Australian Dispute Resolution Research Network members may be interested in this  upcoming seminar at Bond University’s Centre for Professional Legal Education on Thu. 19 October 2017 10:00 am – 4:00 pm

Bookings (free) made here. RSVP by 29 September 2017. Due to limited spaces, registration is essential.

Symposium: Law Without Lawyers?
19 October 10.00am-4.00pm, 

University Club Restaurant, Bond University, 14 University Drive, Robina, QLD 4229, View Map

It has been predicted that emergent technologies such as artificial intelligence, ‘lawbots’, smart contracts, automated dispute resolution services and the like will soon replace human lawyers in the delivery of some, most or even all legal services. How persuasive is this claim, and if it does have merit, what are the implications of ‘law without lawyers’ for the rule of law, for justice, for the community, and for law students and lawyers themselves?

Bond University’s Centre for Professional Legal Education (CPLE) will investigate these questions in a one day symposium titled ‘Law Without Lawyers?’. The symposium will explore in depth the likely impact of technological innovation on the practice of law, and the implications – both positive and negative – of the possibility that legal services will be delivered without the direct involvement of human lawyers. The symposium will include a keynote address, a panel discussion and debate, and an interactive workshop. Morning tea, lunch and afternoon tea will be provided.

Legal practitioners will be eligible to earn up to 3 CPD points for their attendance at the symposium.

Bookings (free) made here. RSVP by 29 September 2017. Due to limited spaces, registration is essential.

On 18 October 2017, the United Nations Convention on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration (New York, 2014) (the “Mauritius Convention on Transparency”) will enter into force.     Current signatories include Australia as well as many of Australia’s major European investment partners, as well as the United States.

What is the Mauritius Convention?

The Mauritius Convention, as its name suggests, is designed to ensure transparency in the investor-state arbitration process (not any other types of arbitration, such as international commercial arbitration).

The Convention (or more accurately, the UNICITRAL Rules adopted by the convention) is ground-breaking because it represents a major shift away from the traditional model of arbitration being a private, confidential process.    Like most forms of arbitration, investor-state arbitration has previously been undertaken predominately in private, with no guarantees of public access to information about the dispute, the arguments, or even the award and reasons.   While this may be understandable in the case of private arbitration between commercial parties, the nature of investor state arbitration is different.    Because of the nature of the dispute – a disagreement about the treatment of a foreign investor by a host state –  there are generally important issues of public policy at stake.

For example, many Australians first heard of investor-state arbitration following an ultimately unsuccessful claim against Australia by Philip Morris (Asia) via an investment agreement between Australia and Hong Kong, seeking compensation for the impact of  Australia’s plain label packaging laws.   In other cases, investor-state disputes have arisen as a result of environmental measures, public health measures, and even anti-discrimination provisions in post-Apartheid South Africa.   As a result, investor-state dispute resolution has received quite a lot of negative publicity, and many states are retreating from the system of investor-state arbitration by terminating international agreements.

The Convention operates by giving ‘teeth’ to the UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration.  These Rules, although they do contain exceptions, provide three main types of transparency in arbitrations to which they apply:

• Open hearings:  Hearings are to be made public, with the arbitral tribunal to make arrangements to facilitate public access to hearings.
• Amicus curiae/third party submissions:  formalising  the right of arbitral tribunals to receive relevant amicus curiae and other third party submissions.
• Publication:  Submissions and awards must be made public.

When does it apply to Australia?

The entry into force of the Mauritius Convention has taken place pursuant to Article 9 of the Convention – six months after the ratification of three signatories.    However at the present time, the convention only applies to disputes between Canada, Mauritius and Switzerland.  In Australia, implementing legislation is currently before Parliament. However, in time, most signatories can be expected to complete the ratification process according to their domestic laws.  However even prior to ratification, parties to an Investor-State arbitration can still agree to the voluntary application of the provisions.

A Watershed for Arbitration?

To those used to the context of domestic litigation, these sound like trivial changes, but they represent a great leap forward for transparency in investor state dispute settlement.  Some commentators have even considered that the convention may  lead to a change of culture in relation to arbitration more broadly.

