Mind the Gap! NEW Findings on Practical Legal Training in NSW

Posted on 17/04/2025 by Milan A Nitopi

Although the legal profession prides itself on rigorous training and high standards, recent research reveals a gap between education and practice.

On 9 April 2025, the New South Wales Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB) released a research report conducted by Urbis that examined Practical Legal Training (PLT) in NSW (the report). This report offers crucial insights for legal educators, practitioners, and the profession as a whole as it provides a view of the current landscape of legal education.

The Graduate Perspective

Most interestingly, 1 in 3 PLT graduates (33%) did not agree that the coursework was useful and that the course lacked deep relevance to legal practice. Direct feedback included comments like:¹

“The core and elective subjects were not particularly helpful for my career”

“… it is difficult to grasp what each subject is intended to achieve”

Many characterised their PLT experience as merely a “box-ticking” exercise, which is gravely concerning considering the program is designed to bridge the gap between academic learning and professional practice. The purpose of PLT is to prepare future lawyers with the knowledge and skills required to practice competently and confidently, though feedback signifies otherwise.

Further, graduates reported that professional experience gained as paralegals or in other legal roles proved more valuable than the coursework itself. This practical exposure apparently delivered what formal PLT could not.

Though this was not a shared experience for all. Some respondents reported inadequate supervision, including being stationed to complete mundane administrative tasks or working under difficult supervisors.

In particular, one participant highlighted the challenges that would typially be faced by ‘first-generation’ lawyers–those who lack established connections within the legal profession–and described witnessing exploitative practices, power imbalances, absent quality control, and a lack of accountability.

The Supervisor Perspective

On the other hand, the supervisor perspective appears to be equally troubling. Over 2 in 5 PLT supervisors (42%) expressed dissatisfaction with the practical legal skills demonstrated by graduates. Even more concerning, 4 in 5 reported that graduates frequently required support to complete basic tasks and that they were not adequately prepared for workplace realities. Supervisors were particularly blunt in their feedback, with some commenting that graduates:²

“… [were] not up to the standards in private practice compared to [those] before the pandemic”

“… [were] unable to construct a sentence, have no idea what a title deed is, how to put together a brief, answer the phone, address an envelope, construct a cogent argument or conduct legal research”

Yikes… the latter response particularly raises some alarm bells to say the least. However, the quality of work will naturally vary from person to person, as one supervisor identified.

Furthermore, and somewhat optimistically, many supervisors explained that essential skills were ultimately better taught “on the job”, particularly in small or ’boutique’ firms. This suggests that graduates who receive proper guidance early on in their careers can develop the necessary practical skills effectively regardless of any deficiencies or challenges they might face in their formal studies or training.

An Extension of an Invitation

On 14 April 2025, the Honourable Andrew Bell, Chief Justice of New South Wales, issued a statement responding to the findings in this report. His honour highlighted these concerns and extended an invitation to members of the profession to make a submission in response.

The Honourable Andrew Bell
Eighteenth Chief Justice of New South Wales, 2022 –
via Supreme Court of New South Wales webpage

I encourage readers, particularly practising lawyers, to peruse that report and consider its relevance to your own legal practice. Perhaps even make a submission to the LPAB with your concerns, reflections, insights, and experience.

A Personal Reflection

As a recently admitted NSW practitioner myself, though not a participant in this research, I can share and appreciate others’ likely frustration post-PLT and the intimidating reality in beginning the journey as a young lawyer.

The major concern emerging from this research is that the current PLT program fails to adequately equip students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies required for professional excellence. And if this is true for PLT, what does it suggest about the overall law curriculum from which it extends?

This gap became immediately apparent to me upon entering the profession. As a ‘second-generation’ lawyer, I was fortunate to have benefited from opportunities that offered invaluable guidance. Having worked with both barristers and solicitors during my PLT and early career–those whom I am most grateful–I received mentorship that provided me with essential skills which were not covered in my formal legal education.

It is unacceptable that not all graduates are afforded the same basic level of guidance and respect by supervisors or colleagues within the profession. It is an absolute privilege to be part of this great legal profession, and it is shameful that some might not recognise that privilege in this same light.

