by Cameron McPhedran

To mark the end of the Australian postal survey on marriage equality and while we await the results, we bring this piece by Cameron McPhedran whose specialisation relates to the interface of mediation and LGBTIQA+ people.

Cameron McPhedran holds a BA and a Master of Criminal Justice and Criminology from UNSW. He wrote his Masters thesis, finishing in June 2017, on mediation in conflicts between LGBTIQA+ youth and their parents regarding gender identity and/or sexual orientation. In dispute resolution, Cameron has worked at San Quentin Prison, Rosemount Good Shepherd Marrickville, and Resolution Institute. He is an NMAS accredited mediator and has also studied Restorative Justice at both UNSW and UC Berkeley.

Over the past month, I have had the privilege of attending two gatherings exploring LGBTIQA+ Christian experiences, as a mediator whose particular specialisation relates to the interface of mediation and LGBTIQA+ people. This blog post will reflect upon those gatherings and the lessons the dispute resolution community can learn from them.

Noah and the Rainbow: Photo Credit Lawrence OP Creative Commons

I am not Christian and do not practice any religion. However, I believe that now is a particularly important time to listen the stories of people who are both religious and LGBTIQA+. Whilst the LGBTIQA+ community in general is experiencing immense strain in the midst of the marathon same-sex marriage debate and optional postal survey, the two gatherings I attended demonstrated that LGBITQA+ Christians are doing it particularly tough.

In general, religion serves as a protective factor against mental health difficulties and promotes wellbeing. A notable exception to this is religious LGBTIQA+ people. Writing Themselves In, the Australian report on the health and wellbeing of LGBTIQA+ young people last published in 2010, found that young people within this cohort who mentioned religious affiliation experienced numerous negative outcomes.  These included that they were more likely to feel bad about same-sex attraction, experience social exclusion, report feeling unsafe at home, and more likely to report thoughts of self-harm or suicide.

Further, in the midst of the same sex marriage debate, many religious LGBTIQA+ people feel as though their religion is being treated as the ‘enemy’ of the ‘yes’ campaign. This perception is not helped by the actions of some religious leaders. Archbishop Glenn Davies has received media coverage for the Sydney Anglican Diocese’s decision to grant $1 million to the Coalition for Marriage. This action is far from unique among religious leaders, both Christian and non-Christian.

On the ground however, amazing work is being done by LGBTIQA+ religious people and their allies, demonstrating the community’s resilience. On Saturday October 7, at the Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross, “A Different Conversation,” was held. This was the sixth “A Different Conversation,” held in Sydney.

At the event, I was fortunate enough to hear of the way in which the Church community has supported LGBTIQA+ Christians in Sydney. One of the events organisers, Mike Hercock, founded Imagine Church in Surry Hills, which was a welcoming space for its non-heterosexual participants. He also was instrumental in the 100 Revs campaign, which saw 100 members of the Australian clergy apologise to the gay community over historical discrimination and exclusion.

I also learnt about the efforts of Bec Apted and Elizabeth Plant, founders of another LGBTIQA+ welcoming Church- Spark- in Penshurst. Elizabeth’s words have stuck with me in particular in the following weeks. Describing her approach to supporting her fellow practitioners at Spark Church and her friends during this difficult time, Elizabeth said that “you love the crap out of people… you love them consistently and persistently.”

On Saturday October 21, I went to the Inaugural “Equal Voices” Conference at UTS. This event, like “A Different Conversation,” was attended by LGBTIQA+ Christians and their allies from Australia and New Zealand. The keynote speakers were Julie McCrossin, a prominent media figure, and Matt Glover, a counsellor based in Melbourne specialising in LGBTIQA+ issues. There were also breakout sessions covering issues such as understanding and recovering from orientation change therapy, transgender and intersex experiences, LGBTIQA+ affirming Evangelicals, and what justice and inclusion looks like in Christianity.