Image: Supreme People’s Court, China.  Image from Wikimedia Commons

Today’s post is a piece by Dr Bin Li,  a lecturer at Newcastle Law School Australia.

The large population of China presents unique challenges for access to justice.  With a population approaching 1.4 billion people, there are around 11.5 million civil cases per year, according to the statistics of the Supreme People’s Court of China (‘SPCC’).  [1]

The idea of diversified dispute resolution ( ‘DDR’) was first put forward in 2004 by the SPCC as part of a parcel of reforms designed to advance access to justice[2], with the SPCC urging lower-level Chinese courts (People’s Courts) to develop capacity in mediation and give greater recognition to arbitration.  Further, the Supreme People’s Court called for collaboration and joint development of the DDR model with other entities and organisations external to the people’s courts.

At the time of these announcements, the SPCC had not provided a clear definition of the concept of DDR.  This was subsequently articulated in 2014 by the Fourth Assembly of the Eighteenth Central Committee of China Community Party in its Decision concerning Some Major Questions in Comprehensively Moving Governing the Country According to the law Forward,.  In that document, the  DDR was defined as an organic and coordinated dispute resolution system comprising mediation, arbitration, administrative adjudication, administrative review, litigation and other processes.

Arguably, therefore, DDR has some similarities with the systems of alternative dispute resolution  as it used in Western courts, but also some significant differences.   They have in common the prominent use of mediation as key process, and recognition of the role of arbitration.  However, DDR has a more expansive definition in that it encompasses other dispute resolution processes, including administrative review; the second and a more significantly, is that DDR is intended to operate as a coordinated and court-controlled system.

Thus,  the creation of the  DDR system has become an integrated part of judicial reform in China and an important task for a range of Chinese government entities at provincial and national level, including administrative departments for justice of local governments, which  regulate  the system of people’s mediation[3], along with the Supreme People’s Court a nominated by the Chinese Communist Party to take the lead in this process.

From 2014 onwards, the SPCC has actively encouraged lower level people’s courts to speed up their development of the DDR system,  and People’s courts have responded with measures such as the implementation of mandatory mediation programs prior to disputes being admitted to the litigation process. This is a very encouraging news for mediation in China as in the past, people’s courts had only used mediation during the litigation process rather than prior to litigation. Now the practice is that before the dispute is accepted by people’s courts to litigation, the people’s courts will aim to solve it before proceeding to litigation.

To achieve such an aim, the people’s courts have established  Coordination Centres for Mediation and Litigation (“CCML”). During this pre-litigation mediation process, CCMLs usually invite people’s mediators to participate and help with the settlement, and when acting in this capacity, these mediators are known by a term that means ‘specially invited mediators’.  This distinction is interesting as  People’s mediation is separate from mediation provided by people’s courts during the litigation process and it is provided and undertaken by administrative units of departments for justice at provincial level. in .  Therefore, by inviting people’s mediators to the pre-litigation mediation process conducted by the CCML, the people’s courts have started to explore the way where mediation can be more utilised while the relationship between mediation and litigation can be carefully dealt with.

Challenges in Implementation

There are, however, some barriers for the people’s courts to get over in order that the completion of DDR can be achieved.

First and foremost, there is an absence of domestic legislation defining the leadership role of SPCC. The aspiration is to have As its definition suggests, the DDR is an organic system focusing on the coordination of various dispute resolution approaches. It is therefore important to have a lead agency to oversee and coordinate reforms. In this respect, though SPCC has been nominated by CCP to take the lead in the reform, there is no legislation confirming such a leading role taken by the SPCC. The subsequent problem would be how SPCC could smoothly coordinate the reform where the functions of government are involved, such as people’s mediation.

The second difficulty is related to the unsuccessful practice of people’s mediation. In China, people’s mediation is a process where a people’s mediation commission persuades the parties concerned to a dispute into reaching a mediation agreement on the basis of equal negotiation and free will and thus solves the dispute between them. Also, according to the law, Ministry of Justice is responsible for people’s mediation nationally, with provincial justice departments taking responsibility for guiding the people’s mediation within their respective administrative regions. The 2010 People’s Mediation Law was designed to make mediation a key process for the resolution of civil disputes, and to ameliorate the workload of the  people’s courts. However, evidence shows that people’s mediation has not worked as well as expected, which appear to be due to a range of factors, including the public having little interest and confidence in mediation.  For example, there is no accreditation system for people’s mediators whose quality therefore cannot be guaranteed. [4] In addition, one cultural factor possibly undermining the public’s confidence is that Chinese people would rather trust judges than the people’s mediators who they don’t know at all.