When opportune and appropriate to do so, we all ought to guide future lawyers, colleagues, and even opponents. This is not merely a matter of goodwill but rather a professional duty toward maintaining a competent, credible, and reputable profession.

Addressing this Gap

This gap in education and practice requires our urgent attention and reform.

To address an aspect of this problem, I will be speaking alongside Philippe Doyle Gray, Barrister-At-Law at 8 Wentworth Chambers, at the 2025 Australasian Law Academics Association Conference this July in our address titled “Evidence in a ‘Paperless’ Practice: Bridging the gap between theory and practice in legal education”.

Our address will focus on just one gap, specifically, how the Evidence Law compulsory unit fails to translate theoretical knowledge into professional “real-world” skills. We will explain that theory alone is insufficient in today’s legal landscape, particularly in an increasingly digital practice environment, and that graduands desperately need practical skills development before they enter into the workforce.

What You Can Do

While I have highlighted certain aspects that were revealed within the report, it contains many additional findings worthy of your attention, including issues around the high cost of completing PLT and the shift from face-to-face to online learning.

I strongly encourage all members of the profession to review the report in its entirety and take a keen interest in these issues. The quality of legal education directly impacts the quality of our profession.

See report, 19. ↩︎
See report, 32. ↩︎

So You Want to Incorporate Intersectionality Into Your Legal Practice? A Primer

Posted on 28/03/2024 by Associate Professor Becky Batagol

By Thomas Ponissi
22 March 2024

This post is the second in a series of posts on this blog written by students studying Non-Adversarial Justice at the Faculty of Law at Monash University in 2023. Students were invited to write blog posts explaining various complex areas of law relating to dispute resolution to ordinary readers. The very best post on each topic is published here.

Disclaimer: this piece contains content that some readers may find distressing.

Beyond ‘either/or’

The term ‘intersectionality’ has been co-opted in so many ways — in left-wing memes, in right-wing culture wars, in digital shopping carts — that you’d be forgiven for forgetting what it actually means. Ironic, considering that the concept was first coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, a Black woman, and you could write a thesis on the endless appropriation, and misuse, of concepts and terminology that originated in Black culture.

So, what is intersectionality? It is the idea that a person’s lived experience is influenced by the various identities that they inhabit (for example, their socio-economic status, or ethnic background), as well as the way that these identities overlap and/or diverge in unique ways. The result may be privilege in certain contexts and/or “compounded disadvantage” in others. I use ‘and/or’ very deliberately because intersectionality challenges binary thinking; its application must be fluid and contextual, tailored to the unique facts of each situation.

Crenshaw, an American legal scholar, developed the idea in response to DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, an unsuccessful 1976 discrimination claim lodged by several Black women who had all been denied work at a local factory. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri found that there had been no racial discrimination, because there were Black men employed at the factory; the Court also found that there had been no sex discrimination, because there were white women employed at the factory. According to District Judge Wanglin, the claimants had to pick one part of their identity: their gender or their race. To lodge a claim on the basis of both attributes would supposedly constitute an unfair “super-remedy” — even though it was the intersection of those two attributes that characterised the discrimination on the facts.

Thankfully, we are growing in our appreciation of the complexities of identity and discrimination; some governments, and even courts, are beginning to listen. However, we still have a long way to go. Only last year, Australian Senator Lidia Thorpe alleged that she had experienced sexual harassment in the Commonwealth Parliament — and that “it wasn’t until a white woman stood up” with a similar allegation “that the media took notice”. Clearly, an intersectional approach — and a reckoning with implicit bias — remains indispensable. That’s where your legal practice comes in.

“We are growing in our appreciation of the complexities of identity and discrimination.”

Image source: Alice (six_impossible_things), Unsplash

Turning theory into practice

Researchers have found that intersectionality “has taken root” in disciplines like education and psychology. Why not in law, though? Perhaps this is due to the conservative, ‘black-letter’ approach to law — and to law reform — that some in the industry still follow.

Throughout my discussion, I will balance the rewards of an intersectional approach to legal practice with the risks. It is important to remember that no one practitioner or firm can resolve centuries of structural oppression; it is neither your responsibility nor within your capacity. However, there are still tangible steps that can be taken to begin to “restructure the distribution of opportunity and “practise law as a healing profession”.

