted Michael Leathes and was organised by the International Mediation Institute (IMI), which he pioneered and several other bodies.

We were engaged by the individual voting and interactive technology used to extract and provide real-time data drawn from our input on a number of critical issues. The data that this convention generated suggested that significant gaps may exist between what disputants expect and need and what is currently provided by advisors, provider bodies, practitioners, educators and policy makers.

The outcome was the establishment of an international working committee with the task of planning a most ambitious venture – a series of conferences to be held across the globe known as the Global Pound Conference (GPC).

The goal of the series was to produce reliable data about how the different stakeholders saw the landscape by requiring participants to answer 4 core questions which, in summary, asked:

What do parties want, need and expect?

How is the market currently addressing these?

How can dispute resolution be improved? Overcoming obstacles and challenges.

What action should be considered and by whom?

Participants were also to be encouraged to work in groups to discuss and develop deeper responses to a series of discussion questions.

March 2016 saw the first conference, held in Singapore, and this was followed by a further 28 conferences spanning the globe and returning to the Guildhall for the London conference in July 2017.

Having had the good fortune to attend the 2014 convention and the GPC sessions in Singapore, Sydney (May 2017) and the finale in London, I have been reflecting on the experiences and the outcomes I found most significant.

Whilst the GPC has featured in this blog before (see  GPC Sydney and Roscoe Pound would be proud) it seems timely to provide a final reflection on two questions – what has the GPC series has given us and what may come next?  My list below is not exhaustive – I sense many of us are asking and answering the same 2 questions – it simply identifies what for me are the 4 most valuable take-aways:

The Global Conversation

The GPC series got us talking. We are not all saying the same thing and we continue to have significant differences in how we see things and what we want. However the dispute resolution community, and its differing components (identified in the data collection as advisors, provider bodies, practitioners, educators and policy makers) have moved out of their separate compartments and into a community of stakeholders.

The Singapore Report

The technologically advanced and real-time data collection supported the careful and thorough data analysis (undertaken by Emma-May Litchfield and Danielle Hutchinson of Resolution Resources) and an introduction to new data and concepts. See The Singapore Report. For the first time we were able to see the differences in expectation and experience between sophisticated users (with the report coining the concept of ‘dispute savvy’ users) and novices and to move from our anecdotal assumptions of the dispute resolution landscape to a picture based on reliable data. By the time we got to London 2017, panellists and participants, drawn from the largest law firms, and users drawn from major international corporations, were comfortable adopting the language of the report and describing themselves as sophisticated users.

We also had clear information that users are not a single group but a number of different groups ranging from the least to the most experienced who have very different needs and wants.

The hierarchies identified and developed for this report are a powerful tool for future analysis and have significant ongoing value.

Lessons for Lawyers

We now have cumulative data from the core questions of the 29 events. There are numerous differences from the various jurisdictions so the picture is not homogenous. However what struck me as the most significant consistency in the data comes in the answer to the question about the obstacles to overcoming deficiencies in current dispute resolution processes and practices. The overwhelmingly consistent answer was lawyers (including, surprisingly, even the responses from the group identifying as advisors.)

In London, the responses generated the following Word Cloud which provides a great visual of the message.

The repositioning of ADR

In Singapore, participants and panellists were talking about ADR. By the time we got to London, ‘alternative’ was gone and Dispute Resolution was the consistent descriptor. This symbolic joining of the stakeholders is a great achievement in itself.

The ‘what’s next?’ discussion

It is appropriate to talk about the London 2017 conference as the end of the beginning. The conversation did not end in London. The last session encouraged us to explore the ‘what’s next’ question and the first step seems to be reframing the GPC as the Global Pound Community. We continued our conversation as we left the conference for celebratory cocktails. There were interesting suggestions about revisiting other ideas from the presentation by Professor Frank E.A.Sander at the original 1976 Pound Conference including developing his ‘triage’ concept into a deeper investigation of what ‘guided choice’ might look like.

For all of us in the Dispute Resolution space this is a great outcome. As a participant I am extremely grateful for the experience.