Thirdly, the use of CCMLs presents particular challenges. In people’s courts,  judge are usually involved by guiding the mediator’s work. However this involvement presents particular issues if the dispute is not resolved through mediation.

The first option would be for the judge involving in the previous mediation to hear and decide. In this case, it may be possible for the judge to exert pressure on the parties to settle their disputes in mediation. In addition, since the judge has already known the case, it is questionable whether that judge is still an appropriate person to try the case. The second option is that the dispute will be registered as a case and resolved by a different judge, which will then prolong the resolution of the dispute.

This piece has presented a short perspective of the opportunities and challenges in creating a DDR system in China.   There are interesting parallels between the experience in China, but also unique challenges.   In China, as elsewhere, the key to making this court-led system effective is to identify how the DDR can be effectively integrated into the workflow and procedures of already busy courts.  In this respect, a nationally accredited system for people’s mediators will help establish the confidence of the public. It is also vital for SPCC to lay down some specific rules on this court-led reform, such as whether the judge already involving in the pre-litigation mediation is still eligible for hearing the case provided that the dispute has not been resolved by mediation. A related question also needs to be answered being whether the information disclosed in mediation can be used in the subsequent litigation. So far people’s courts in different provinces could have different answers to these two questions and it is the right place for SPCC to step in.

[1] https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/tag/china-court-statistics-2015/

[2] Notice of the Supreme People’s Court on Issuing the Second Five-Year Reform Outline for the People’s Courts (2004-2008).

[3]http://www.cspil.org/Uploadfiles/attachment/Laws%20and%20Regulations/[en]guojifalvwenjian/PeoplesMediationLawofthePeoplesRepublicofChina.pdf.

[4] Art. 14 of People’s Mediation Law only provides that the people’s mediators shall be adult citizens with ‘certain level of culture, policies and legal knowledge’.

The Victorian Small Business Commission is now accepting applications for appointments to its Mediation Panel. 
Applicants should have:

· National mediator accreditation under the National Mediator Accreditation System (NMAS) by a Recognised Mediator Accreditation Body (RMAB);

· Relevant experience;

· Indicated relevant jurisdictional capability and knowledge;

· Agreed to comply / demonstrated compliance with the administrative requirements of the VSBC; and

· Confirmed their ability to undertake mediation appointments if offered. 

Panel Members will be appointed for a two year duration. The application process is open until midnight Friday 29 September. 

You can find out more at the VSBC website.

This is a guest post by Professor Mandeep K Dhami, PhD. who is Professor in Decision Psychology at Middlesex University, London. Her research focusses on questions of human judgment and decision-making, risk perception and risk taking, and understanding and communicating uncertainty.

Victim–offender mediation practices bring conflicting parties together so they can engage in a two-way dialogue and ultimately negotiate a mutually agreeable resolution. The fact that apology may be a motivator for participating in the mediation process and that it is often a common outcome of mediation suggests that research on mediation ought to more carefully explore the nature of the apologies that are offered. Dhami’s (2015a) study provides a qualitative exploration of the prevalence and nature of the apologies offered by offenders to their victims during face-to-face mediations. Fifty-nine mediation agreements recorded by the longest running mediation scheme in the UK were analysed. It was found that 50.8% of agreements contained mention of the perpetrator saying ‘I’m sorry’ or offering a partial apology (i.e. acknowledging harm and/or promising forbearance). Full apologies were absent in the mediation agreements. Agreements did not make explicit mention of the offender admitting responsibility or expressing remorse or regret. Finally, although the mediation agreements did not make any explicit mention of offenders offering reparation, they did record efforts at providing solutions to the conflict.