1. Be aware

Legal practitioners should, as far as practicable, have “historical and contextual understanding” of the communities they work with. This is particularly important when practitioners do not share their clients’ lived experience. Criminal defence lawyer Russell Marks explores this tension at length in his book Black Lives, White Law. Marks, a white man based in South Australia, works mostly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons, including in remote Northern Territory. Marks is mindful of his status as an outsider who interacts with the criminal legal system in a substantively different way.

For intersectionality to be meaningful in practice, lawyers must understand what it actually entails. This might be achieved through cultural competency training or other professional development. It is also beneficial to adopt a holistic, non-exhaustive approach to the identity markers relevant to an intersectionality analysis. Though the four attributes covered by federal anti-discrimination legislation — age, disability, race, and sex (or, gender) — are often front of mind, there is no ‘ceiling’ on what might be considered. In fact, thinking outside the box will enhance your practice’s incorporation of intersectionality.

What is your client’s level of educational attainment? Do they live near affordable public transport? How proficient are they in speaking English (or the official language of your jurisdiction)? Were either of their parents ever incarcerated? These are just some of the questions you might consider asking to help gain a deeper understanding of the circumstances that have brought a person to you.

2. Be class-conscious

Marxist scholars have critiqued intersectionality for placing “other forms of social differences […] centre stage” when analysing oppression, ignoring class not just as another ‘social difference’ that affects lived experience, but as the overarching factor that exacerbates other forms of marginalisation. Indeed, one review of demographic data collection in intersectional studies found that 77% of samples measured sex and/or gender, and 72% measured race and/or ethnicity, but only 33% measured socioeconomic status. Here, we can see the lack of consideration given to class, even when practitioners explicitly intend to be intersectional.

However, the problem isn’t intersectionality itself but its application; legal practitioners can mitigate this by remaining vigilant. Access to justice for poor persons is already obstructed by the prohibitive cost of legal advice and representation. A lack of class-consciousness can also have the effect of excluding prospective legal practitioners; many demands of professional development — for instance, unpaid internships — are near-impossible for poorer people. Affirmative action programs that facilitate participation, through initiatives such as mentoring or financial aid, are essential to achieving socio-economic intersectionality.

3. Be strategic

There are areas of law where intersectionality is fundamental. For instance, in the criminal legal system, a person’s indigeneity and/or ethnicity may, due to structural racism, make them more vulnerable to harsher policing and/or judicial sanction. Accordingly, an intersectional approach is necessary in order to identify any exceptional circumstances that might be relevant to bail or sentencing.

There will also, of course, be disputes where an intersectional approach is less useful; for example, in corporate contracting. There may even be socio-emotionally charged disputes where intersectionality is not the most appropriate framework, and the focus should be on, for example, parties’ relationships instead of identities. However, this doesn’t mean that intersectionality is unnecessary as a rule, but merely that it should always be deployed deliberately, with careful regard for the specific facts at hand.

4. Be structured and sensitive

Taking concrete organisational steps towards intersectionality ensures that it is “more than theory”. Intersectionality should be an active practice, embedded from “the front-end (point of entry) of the justice system”. Triage processes can facilitate this via the collection of extended baseline data about clients, in order to better understand the totality of their identities — and to better cater to their legal needs.

Incorporating intersectionality is “a process of continuous improvement”. We all will make mistakes along the way. However, safeguards can be introduced to mitigate the harm caused by these errors.

Collecting data on identity characteristics, or focusing on a person’s experience of discrimination or suffering, can indirectly “reinforce ideas of inherent differences […] rather than point towards actionable solutions”. Clients need to understand why this information is being collected (ie, to enhance their legal advice or representation); otherwise, they may feel that they have been further victimised by the process.

Practitioners should work collaboratively with clients, as well as listen to their client’s interests and concerns, rather than assuming that their clients feel burdened by their identities.

The intersectional processes that I have advocated may unintentionally ‘out’ people who do not wish to discuss certain parts of their life; for example, women of faith whose religions are considered by some as sexist, but which the women do not want to feel pressured into renouncing. This phenomenon is known as ambivalence, in which overlapping identity characteristics foster “mixed and contradictory feelings” in the individual.