Congratulations to:

• The far-sighted Michael Leathes for having the dream;
• The international organising committee for herding the cats internationally;
• The principal sponsor Herbert Smith Freehills for staying the course and making such a substantial commitment;
• Jeremy Lack, Global Coordinator, for his tenacity;
• Powervote for its innovative technology
• Danielle Hutchinson and Emma-May Litchfield for bringing to the dispute resolution field research methodologies which have proven so useful in the fields of education and social sciences

Most Australian jurisdictions aim to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of civil disputes. The High Court has affirmed that ‘speed and efficiency, in the sense of minimum delay and expense, are seen as essential to a just resolution of the proceedings.’[1]  Non-litigious dispute resolution is frequently advocated as the most appropriate means to achieve these sometimes conflicting objectives.

The availability of cost effective, quick and fair ways to resolve any disagreements about how to distribute shared assets (and liabilities) is important for many separating families, and also for the broader community. Research has consistently shown that separation can be a key predictor of financial disadvantage and falling living standards for many women and the children in their primary care. Financial stress experienced by either parent is likely to affect the whole family, and money and capacity to parent effectively are closely connected. While the financial concerns of each family following separation will vary according to their assets and specific needs, many will have urgent questions about Centrelink entitlements, child support obligations, debt management, capacity to manage two households, and information about how they should go about dividing their assets. It is often very difficult for people to know where to start to find answers to these questions.

While many separated families don’t have much to distribute (about 60% have less than $40,000 of assets), 40% will sort things out by discussion, 30% will use lawyers, 4% will rely on mediation, 7% will have the matter decided by courts, and the 20% remaining will not use any particular process.[2]  This means a significant number will seek, and more may need, some kind of professional or service assistance. Cheap, quick, and simple options that achieve fair outcomes are important as it can be extraordinarily expensive, and may take up to three years, for parties to litigate a matter in a family court.[3]  Litigation is also emotionally exhausting for all involved, and research indicates the emotional impact on children increases with the length of time spent in court proceedings.

DIY aside, there are few ‘cheap’ service options. A single session advice by a family lawyer may cost between $400 and $800, and thousands of dollars if more assistance is required.  There is not a nationally consistent approach by Legal Aid Commissions, and funding is rarely granted to resolve property disputes, but may be possible if connected to disputes about children.  Community legal centres may provide free legal advice in relation to family property disputes, and assist parties to initiate or finalise documents, and specialist CLCs provide assistance with child support.

Unlike disputes about the care of children following separation, there is no enforceable requirement to attempt to resolve property disputes before filing a court application. There are pre-action obligations which parties are required to follow before starting a family law property case, including full disclosure of financial matters, and making attempts to resolve the dispute quickly using dispute resolution methods to avoid legal action and limit costs. Lawyers are obliged to advise clients in relation to these options. However, it seems that most people do not comply with the pre-action procedures, and costs orders are rarely made against parties who fail to follow them.[4]

There is no government-funded system to facilitate the resolution of family property disputes, in the way that the 65 Australian Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) provide (largely) free family dispute resolution (FDR) to assist agreement about children. This possibility was mooted in 2010, but the Commonwealth Attorney General did not proceed with it. Given the close connection between parenting and financial matters, is it unfortunate that it did not, or that resources were not provided to support other agencies to assist with financial matters following separation.

Some commentators have suggested introducing pre-filing FDR for property would have put ‘the cart before the horse’ and may have been dangerous without also providing a wider a range of services and options to assist separating parents to fairly negotiate financial issues. The options they recommended included ‘access to a range of professional assistance, including … financial counselling, information and advice (including legal advice) in relation to the range of financial matters affecting them (Centrelink benefits, child support responsibilities and property division [including their financial disclosure obligations]), along with appropriately trained FDRPs to conduct financial dispute resolution, lawyer assisted FDR if appropriate, and legal advice and assistance prior or during FDR, and in relation to formalising their arrangements.’[5]

Some FRCs now assist parties to resolve, or at least to narrow the issues in property disputes, and some community agencies are funded to provide FDR for property at minimal or a sliding scale cost (generally less than $1000 shared between the parties, excluding legal advice). There is scope however, for expanding these services to separating families. The Law Society of NSW administers a Family Law Settlement Service which mediates property disputes that have already been filed in a Family Court and reached the post-conciliation conference stage, for about $2000, excluding legal fees.