It is stated that full apologies comprise at least five specific components (i.e., admitting responsibility, acknowledging harm, expressing remorse, offering reparation, and promising forbearance). However, full apologies are not commonplace, and wrongdoers are more likely to offer a partial apology. Dhami (2017) conducted an empirical study of how people perceive a partial apology. Eighty young people were asked to rate the extent to which a partial apology comprising one component implied each of the four remaining (uncommunicated) components of apology. Participants believed that when someone offers a partial apology, that person also implies, to the same extent, the remaining (uncommunicated) components of apology (either combined or separately). A partial apology involving either an acknowledgment of harm or offer of reparation implied to a lesser extent the promise of forbearance than some other components i.e., the admission of responsibility and the expression of remorse. In addition, a partial apology involving the expression of remorse or promise of forbearance implied to a greater extent the admission of responsibility compared to some other components i.e., the acknowledgment of harm and the offer of reparation.

Past research on VoM has highlighted the importance of apology for both victims and offenders and the prevalence of apology during the mediation process. Dhami (2012) examined the nature of the apologies that are offered during mediation, as well as the individual-, case-, and mediation-level factors that can affect the offer and acceptance of apology. In addition, the study measured the implications that the offer and acceptance of apology can have on satisfaction with the mediation outcome. The study involved a content analysis of 57 records of mediations occurring between 2008 and 2010 at a UK mediation centre. Perpetrators said ‘‘I’m sorry’’ in over one-third of cases, and full apologies were offered in nearly one-fifth of cases. Apologies were accepted in over 90% of cases, although forgiveness was much less common. The offer of apology was most closely associated with the type of incident/offence, and number of previous mediations in a case. There was also some support for the relationship between the offer of apology and victim age, perpetrator gender, formal sanction, and the number of participants attending the mediation meeting. None of the factors studied were associated with the acceptance of apology. The offer of apology was associated with satisfaction with the mediation outcome, and in all of the cases where the apology was accepted, the victim was satisfied with the mediation outcome.

Finally, the ‘apology-acceptance’ script that may prevail during the victim–offender mediation process suggests that victims may feel obliged or pressured to accept an offender’s offer of an apology. Violations of this expectation in terms of rejection of an apology or no recognition of it may influence the outcomes of mediation in several ways. Dhami (2015b) conducted two experiments examining the effects of a victim’s response to an offender’s offer of a full apology on offenders’ perceptions of the victim’s response, emotional reactions, perceptions of the victim, attitudes towards the dispute and attitudes towards mediation. Experiment 1 compared the effects of a rejection, acceptance and no recognition of an apology, and Experiment 2 further investigated the effects of an acceptance versus no recognition of an apology. It was found that offenders who had their apology rejected considered the victim’s response as least appropriate and were least satisfied by it. ‘Rejected’ offenders felt more anger towards the victim and had more negative impressions of the victim. Offenders who had their apology accepted felt more guilt and shame. They were, however, also more willing to reach an agreement and were more likely to perceive the conflict as being resolved. ‘Accepted’ offenders were also more likely to participate in mediation in the future and more willing to recommend mediation to others. The research also demonstrated that no recognition of an apology has adverse effects similar to a rejection of an apology.

References

Dhami, M. K. (2017). An empirical note on perceptions of partial apologies. Onati Socio-Legal Series, 7, 408-420.

Dhami, M. K. (2015a). Apology in victim-offender mediation. Contemporary Justice Review. DOI: 10.1080/10282580.2015.1101686

Dhami, M. K. (2015b). Effects of victims’ response to apology in victim-offender mediation. European Journal of Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2145

Dhami, M. K. (2012). Offer and acceptance of apology in victim-offender mediation. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 20, 45-60.

This article first appeared in Precedent, the journal of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, issue 141, published in August 2017 (Sydney, Australia, ISSN 1449-7719), pp 12-16.  It has been reproduced with the kind permission of the author and the ALA.  For more information about the ALA, please go to: www.lawyersalliance.com.au.