These dynamics must be navigated sensitively. Legal practitioners might adopt a multidisciplinary approach and work with other professionals, like social workers. The integration of legal services with other professions, like health, is a growing feature of public policy. Such a development can be mirrored in private practice, too.

Intersectionality may be the way of the future, but there is no reason not to begin incorporating it now.

5. Be resilient

Maintaining an intersectional approach may provoke an adverse reaction in some clients, or even coworkers; certainly, not everyone is a fan of the concept.

However, it is a matter of persistence and tact — of developing a vocabulary to either explain intersectional concepts in a manner that is accessible to skeptics, or alternately embedding it within systems so seamlessly that it is not noticeable.

These are long-term initiatives, not ‘quick wins’, but this should not dissuade us from doing the hard work. We will be better lawyers because of it.

About Thomas Ponissi
Thomas Ponissi (he/they) is a Laws/Global Studies student, specialising in Human Rights. Thomas is currently on exchange and completing his final semester at Boston College, USA. He has worked as a paralegal and an administrator in community legal centres.

Are we nearly there yet? Reflections on the HDR journey

Posted on 14/06/2018 by Dr John Woodward

As we move towards the middle of this my fourth year of PhD candidature, my thesis submission date is drawing rapidly nigh and the anxiety level is elevated a notch, I thought it might be useful to reflect on the journey thus far and to share with you some of the highlights and low points of the journey although, thankfully, of the latter there is little to report.

Image: ‘Child Drawing’ by The Naked Ape, Creative Commons, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

I think it is fair to say that the journey may never have commenced at all, had it not been for the blindingly obvious conclusion after thirty years of legal practice as a commercial litigator, that the solutions being offered to litigants by the traditional justice system were somewhat less than ideal. Clients were complaining that the court could not offer the relief they were seeking, the costs of “winning” were prohibitively high and most of the cases in which I was instructed were resolved on some basis well before they reached a hearing. Try as I might, I could never quite be convinced of the claim that the public interest in having the courts “…explicate and give force to the values embodied in authoritative texts…” (1) or otherwise declare the law for the benefit of the public good, had any real relevance to some of the mundane and routine cases in which I was involved. In fact, of all of the hundreds of cases in which I acted throughout my career as a lawyer, only two found their way into the law reports.

And so it was that, armed with the vision of a broader view of justice and a transcript of my Masters in Dispute Resolution, I arrived at the academy with a request to be admitted to the RHD program. It is worth noting at this juncture that the welcoming and supportive culture of the academic community generally and my academic supervisors especially, has been nothing short of outstanding and I believe it is a tribute to their encouragement and support that I have persevered this far.

I am happy to say that my first year of candidature was both vigorous and productive. Together with my colleague Armin Alimardani I represented the Faculty of Law at UNSW in the Three Minute Thesis competition where we both performed without distinction but were grateful for the experience. The formulation of an appropriate research question, the preparation of a proposal and writing of a literature review occupied most of the year and did much to clear my thoughts about the path that lay ahead. I was delighted to discover that others had trodden the path I sought to travel and there was a rich and abundant supply of research evidence in the general dispute resolution field. The filtering of this material was as fascinating as it was challenging and the effort was well rewarded because it placed me in an excellent position to approach the confirmation examination with confidence and to receive and consider the reviewers’ comments constructively. Other features of the year included attendance at a compulsory course on research methodology and the acceptance for publication of the first of three articles which have appeared in the Australasian Alternative Dispute Resolution Journal.

The clear highlight of 2015 was the opportunity of presenting a paper at the 4th ADRN Roundtable at UNSW in September, an event which I shall long remember because it was there that I was introduced to the members of this research network, a group of like-minded thinkers, researchers and teachers who share my passion for a broader framework of justice. I have attended each of our roundtables since and hope to do so again this year. It is, I think, an important and integral part of the aspiring academic’s learning experience to have the opportunity to present his or her research at as many roundtables and conferences as possible. It provides an opportunity for practice at presenting, an opportunity to review the work of others and to receive comments and review of one’s own work in a supportive and non-threatening environment. It also encourages collaboration and the formulation of collaborative networks such as the ADRRN. For the RHD candidate, it also provides a much needed point of human contact with other researchers. The road to a PhD can be a lonely journey at times and it is a good thing to meet with others professionally and socially to exchange thoughts and ideas about what is happening in the research discipline. For me, the ADRRN roundtable is an end-of-year reward for diligence throughout the past year.