Mediating property disputes may be simple and relatively quick, depending on the complexity of the parties’ assets, liabilities and needs.  As a facilitative process, it may also provide parties with more certainty and control and assist them to tailor outcomes to meet the needs of their family members. All family mediations are required to be conducted by accredited FDR practitioners or mediators, who are obliged to ensure procedural fairness in facilitating agreement. The substantive fairness of the outcomes of these processes is discussed below. Collaborative processes also support parties to make interest based decisions and is generally less cost that court proceedings.

Determinative processes, such as arbitration, have recently experienced a revival, although this option has been available to parties for 25 years. Arbitration may provide parties with finality and greater certainty about legal costs and processes, and choice about who arbitrates, and thus assist them to move on with their lives. Parties may also have some control over the arbitration process and may elect to dispense with the rules of evidence, and the arbitrator must ensure procedural fairness. Recent reforms to the rules governing family law arbitration require full and frank disclosure, and permit arbitrators to compel witnesses and the production of evidence. Arbitrators must be family law specialists and be accredited. They are required to provide written reasons in accordance with the Family Law Act 1975, and these are appealable or may be set aside.[6]

Evaluative processes are also available, such as where a senior family lawyer conducts a neutral evaluation and provides recommendations to parties about a possible outcome or elements of the dispute. Parties who commence litigation will also be required to attend a conciliation conference or case management conference presided over by a registrar who will advise about likely outcomes.

The extent to which family law informal processes and agreements are fair or just is moot. The empirical evidence indicates that the type of process or type of agreement parties reach does not affect the substantive outcome. Property outcomes are more likely to be influenced by the size of the asset pool, the length of the marriage, the dynamics of separation, whether violence is present, care of children and perceptions of guilt.[7]  Parties’ views about the fairness of the division of domestic or household property assets depends on whether they think that their contribution to these assets was reflected in the final outcome and who has care of the children. Whether such outcomes are also substantively fair is uncertain. The outcomes of informal processes often treat the division of family business assets differently to domestic assets, and fail to reflect the opportunity cost of caring for children, in contrast to the outcomes of more formalised or assisted processes which more closely reflect legislative requirements to consider these matters.[8]

In conclusion, there are a range of options that can assist separating couples to divide their joint property, but not all are quick, simple or cheap. The extent to which parties will achieve just resolution depends on a range of factors not necessarily tied to the type of process they use. Whilst the dispute resolution process chosen may minimise some of the financial difficulties and uncertainties families face at separation, such processes also need to be anchored in a broader range of inexpensive, accessible and consistent financial information and advice services, as a critical first step.

[1] Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175.

[2] Lixua Qu, et al, Post Separation Parenting, Property and Relationship Dynamics after Five Years, AIFS, 2014, 99.

[3] Patrick Parkinson reported that among 80 separated parents he researched over 5 years, 12 reported legal costs of ‘$100,000 or more just for themselves, with the highest estimate being between $450,000 and $500,000.’ Although these costs primarily resulted from disputing about children, many families were disputing about both children and property. Patrick Parkinson, et al, ‘The Need for Reality Testing in Relocation Cases’ (2010) 44 Family Law Quarterly 1, cited in Patrick Parkinson ‘Can There Ever Be Affordable Family Law?’ Current Legal Issues Seminar, Supreme Court of Queensland, Brisbane, 9th May 2017.

[4] Belinda Fehlberg, et al, ‘Pre-filing Family Dispute Resolution for financial disputes: Putting the cart before the horse?’ (2010) 16 Journal of Family Studies 197–208; Justice Robert McClelland, ‘Expectations and opportunities for dispute resolution in family law property cases.’ Presentation to Resolution Institute NSW, 27 April 2017.

[5] Fehlberg, ibid.

[6] Patrick Parkinson, ‘Arbitration in Family Property Proceedings: Exploring the Potential’ (2016) 21 Law Society of NSW Journal 78-79; McClelland, above note 4.