INTRODUCTION

In every dispute resolution process the parties will find a balance along a spectrum from “it’s only about the money and settlement” to “we can manage our conflict much more broadly than a narrow focus on the past events related to this dispute.” There is a tension between these two extremes. In 2005, Baruch Bush and Folger reflected upon this tension, which they had expressed in their first edition of The Promise of Mediation:

‘In our view, the potential that mediation offered to foster and support positive human interaction within conflict was being squandered. Instead mediation was being used to shore up institutional processes that operate to control, contain, and settle conflict, because of a prevailing view that conflict interaction is a fundamentally negative social force’.[1]

On the one hand, the ability of dispute resolution (DR) processes other than formal trial to support people to resolve their differences in a holistic way is touted as a desirable attribute. On the other hand, within legal contexts, the purpose of DR processes is understood by many to be settling disputes quickly and cheaply, keeping them out of the formal trial process. There is a tension between those who advocate that one or other of these purposes is the ‘true’ purpose of DR processes. Strong opinions towards a settlement focus are particularly common within the context of formal justice systems and whenever lawyers are involved. In the court-connected context, the focus of DR is often the ending of a litigation process and avoiding further legal costs, as distinct from resolving a shared problem. Lawyers tend to focus upon settlement within the boundaries of what would be legally appropriate as the purpose of DR.[2]

This article revisits some of the promises of DR, to explain the imaginative potential that motivates those who champion the resolution-focused end of the spectrum. It then considers whether and how the context of the formal justice system shapes DR – including expectations about its proper purpose. The question of what parties want from DR is considered. The ways lawyers shape DR when they are involved in it is examined. Attention then turns to the reasons why a predominant focus upon the settlement purpose of DR may be appropriate and desirable. Conversely, the drawbacks of an over-emphasis on settlement to the detriment of other opportunities are considered. The conclusion from this discussion is that ultimately a broad resolution-focused approach may be maintained even within the context of the formal justice system; parties ought to decide what purposes they would like to pursue through their DR process; and lawyers ought to ensure that they are supporting their clients to make well-informed decisions about the optimal way to approach DR.

THE PROMISE OF DR

The foundations of the modern DR field were built on the multi-disciplinary pursuits of individualism, relationship, and peace-building. The promise was that DR would offer an alternative to existing processes that would free people in dispute from the confines of oppositional adversarialism, an exclusive legal lens, and untempered power imbalance. DR emerged from dissatisfaction with existing processes, promises about what new approaches offered, and changing attitudes towards conflict.[3] Hence the term ‘alternative’ dispute resolution (ADR) – being an alternative to trial or unassisted negotiation (which is typically conducted in an adversarial settlement style). Today, many in the field prefer to drop the ‘alternative’ tag, on the grounds that it misrepresents the central place that DR processes play in the life of disputes and justice systems.[4] Others argue just as ardently that the ‘alternative’ should stay, as a marker of history and because it distinguishes DR processes from the formal judicial system.[5] The promise of DR as an holistic and tailored approach to conflict and disputing is something that is universally acknowledged as at least a possibility.

DR IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FORMAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The biggest growth area of DR has been within institutional contexts, particularly government and the justice system. Inevitably, when DR has been adopted by institutions, it has been adapted accordingly:

‘True to ADR’s essential characteristics of innovation, creativity and experimentation, ADR in the courts involves continuing adaptation and evolution of ADR processes. But as governments, tribunals, and courts borrow, co-opt and adapt ADR methods, an ironic shift becomes apparent. Control over the dispute resolution processes moves to the institution. …In short, rather than be designed to meet the specific needs and exigencies of the parties to the particular dispute, ADR techniques are adapted to fit the goals of the institution or system.’[6]

Typically, the reason institutions introduce DR is to settle disputes quickly and at minimal cost. Within court systems, DR has been adopted as a way to solve problems of delay and inaccessibility – effectively shifting disputes out of formal litigation processes and supporting parties to negotiate an outcome earlier than they otherwise would.[7] The purpose of settlement is very much prioritised where these are the bases upon which a DR system has been established.