The research question with which I am concerned is how lawyers are engaging with court-connected mediation. In her optimistically titled work, The New Lawyer: How settlement is transforming the practice of law (2) Julie Macfarlane explores the reasons why lawyers have traditionally acted in an adversarial manner in response to conflict and dispute. She says that it is a cultural issue and that we (lawyers) behave as we do because of our “legal professional culture.” She posits the existence of three core elements of legal professional culture which guide our thinking and steer us towards adversarial competition whenever a dispute arises. Those elements are, firstly, the default to a rights based system of justice, secondly a belief in justice as process and thirdly a belief in the superiority of the lawyer as expert. Using a data collection instrument designed to capture the presence of those elements in research respondents and with ethics approval sought and obtained, I set off in the Spring of 2016 to drive to various country centres throughout New South Wales to speak to lawyers about their views on court-connected mediation. I spoke with each respondent for an hour, recorded the interviews with their permission on my smartphone and transcribed the interviews later. (For anyone who may be contemplating this as a strategy for the future, be warned: the transcription time to interview time is 6:1 so for every hour of interview you can expect to spend six hours transcribing).

The verdict is in. The qualitative data has been analysed and the interviews studied. In many respects the results are not surprising. They align with other research done in other places and at other times. The good news is that, even over the past five years or so, we lawyers have made some progress in embracing court-connected mediation although at times with a begrudging acceptance and a resignation that it is here to stay and we may as well get used to it. Particular themes emerged and are dealt with in my thesis. They include, notably, the much vexed issue of disputant participation and the issue of confidentiality. Understanding of how lawyers grapple with these issues is of particular interest to me because they go a long way to explaining what Olivia Rundle calls “the dilemma of court-connected mediation.” Other themes which emerged from the data were the inclusion in mediation narrative of non-legal material and the question of whether, in court-connected mediation, mediators should be facilitative or directive. A better understanding of these issues will give lawyers and their clients a better understanding of mediation and a more satisfying mediation experience.

So, as I turn into the straight for the final run home to what I hope will be a successful conclusion, I am sometimes reminded of family holidays and long car journeys and colouring books when my children would ask: “Are we nearly there yet?” and their mother would patiently reply: “Nearly there. Just a little while to go. Just keep drawing in your book. I’m sure you can make it a little better.”

(1) O. Fiss Against Settlement 93 Yale LJ 1073 1983-1984 at p 1085

(2) J. Macfarlane The New Lawyer: How settlement is transforming the practice of law (Vancouver UBC Press 2008)

Collaborative Practice – unique skillset or traditional lawyering?

Posted on 27/11/2016 by Associate Professor Becky Batagol

Student Guest Post by Ben Zocco

This post is the first in a series of posts on this blog written by students studying Non-Adversarial Justice at the Faculty of Law at Monash University. Students were invited to write blog posts explaining various complex areas of law relating to dispute resolution to ordinary readers. The very best posts are published here.

The advent of collaborative practice as a means of resolving family law disputes has provided couples with a means of completing a divorce or separation in a conciliatory and cost effective manner. With more than 200 practitioners currently registered with the Law Institute of Victoria’s Collaborative Law Section, a significant number of lawyers have undergone training that allows them to practice collaboratively.

The Law Council of Australia’s Basic Training Requirements

In response to its increasing popularity of collaborative practice, the Law Council of Australia has published the Australian Collaborative Practice Guidelines for Lawyers. This document encompasses a series of “Basic Training” requirements in order to be recognised as being collaboratively trained. This set of overarching training requirements forms a best practice guide for ensuring practitioners engaging in collaborative law are appropriately prepared for acting in this unique practice area.

army-recruit-is-in-training-at-the-army-physical-training-school-brisbane-1942 Image: Courtesy State Library of Queensland

The Basic Training requirements provide for the teaching of a range of skills that are unique to the practice of collaborative law. This is particularly so with the requirement that practitioners are provided with relevant training of the “collaborative model”.