Matt Glover reflected on some of the difficulties LGBTIQA+ people are facing at the moment. Particularly relevant was his explanation of ‘disenfranchised grief.’ This refers to when grief is experienced by an individual but not by those around them. It struck me just how many members of the LGBTIQA+ community are experiencing disenfranchised grief within their families of origin during the optional postal survey. For example, where LGBTIQA+ people who have family members who vote against or oppose marriage equality, the LGBTIQA+ person may be left to grapple with hurt and rejection alone within the family, no matter the complicated religious, cultural and political reasons are behind this. Glover also talked about the overwhelming number of LGBTIQA+ people accessing his counselling during this survey, many of whom are presenting with symptoms similar to PTSD.

Lessons for Mediators

So what can mediators learn from the experiences of LGBTIQA+ Christians?

Firstly, to state the obvious, these experiences are challenging. But equally, they are rewarding, as religion represents one of the most important part of social connection and belief in LGBTIQA+ Christians’ lives. Further, there are safer spaces for LGBTIQA+ Christians in all faith denominations. Julie McCrossin spoke of an “underground where you are welcome… individual ministers and priests.” When discussing her experiences at the South Sydney Uniting Church, McCrossin also mentioned the ongoing involvement of sex and gender diverse activist Norrie at Church events. It is clear that some spaces are welcoming for all members of the ‘rainbow community.’

Secondly, as these experiences are complex and conflicts between LGBTIQA+ Christians and family members, their churches, or other community structures are ongoing, the mediation profession needs to reach out to this cohort more. Conflict engagement shouldn’t be encouraged where safety cannot be guaranteed. However, if mediators do aim to provide a safer space for these conflicts to be explored, we should embrace Mayer’s concept of “staying with conflict.” Providing an environment where conflict can feel less charged and more manageable with the help of a dispute engagement professional makes a difference in alleviating tension and clarifying issues of disagreement. Mediation should sit alongside counselling, conflict coaching and family therapy as a useful strategy in situations of family conflict relating to issues of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The final takeaway I got from these two conferences is the idea of realistic optimism. Mayer (2016) speaks of realism in the context of optimism and pessimism. I want to emphasise the optimism part: the conflicts the LGBTIQA+ community are experiencing during this current debate in some ways represent progress. It is important that groups who experience structural disadvantage are not silenced in public debate. The LGBTIQA+ community has had the opportunity to show its many faces and stories to the rest of Australia during this debate. For sure, not everyone is listening to these stories and the personal and emotional cost for many people has been a big downside. However, people are standing up for themselves and their LGBTIQA+ friends and colleagues. As a profession, mediators need to listen to these voices with ever greater intention, now and into the future.

NB: I would like to thank Francis Voon, Natalie Cooper and Benjamin Oh in particular for inviting me to attend the Equal Voices Conference 2017, alongside all of the full-hearted conference participants at both Equal Voices and A Different Conversation.

This post is written by Benjamin Freedman, an accredited mediator, social worker, and healthcare manager who will finish a Masters in Conflict Management at James Cook University in November 2017. His interests include interprofessional collaboration in healthcare and conflict engagement in complex organisations.  This blog entry was originally written as part of the assessment for the Masters subject Foundations of Mediation.

Mediation goes on trial

Given how often mediation and litigation occupy different spaces within the same dispute resolution landscape it is perhaps surprising how rarely the processes or outcomes of mediation have been challenged in court. While there are some plausible reasons for this, it does mean that the Australian cases which do exist afford a valuable opportunity for ADR practitioners to learn about their potential legal liability.

There is thought to be three areas of legal liability relevant to mediators:

• Liability in contract– where a party suffers harm or loss caused by a failure of the mediator to perform in accordance with an Agreement to Mediate
• Liability in tort– where the mediator fails to adequately exercise their specialist skills, causing an actual loss to one or more parties
• Liability in fiduciary duties– where a mediator is in a relationship of trust with a party and acts in a way that is not in that party’s interests.

Tapoohi v Lewenberg

Tapoohi v Lewenberg is widely regarded as the most compelling test of mediator liability in Australia (see also conversations about immunity in family law and admissibility in farm debt contexts). Tapoohi v Lewenberg involved two sisters in a complex dispute about their mother’s deceased estate. The dispute had gone to court, but the parties agreed to attend mediation.