[7] Qu, above n 2, 105; Belinda Fehlberg, et al, ‘Parenting Arrangements, Child Support and Property Settlement: Exploring the Connections’ (2010) 24 Australian Journal of Family Law 214.

[8] Grania Sheehan & Jody Hughes, ‘The division of matrimonial property in Australia: What is a fair settlement?’ (2000) 55 Family Matters 28.

Collaborative practice is experiencing a revival across Australia in resolving family law disputes, demonstrating maturity in its practice and its dispute management potential and posing questions about whether it can or should be the norm in the resolution of disputes, especially those affecting families.

In many Family Court registries there are delays of up to three years for cases to reach trial. This has prompted renewed interest in collaborative practice by family lawyers and others involved in family dispute resolution, who inform disputants that it can help them to ‘stay in control of your own decisions and out of court’.  The Family Law Council reported in 2007 on Collaborative Practice In Family Law and further impetus was given in 2011 when the Law Council of Australia released Collaborative Practice Guidelines for Lawyers (the Guidelines).[1]  Specialised training for collaborative practice is being widely conducted, and professional practice groups have been revitalised and formed locally and state-wide, with the launch of the Australian Association of Collaborative Professionals imminent.[2]  These developments represent a maturity among collaborative professionals, as well as reinvigorated confidence in the potential of collaborative processes to resolve family disputes productively, transparently and co-operatively.  It has also led to the emergence of new models of collaborative practice which further indicate its maturity as a dispute management process, and which suggest promising shifts in legal practice.

Collaborative law emerged in Australia more than 10 years ago, following North American experiments in the 1990s to resolve post separation disputes through civilised, respectful non-adversarial, interest-based negotiation.[3]  In Australia collaborative practice is defined as ‘a process in which clients, with the support of a collaborative practitioner, identify interests and issues, then develop options, consider alternatives and make decisions about future actions and outcomes’.[4]  The distinctive feature of collaborative law is a contractual agreement between lawyers and clients to not litigate and to negotiate in good faith.  Lawyers are engaged in a representational capacity and assist clients to understand the law and to be responsible for decision making.  As Marilyn Scott observes, collaborative lawyers ‘need to be able to give sound legal advice’, but also ‘to have advanced skills in dispute analysis, negotiation preparation and strategising skills, excellent people skills and a sound understanding of conflict dynamics and conflict management.’[5]  Parties may also choose to involve non-legal experts such as financial planners, child consultants and psychologists in the collaborative process.

Indeed, this way of managing legal disputes is currently termed ‘collaborative interdisciplinary practice’ to highlight the value of a range of professionals contributing to the management of a dispute and supporting parties to make informed consensual decisions.  All the professionals involved in Australian collaborative interdisciplinary family practice are required to participate in training and to register with a collaborative practice organisation to ensure a shared philosophical commitment to non-adversarialism, and to foster professional networks and standardise practice.[6]

The role of an independent intervener or coach has also emerged as an important component of the current collaborative process, leading to the development of five-way meetings (single coach, lawyers and parties) as the preferred model, at least among many Sydney collaborative family law professionals. The coach generally assumes the role of an independent and impartial facilitator and steward of the process, assessing the dispute and parties for suitability, and assisting the lawyers and parties to make most efficient use of process and maximising their contribution to it. The coach frequently manages the process, including agenda setting and minuting, assists parties to prepare for the meetings and to communicate effectively. They may meet jointly or separately with parties between five-way meetings for various reasons, for example, to facilitate feedback from child consultants, foster parental alliance, clarify party goals, assist parties to develop strategies regulate their emotional state, and to assist the family to transition through the separation.