Where DR is court-connected, because it occurs within the context of a litigated matter, there are obvious reasons why the focus of the process tends to be upon the facts of past events, the legal issues between the parties, and the assessment of potential outcomes against the anticipated judicial view. Where trial or abandonment are the likely alternatives to a negotiated outcome, parties will naturally consider their options against those possibilities. Lawyers are more likely to be involved in court-connected DR processes and they will bring their professional legal lens to the process and dispute. Law and legal rights tend to dominate court-connected DR.[8]

However, there are no absolute barriers to a broad, relationship-focused, adaptable, holistic approach to the parties’ disagreement being taken within court-connected DR. There are no legislative definitions of DR, guidelines or rules that limit court-connected DR to a settlement and/or law-oriented focus on the dispute. Rather, there has been a trend for court-connected DR to be defined in generic terms that can potentially incorporate a wide range of DR practices.

WHAT PARTIES WANT FROM DR

The Productivity Commission’s latest report about access to justice noted that there are deficiencies in the availability, quality, and utilisation of data about the civil justice system – in particular, the experiences of, effects on and costs incurred by end users.[9] The LAW Survey has provided some data at a population level.[10] Data is often gathered from lawyers and institutional parties rather than directly from individual end users of DR, generally because of the ease with which data can be gathered from ‘repeat players’ compared with individual one-off parties.[11] Research conducted within service provider organisations, often in the form of client feedback surveys, presumably provides data about party expectations. However, these are rarely published publicly.

From the limited evidence available, we know that parties often want to explore a broader range of issues in DR than their lawyers think they do.[12] For example, Tamara Relis’s research involving medical malpractice claims demonstrated that although the lawyers for all parties thought that the dispute was mostly about money, and one-third of plaintiff lawyers thought their clients only wanted money, plaintiffs reported wanting to explore a much broader range of matters in the DR process.[13] Research has also revealed that parties’ experiences of process are strongly aligned with their satisfaction, whereas lawyers tend to evaluate DR according to whether or not a settlement was reached.[14]

HOW LAWYERS INFLUENCE WHAT PARTIES WANT AND WHAT THEY CAN GET FROM DR

Lawyers have significant influence in shaping their clients’ expectations about DR processes, the way that the process is conducted, the subject matter discussed, and the outcomes achieved.[15] Lawyers actively encourage their clients to reach sensible settlements, inevitably assessed according to the lawyer’s view of what is reasonable. The potentially broad scope of outcomes that could be achieved through DR may be limited by lawyers’ views that the appropriate scope of DR is narrow and focused upon likely legal outcomes weighed against financial costs and risks.[16] Lawyers modify their clients’ expectations about what DR is, what role they should play in it, how the negotiation should be approached, and what could be achieved.[17] There is scope for greater research into the reasons for the widely recognised narrowing of DR by legal service providers. Some contributory factors include lawyers’ professional identity,[18] interpretation of their ethical duties,[19] personality,[20] and legal training.[21]

WHY SETTLEMENT IS DESIRABLE AND APPROPRIATE

Settlement undoubtedly has many attractions for disputing parties. It means that negotiations about the dispute can cease and the parties can spend their time, money and emotional energy on other things. Where the settlement involves payment from one party to another, both are able to move into the future with certainty about their financial situation. Where litigation has commenced, the settlement will also signal the end of the parties’ involvement with the formal justice system about their dispute. Ultimately, these benefits of settlement are desirable.

Furthermore, for many parties, the quantum of settlement payment is their primary concern about the dispute. Therefore, the negotiations may be focused upon monetary quantum and conducted in a distributive manner – where the limited pie is divided through a series of offers and counter-offers. Where one of the parties to a negotiation is an insurer or organisation with whom the individual party has no ongoing relationship, it is arguable that there is little prospect of the broader promises of DR to be explored through the process of resolving the immediate dispute.

Even where other styles of negotiation are adopted, whereby the parties expand the pie by identifying scope for negotiation about payment manner or timing, or explore one another’s interests to see if creative opportunities can be found, ultimately, the negotiation at some point will focus upon the quantum to be paid by one party to another. Settlement, whether on simple or complex terms, is the ultimate shared goal between the parties.

THE DRAWBACKS OF A SETTLEMENT FOCUS

There are, however, drawbacks to an over-emphasis on settlement. The potential for creative and imaginative exploration of resolution possibilities is hindered by a preoccupation with settlement of the immediate dispute (particularly where the focus is the immediate dispute as defined by the pleadings). Distributive bargaining locks parties into an assumption that their options for resolution are limited. The chances of impasse are higher than where a more curious and flexible approach is taken to the negotiation.