Seven facts you need to know

• Due to the value of the estate, each sister was represented at the mediation by a team of barristers and solicitors.
• The mediator, a QC who specialised in commercial litigation, was not mediating under a court order and there was no formal agreement to mediate (therefore no statutory immunity).
• In position statements, pre-mediation conferences and during the mediation Ms Tapoohi repeatedly stated that any agreement should not be final until professional taxation advice had been sought.
• The mediation took place over a single day and lasted late into the night
• At the end of the evening, the mediator persuaded the parties that an agreement should be drafted and signed that night.
• The mediator dictated the terms of the agreement, which was scribed by a solicitor in the legal party, and this was signed by each sister.
• This included a provision, suggested by the mediator, that shares in the family company would be transferred for a nominal sum of $1, but no provision for taxation advice was included in the agreement.

Subsequent to this mediation, Ms Tapoohi discovered that the value of her position was substantially reduced after capital gains tax. Ms Tapoohi sued her legal team, who spread liability by including the mediator as third party to the claim.

The mediator applied for a summary judgement, hoping that the litigation would be found not to have a reasonable chance of success and therefore he would be excused as a third party. After the summary judgement was in favour of the plaintiff, the matter was settled out of court.

Seven critical learnings for the reflective practitioner

The precedence value of this case is limited as the matter was settled out of court before the full evidence was presented and tested. However, the allegations and arguments during the interlocutory proceedings provide some insight into the legal elements of many ethical dilemmas faced by many contemporary facilitative mediators.

Persuasion versus Coercion

Ms Tapoohi argued that the mediator ‘coerced’ parties to continue the mediation late into the evening, despite the misgivings of the legal representatives, two of whom had already left for the day. It is alleged the mediator recommended extending the session in such a way that Ms Tapoohi’s team felt it was a direction.

ADR practitioners often rely on their mastery of persuasion. While persuasion and coercion are both strategies that aim to influence the actions of another party, ‘coercion’ is to do so by using threats and sanctions where ‘persuasion’ seeks a voluntary and willing change by exploring interests or encouraging parties to evaluate options. The judge did not rule on whether the mediator used coercion, but this case challenges the reflective practitioner to be aware how the use of language, context, non-verbal communication and relationship can ‘frame’ whether a message is received as persuasion or coercion, even when intentions are good.

Influence the process, not the outcome

Ms Tapoohi argued that the mediator unilaterally dictated some of the critical details in the mediated agreement, including the ill-fated provision to transfer shares in the family company for $1.00. Facilitative mediators are process experts, upholding the principle of self-determination, where parties make their own decisions and the mediator does not evaluate or advise on the merits of, or determine the outcome of, disputes.  Often when mediation is on the precipice of breaking down because it is perceived by parties as too uncomfortable, risky, or difficult, the mediator has an important role in persuading parties to keep communicating and moving through the stages of process. Yet there is a difference between exerting influence on the process, versus influencing the substantive outcome.

Where the mediator may have reasonably believed it was appropriate to extend the mediation into the evening to maintain the momentum of the process, it was his influence on the substantive outcome which became problematic. This is a dilemma in many mediation contexts; where a ‘small suggestion’ from the mediator may be the difference between an impasse and a mediated agreement.

Fiduciary responsibilities

Ms Tapoohi alleged that the engagement between her and the mediator had characteristics of a fiduciary relationship, and the mediator was in breach of his responsibilities by acting in a way which was contrary to her interests. The mediator unsuccessfully argued that there were no characteristics of a fiduciary relationship with Ms Tapoohi as he was retained to provide a facilitative process, and fiduciary responsibilities towards Ms Tapoohi rested with her legal team.

While the matter of whether mediation has the characteristics of a fiduciary relationship remains, it is worthwhile to consider the imperative of a mediator to act with diligence, even-handedness and trustworthiness. While this is fairly ingrained in practice, there are also potential dilemmas, or tensions, which shape mediator self-interest and pressure to settle when not in the best interests of parties.