Coaches may be mental health professionals, but in Australia are also frequently accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners, bringing mediation expertise and authority to issue section 60I certificates should agreement not be reached.  The growing prominence of coaches in collaborative practice is not an ‘an indictment on the ability of collaborative lawyers to perform the basic tasks of the collaborative process’, as Henry Kha suggests.[7] On the contratry, it gives greater weight to Laurence Boulle and Rachael Field’s conclusion that collaborative practice constitutes a ‘more authentic alternative to adversarial justice’ with real promise of creative, client-centred, consensual outcomes in an integrative, multi-professional and flexible process.[8] In Canada and the United States, it is claimed to have settlement rates of over 95 per cent and a straw poll from the Central Sydney Collaborative Forum indicates 85 per cent.[9]

Of course collaborative practice is not suitable or affordable for all disputes or disputants. It is claimed that the cost of collaborative practice is ‘generally less than the conventional adversarial path’ and parties have control over the pace and timing of the process.[10]  A separate intake assessment is required, but the Guidelines do not identify issues to be considered in evaluating appropriateness.[11]  Capacity to negotiate freely in a family context may be affected by violence, risks to safety to parties or children, mental or other health concerns and inequality of bargaining power.[12]  The presence of legal advocates will generally minimise such risks.  It was the presence of a range of professionals in the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR) pilots that made some victims of violence feel that the CFDR process was safe and fair.[13]  Perhaps a blending of the strengths of collaborative processes with those offered by CFDR might lead to an affordable, accessible and safe model of collaborative resolution of family disputes, especially for complex cases which often result in litigation and significant emotional and financial cost.

Because of the greater emphasis in collaborative practice on the values of ‘humanism, emotional expression and the maintenance of relationships’,[14] some commentators argue that it is illustrative of a ‘new advocacy’ challenging traditional assumptions of legal practice and reclaiming for lawyers a role as facilitators of creative and constructive client-centred non-legal outcomes.[15]  If such shifts in legal practice are to deliver the promise of a more positive professional identity for lawyers and more humane legal system then, as Rachael Field, Laurence Boulle and other legal scholars have argued, we need to design legal education to prioritise appropriate dispute resolution expertise and practice.[16]  Whilst it is unlikely in the short term to become the norm in resolving family legal disputes, because of cost barriers or unsuitability, development of greater understanding of collaborative practice among law students may mean it would become normalised rather than novel. It may also be more likely to be applied in a broader range of contexts as suggested by the Law Council, including ‘commercial, community, workplace, environmental, construction, building, health and educational decision making.’[17]

[1] Family Law Council, Collaborative Practice in Family Law: A report to the Attorney-General prepared by the Family Law Council (2007); Law Council of Australia, Australian Collaborative Practice Guidelines for Lawyers (2011).

[2] Collaborative Professionals (NSW) Newsletter 1 (2017); Shelby Timmins, ‘Thinking Outside the Box: Collaborative Practice in Family Law’ (2017) 31 Law Society Journal 88.

[3] See Laurence Boulle and Rachael Field, Australian Dispute Resolution Law and Practice (2017) 54.

[4] Law Council of Australia, Australian Collaborative Practice Guidelines for Lawyers (2011) 4.

[5] Marilyn Scott, ‘Collaborative Law: Dispute Resolution Competencies for the ‘New Advocacy’’(2008) 8 Queensland University of Technology Law & Justice Journal, 213, 216.

[6] Guidelines above n 1, 9-10.

[7] Henry Kha, ‘Evaluating collaborative law in the Australian context, (2015) 26 Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 178, 184.

[8] Boulle and Field, above n 3, 247.

[9] Judge John Pascoe, Collaborative and Creative approaches to family dispute resolution: Perspectives from the Bench, Federal Magistrates Court, 2; Email communication from Rachel Slat, Accredited Specialist (Family Law).

[10] Timmins, above n 2, 89.

[11] Guidelines, above n 1, 5.

[12] Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008, reg 25.

[13] Rae Kaspiew, et al, Evaluation of a pilot of legally assisted and supported family dispute resolution in family violence cases, Final report, Australian Institute of Family Studies (2012) 111.

[14] Boulle and Field, above n , 246.

[15] Scott, above n 5, 228. Also Julie Macfarlane, The New Lawyer: How Settlement Is Transforming the Practice of Law, University of British Columbia Press (2008).

[16] Boulle and Field, Ch 13, and references cited therein. Also Scott, from 229.

[17] Guidelines, above n 1, 5.