One of the greatest lost opportunities of a settlement focus in DR is that the possibility that the parties will achieve relational benefits of DR is very low. The promise of DR includes the ability for people in conflict to come to a better understanding of the conflict dynamics to which they have contributed, of the perspective of the other parties to the dispute, and of ways in which their relationships may be conducted in the future to avoid similar disputes remaining unresolved. A relational approach is appropriate in family law, workplace conflict (including compensation claims), commercial matters related to business dealings, estate matters, and all other disputes between parties who have a past, present or future relationship of some kind.

Even where parties do not have a relationship, there may be benefits that could be derived by taking an approach to DR that is broader than a monetary settlement focus. The parties in dispute may not have a relationship in personal injuries matters where an insurer manages the claim-making, in one-off consumer complaints, or discrimination claims made outside of personal relationship contexts. In all of these kinds of dispute, there is a human element to the conflict. The claimant may benefit greatly from the opportunity to tell their story of loss, to receive an explanation or apology, and to learn about changes that have been made to avoid harm to others in the future. It may be appropriate in some circumstances for the outcome of the DR process to include some kind of public statement about the resolution that has been reached.

CONCLUSION

The title of this article asks “Are we here to resolve our problem or just to reach a financial settlement?” and the answer is “It depends.” The context of legal services or litigation does not preclude parties from deciding to pursue much broader outcomes than ‘settlement on terms mildly disagreeable to both parties’. The parties whose dispute is being managed should be put in a position to choose the scope of their DR process. For some, a narrow, predominantly money focus will be appropriate. For many, the DR process presents an opportunity to explore their conflict with the other party and achieve a range of potential benefits in process, content and outcome. Lawyers who understand the promise of DR and the different ways that it might be practised are best placed to support their clients to capture the full remedial imagination of the field. Although there are some limitations to the data available about party preferences, there is sufficient evidence of disconnect between what clients and their lawyers expect and want from DR processes. That evidence should provide food for thought for lawyers to ensure that they are serving their clients optimally in relation to the resolution and/or settlement of their disputes.

Dr Olivia Rundle is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Tasmania. EMAIL Olivia.Rundle@utas.edu.au.

The author thanks the members of the Australian Dispute Resolution Network, whose scholarly engagement in traditional ways and through social media enhances and furthers my thinking about lawyers, dispute resolution and civil justice (adrresearch.net and @ADRResearch).

[1] Robert A Baruch Bush & Joseph P Folger, The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict (Revised ed, 2005, Jossey Bass), 1.

[2] Olivia Rundle, ‘Lawyers’ perspectives on “what is court-connected mediation for?”’ (2013) 20(1) International Journal of the Legal Profession 33.

[3] Carrie Menkel-Meadow, ‘Why Hasn’t the World Gotten to Yes? An Appreciation and Some Reflections’ (2006) Negotiation Journal 485.

[4] Laurence Boulle and Rachael Field, Australian Dispute Resolution Law and Practice (2016, LexisNexis).

[5] Tania Sourdin, Alternative Dispute Resolution (5^th ed, 2016, Thomson Reuters).

[6] Margaret A Shone, ‘Law Reform and ADR: Pulling Strands in the Civil Justice Web’ (Paper presented at the Australasian Law Reform Agencies Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, April 13-16 2004) 6.

[7] The Hon Justice James Spigelman, ‘Just, Quick and Cheap – A Standard of Civil Justice’ (Paper presented at Opening of Law Term, Parliament House, Sydney, 31 January 2000); Nancy A Welsh and Peter T Coleman, ‘Institutionalised Conflict Resolution: Have We Come to Expect Too Little?’ (2002) 18 (4) Negotiation Journal 345; Kathy Mack, Court Referral to ADR: Criteria and Research (National ADR Advisory Council and Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 2003) 17. Kathy Mack noted that courts have rarely articulated why they introduced DR. Nadja Alexander, ‘Mediation on trial: ten verdicts on court-related ADR’ (2004) 22(1) Law in Context 8, 17.