Facilitative mediator expertise

In this instance the mediator was a Queens Counsel with a background in commercial litigation. This became important when the judge considered the standard of practice that should have been exercised by the mediator- whether it was that of an expert mediator or an expert commercial litigation barrister. It is common that an accredited mediator will also have a professional background that is relevant to the content of the mediation. While the mediator may delineate in their own mind that they are being retained for mediation and not the skills of their background profession, this should be made explicit to parties who may be less familiar with the process-orientation of a mediator. Regardless, the National Mediation Accreditation Standards advise that ‘mediators should adhere to, and be familiar with, the code of conduct or ethical standards prescribed by the organisation or association with which they have membership’.

Legal exposure in agreement drafting

Ms Tapoohi argued that she had repeatedly asked that any agreement not be made final until professional taxation advice had been sought, and this expert knowledge was not present in the legal team. However, this condition was not included in the signed final agreement which was dictated by the mediator and scribed by one of the solicitors. This raises a question of the standard of care that is required by the mediator when drafting an agreement, and how much of the responsibility for checking its accuracy and completeness sits with the parties as signatories.

Mediation in high-stakes commercial disputes

Facilitative mediation has many advantages over other more formal processes. It can far less costly than litigation, integrative rather than adversarial, there is less of a focus on ‘facts’ or ‘evidence’ and more a focus on interests and agreements, and resolution can occur far quicker. While there is no ‘upper limit’ on the stakes that can be part of a mediated agreement, parties should be made aware that the process and outcomes are often less robust than settlement through courts. It is a challenge for facilitative mediators to identify when the dispute may require a more rigorous enquiry than what is provided by a facilitative process. Even more so, to ensure that parties understand the benefits and limitations of facilitative mediation to optimise informed consent.

Given the likelihood that these and other areas of mediator legal exposure, and questions about immunity will be tested in court in the future, it is important that facilitative mediators consider their obligations of contract, tort and fiduciary relationship during the complexity and dilemmas of everyday practice.

Further reading

Melinda Shirley and Tina Cockburn discuss whether mediators operating outside statutory immunity will be liable for negligence in the aftermath of Tapoohi v Lewenberg

Double taxation imposes a significant barrier to global trade and investment. Traditionally, bilateral tax treaties (of which Australia has concluded more than 40) have attempted to eliminate double taxation, but disputes often arise about how these treaties should be interpreted and applied.

International organisations such as the OECD have sought to encourage the use of mandatory arbitration clauses to resolve these matters. However, this move has met with significant resistance from member nations.

In a recent post at austaxpolicy.com, Michelle Markham explores the reasons for this resistance and argues that arbitration of international tax disputes presents significant advantages to both governments and taxpayers.

Read the full post here: http://www.austaxpolicy.com/recurring-resistance-tax-treaty-arbitration-dispute-resolution-mechanism/

UIA ADR conference participants

Singapore is a great place for a holiday.

It is also a great place to learn lessons that would be very valuable for our economy in general- and our dispute resolution community in particular.

The opening session of the 24th UIA World Congress of Mediation in Singapore has given us a great snapshot of what collaboration achieves.

The big picture is enlightening. Statistics demonstrate that the economic gravity of the world is shifting rapidly to Asia which now accounts for 40% of global GDP.

The growth of Asian economies has been accompanied by a growth in the number of disputes and the Singapore Government has seen this as a commercial opportunity. It set out to create Singapore as the standout arbitration hub in Asia. Its active involvement and support has seen Singapore emerge as the third busiest arbitration centre in the world.

Through the collaborative work of its dispute resolution institutions the Singapore Government has, since 2014, broadened its sponsorship, and has moved from a focus on arbitration to a focus on dispute resolution which embraces arbitration and mediation. The aspiration is to promote Asian voices in global conversations.