[8] Craig A McEwen and Roselle L Wissler, ‘Finding Out If It Is True: Comparing Mediation and Negotiation Through Research’ (2002) University of Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution 131, 133; Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, ‘Court Mediation and the Search for Justice Through Law’ (1996) 74 Washington University Law Quarterly 47, 64.

[9] Productivity Commission, Access to Justice Arrangements (Inquiry Report No. 72, 2014), Chapter 25.

^[10] Christine Coumarelos et al, Legal Australia-Wide Survey: Legal Need in Australia (Law and Justice Foundation of NSW, Volume 7, 2012) http://www.civiljustice.info/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=access.

[11] Jane Elix and Tania Sourdin, Review of the Financial Industry Complaints Service 2002 – Final Report (Community Solutions, La Trobe University, University of Western Sydney, 2002) https://www.fos.org.au/custom/files/docs/fics_final_independent_review.pdf, Appendix B.

[12] Robert A Baruch Bush and Sally Ganong Pope, ‘Transformative Mediation: New Dimensions in Practice, Theory, and Research’ (2002) 3 Pepp. Disp. Resol. L.J. 1 cited in Louise Phipps Senft and Cynthia A Savage, ‘ADR in the Courts: Progress, Problems, and Possibilities’ (2003-2004) 108 Penn St. L. Rev 327, 335.

[13] Tamara Relis, Perceptions in Litigation and Mediation: Lawyers, Defendants, Plaintiffs and Gendered Parties (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

[14] Carol Bartlett, ‘Mediation in the Spring Offensive’ (1993) Law Institute Journal 232; Marie Delaney and Ted Wright, Plaintiff’s Satisfaction with Dispute Resolution Processes: Trial, Arbitration, Pre-Trial Conference and Mediation (1997); Jill Howieson, ‘Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Local Court Mediation’ (2002) 9(2) Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n2/howieson92_text.html; Judith Resnik, ‘Mediating Preferences: Litigant Preferences for Process and Judicial Preferences for Settlement’ (2002) Journal of Dispute Resolution 155; Brad Reich, ‘Attorney v Client: Creating a Mechanism to Address Competing Process Interests in Lawyer-Driven Mediation’ (2002) 2 Southern Illinois University Law Journal 183; Nancy Welsh, ‘Stepping Back Through the Looking Glass: Real Conversations with Real Disputants About Institutionalized Mediation and Its Value’ (2004) 38 Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 573.

[15] Lillian Corbin, Paula Baron and Judy Gutman, ‘ADR Zealots, Adjudicative Romantics and Everything in Between: Lawyers in Mediations’ (2015) 38(2) UNSW Law Journal 492; Samantha Hardy and Olivia Rundle, Mediation for Lawyers (2010, CCH); Julie Macfarlane, The New Lawyer: How Settlement is Transforming the Practice of Law (2008, UBC Press).

[16] Olivia Rundle, ‘Lawyers’ perspectives on “what is court-connected mediation for?”’ (2013) 20(1) International Journal of the Legal Profession 33.

[17] Olivia Rundle, ‘Lawyers’ Preparation for Court-Connected Mediation: The Supreme Court of Tasmania’ (2013) 32(1) UTLR 20; Olivia Rundle, ‘Barking Dogs: Lawyer Attitudes Towards Direct Disputant Participation in Court-Connected Mediation of General Civil Cases’ (2009) 8(1) QUTLJJ 77.

[18] Becky Batagol, ‘Fomentors of Strife, Gladiatorial Champions or Something Else Entirely? Lawyers and Family Dispute Resolution’ (2008) 8(1) QUTLJJ 24; Boulle and Field, above note 4.

[19] Bobette Wolski, ‘On mediation, legal representatives and advocates’ (2015) 38(1) UNSW Law Journal 5.

[20] Leonard L Riskin and Nancy A Welsh, ‘Is That All There Is?:The Problem in Court-Oriented Mediation’ (2008) 15 Geo Mason L Rev 863.

[21] Corbin et al, above note 15; Kathy Douglas, ‘The teaching of ADR in Australian law schools: Promoting non-adversarial practice in law’ (2011) 22(1) ADRJ 49; Macfarlane, above note 15.