A remarkable element of the strength of the mediation focus has been the commitment to collaboration and interconnectedness demonstrated by the 4 key institutional pillars:

• Singapore International Mediation Centre (SIMC)
• Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (SIDRA)
• Singapore International Mediation Institute (SIMI) and
• Singapore Mediation Centre (SMC)

The Court has added consistent support and leadership and through the combined efforts of the government and institutions there have been some significant achievements. A few examples are:

• Tax exemptions for non-resident mediators
• Collaboration between SIMC and SIAC (the Singapore International Arbitration Centre) to offer a one stop shop solutions via arb-med-arb. This provides reassurance about enforcement of agreements via access to the New York Convention
• A link to China’s Belt and Road initiative to help businesses resolve disputes
• SIMC’s mediation panel of 70 international mediators demonstrating significant international reach and credibility which sits alongside its panel of technical experts available to parties
• Ongoing thought leadership projects investigating what’s next in the field – issues such as systems thinking and online dispute resolution

Slide presented at the 24th UIA World Mediation Forum Singapore, October 2017 by Associate Professor Joel Lee of the National University of Singapore

The achievements are remarkable. The Dispute Resolution landscape in Australia would be transformed if we could achieve the same level of collaboration.

However, despite the collaboration and the investment some things are yet to be achieved. Currently mediation is the full-time day job of only one person in Singapore. Whilst there are many more full-time mediators in Australia, the situations in our 2 jurisdictions are very similar with regard to the failure to create a substantial profession of full-time mediators. The number of trained mediators in Australia far exceeds the available work.

This remains as significant a challenge in Singapore as it is in Australia.

This post previews Rachael Field and Jonathan Crowe’s forthcoming book, Mediation Ethics: From Theory to Practice, to be published next year by Edward Elgar. The book analyses the shortcomings of current neutrality-centred approaches to mediation ethics and seeks to answer the question of what might replace them.

Mediation is becoming more and more prominent internationally as a key form of dispute resolution for legal and other disputes. In some jurisdictions, participating in mediation is a compulsory pre-filing requirement in particular kinds of legal matters. Many benefits have been claimed for mediation as a mode of resolving disputes, including its informality, flexibility, less adversarial nature and focus on the parties and their interests. The growth of this form of dispute resolution has produced a considerable academic literature, but the theoretical foundations of mediation ethics have been relatively neglected.

Discussions of mediation ethics have traditionally focused heavily on the notions of mediator neutrality or impartiality. However, this focus has been criticised in recent decades for being unrealistic and overlooking the power dynamics between the parties. There is now a significant body of academic literature questioning whether mediators can ever truly be neutral and asking whether the concept of neutrality serves to mask the mediator’s actual power and influence. A number of authors have argued that it can be beneficial for vulnerable parties if mediators are prepared to play a more proactive role in appropriate cases.

The centrality of neutrality in mediation ethics, then, has increasingly been questioned and undermined. There is, however, a lack of consensus on what should replace it. The question is pressing given both the increasing reliance on mediation by domestic legal systems and a growing perception of mediation as an emerging profession. A traditional hallmark of a profession is its ability to self-regulate by applying communal standards of conduct. The idea of mediation as a profession therefore requires the mediation community to be able to articulate its core ethical standards. What, then, comes after neutrality? Can the concept be modified in response to these concerns or should mediation ethics have a different focus?

The present book offers a response to these questions. It develops a new theory of mediation ethics that emphasises the nature of mediation as a relational process. We argue that the focus of mediation ethics should move away from the untenable notions of neutrality and impartiality and towards a focus on enabling party self-determination. We supplement this focus with a view of mediation ethics as emerging dynamically from the efforts of mediators to respond to the needs of the parties. This provides the basis for a new picture of the mediation community as a community of practice with its own internal standards of excellence. We build on this theory to present a vision of what it means to think about mediation as a profession.

Chapter 1 opens the book by introducing the current paradigm of mediation practice, discussing the most commonly employed models of mediation and the extent to which they assume mediator neutrality or impartiality. Chapter 2 gives an overview of the historical development of codes of meditator conduct in the United States and elsewhere, showing how the facilitative model of mediation, with its ideals of neutrality and party self-determination, serves as an implicit yardstick for many forms of mediation practice. Chapter 3 then discusses the ideals of neutrality and party self-determination in more detail, examining how these notions are understood in the mediation literature, and considering the interaction between them.

Chapter 4 critically examines the notion of mediator neutrality, concluding that the dominant neutrality-centred approach to mediator ethics is at odds with the realities of mediation practice and is therefore untenable. In particular, the demands of neutrality place mediators in a position where they are unable to respond to the needs of individual parties without stepping outside the ethical boundaries of their role. Chapter 5 further problematises existing approaches to mediation ethics by considering the ways in which the relative informality of mediation may disadvantage inexperienced or vulnerable participants by requiring them to negotiate an unfamiliar genre of discourse. This provides the springboard for the new model of mediation ethics outlined in the subsequent chapters.

Chapter 6 introduces a new framework for mediation ethics that abandons the traditional emphasis on neutrality in favour of a focus on supporting party self-determination. The primary role of party self-determination in this new framework is supported by a focus on informed consent and an ethos of professionalism. Chapter 7 further operationalises this new ethical framework by offering a series of ethical guidelines that mediators can use to apply the framework in their practice. We argue for a contextual and relational conception of mediation ethics that is not rule-oriented, but encourages mediators to form appropriate and considered judgments in response to ethical challenges.

Chapter 8 then builds on this ethical framework to advance a conception of mediation as a professional community. We argue that mediation ethics is best understood as an evolving body of standards emerging over time by a process of consensus, rather than a set of rules or principles imposed from above. This picture of ethics is well suited to mediation due to its relationality and focus on the parties and their interests. The key feature of mediation, on this view, is not that the mediator is neutral or impartial, but rather that the parties are supported to achieve genuinely self-determined outcomes. This offers a more tenable basis for mediation ethics than the traditional emphasis on neutrality.

Readers of this blog may be interested in The “More Perfect” podcast series and a particular episode on reconciliation and apology. This was brought to our attention by Monash University academic and The Outer Sanctum podcaster extraodinaire, Dr Kate Seear.

The More Perfect podcast series (produced by Radiolab) has just returned for a second season. They examine important cases from the US Supreme Court and the first episode of the new series is about the Dredd Scott case, a case about slavery and citizenship.

It takes a bit of an unexpected turn, though, as it deals with issues about reconciliation and apologies. Readers might  be interested in it from a dispute resolution or non-adversarial justice perspective, just because it raises some interesting questions about how to reconcile past wrongs (and whether this is possible).

The relevant episode is here, and it is called “American Pendulum 2”. It might be useful for teaching, too.

Alastair Nicholson, former Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, was interviewed on the ABC’s Lateline program last week. The interview focused on the Commonwealth government’s upcoming review of the family law system. It contains a number of comments relevant to the role of family mediation.

For example, Nicholson identifies the adversarial nature of litigation as one of the main challenges facing the family law process:

[W]e should be moving to a much more, a much less rather, adversarial system because it seems to me that the traditional adversary system is really not suited to family law … [M]uch of the proceedings in the court are adversarial and people who want to litigate, or are encouraged to litigate by some unscrupulous representation can actually jam the system.

Although Nicholson does not think it would be helpful to ‘get lawyers out of the system entirely’, he emphasises that more needs to be done to involve people in their own disputes and address power imbalances:

I mean, there are moments in cases where the adversarial system works, but usually there is an imbalance of power in family law cases. … It’s the people who have got the deep pockets that can afford the adversarial litigation but it just doesn’t work, I believe, in family situations.

A partial solution to these issues, Nicholson suggests, is to reform the court process to prevent aggressive questioning by perpetrators of family violence and encourage judges to play a more active role in prioritising children:

So, [in the German system] they get the children’s point of view right from the start and then the whole proceeding goes through, with social workers assisting … The fact is that I think it’s a much more responsive system than ours, and it is one that we could well copy.

Nicholson also recognises the important role of mediation, particularly in making the process less expensive for the parties:

[T]here is now much more room for mediation, which was a criticism of the system in the past. … [T]he other way to make it less expensive is to resolve the issues as soon as you can. … Once you start getting into litigation and once you start coming to court, it’s going to be expensive.

Family mediation has much to offer in addressing the problems of adversarialism and cost that Nicholson identifies, as well as managing power imbalances and helping to ensure a child-focused outlook. Hopefully, the government’s review of the family law system will acknowledge and support this potential.

The full interview can be accessed here: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/interview:-alastair-nicholson,-former-family-court/8999010.

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.