What is Collaborative Practice?

Collaborative practice, as the name suggests, is a non-adversarial process used to resolve disputes. It requires the parties and their legal representatives to enter into a formal contract that puts the focus of the process settling a matter rather than resorting to litigation. Terms in the agreement generally refer to a commitment for each party to engage in the collaborative process in good faith and to share all available relevant information pertaining to the dispute with the other party. If the dispute is not resolved and parties seek to formally commence legal proceedings, the lawyers engaged in the collaborative process are contractually required to cease representing their clients. This requires the parties to engage new lawyers, generally at a significant cost, and serves as a major incentive to the parties to find common ground and work collaboratively to resolve their dispute.

Collaborative practice is conducted in the presence of each party and their legal adviser in what is described as a “four way meeting”. Several four way meetings take place over the course of a number of months, with each run according to agenda devised by the parties in consultation with their lawyers prior to the meeting. The conclusion of the four way meetings seeks to culminate in the drafting and execution of an agreement that resolves the dispute in a manner that is mutually acceptable to both parties.

The Unique Nature of Collaborative Practice

The collaborative model, as describe above, is an entirely unique approach to the resolution of disputes. While traditional mediation is also seen as an alternative to litigating matters, it differs from collaborative practice in many respects. The absence of a mediator in collaborative practice requires the legal representatives to facilitate the discussion rather than simply representing their client. Additionally, the capabilities necessary to operate collaboratively in the absence of a court-mandated framework for discovery and good faith negotiation is at odds with that of conventional alternative dispute resolution approaches. Accordingly, this skillset is unique to collaborative law practitioners.

The skills required of collaborative practitioners are also unique insofar as the model makes use of independent experts to facilitate the settlement of disputes. It is standard practice in a matter being resolved collaboratively to utilise the expertise of third party professionals, especially those who are trained as child specialists or financial advisors. These experts assist the parties and the lawyers in exploring interests (rather than positions) and potential options to satisfy the needs of the parties. Additionally, their experience assists the couple in being able to understand the impact of their separation on their children, as well as its effect on the financial position of each person once the dispute has finalised.

While the interaction of legal practitioners and independent experts is extremely common, the manner in which they work together in a collaborative setting compared with that of general legal practice is significantly different. In many jurisdictions, the relationship between independent expert is governed by a formal practice note, issued by the court. Lawyers typically engage independent experts by way of a formal retainer, setting out the advice necessary for the purposes of the matter. The expert will then write a formal report, setting out their findings. In many cases, an expert will be required to “hot tub” with an expert appointed by the opposing party in order to reach consensus conclusions and to narrow the issues in dispute. Additionally, experts retained in a litigation matter are subject to rigorous cross examination from other parties, adding an adversarial flavour to their contribution made for the purposes of resolving the matter.

In contrast, a collaborative approach requires each party to jointly appoint an expert, often by way of a shared recommendation by the practitioners representing them. The expert will work with each party in the room together and will rarely engage in separate discussions with parties individually. Rather than the lawyers approaching the assistance of an expert’s contribution as potentially suspect or misconstrued as may be the case in litigated disputes, they are able to respect and value their support in a truly collaborative fashion. Accordingly, the interdisciplinary approach to collaborative practice means a collaborative practitioner is required to have a unique skillset when involving experts in a matter being managed collaboratively.

Negotiation for All, Not Just the Collaborative

While there are many aspects of the “Basic Training” requirements that are unique to collaborative practitioners, it is clear that are not all exclusively within the domain of collaborative law.

A crucial example of this is the necessity that collaborative practitioners must be aware of and trained in negotiation theory; specifically, that of the differences between interest and positional-based bargaining.

A key tool in the arsenal of a collaborative practitioner is assisting the parties to consider the distinction between positions and interests. Unlike traditional positional bargaining, focusing on interests allows the parties to concentrate on the key issues that require resolution, rather than the parties becoming distracted on minor matters, falling into positional impasses or creating acrimony in the process. This prioritisation of interests, rather than positions, also assists the parties in being able to develop creative solutions that are mutually amenable, rather than being focused on finding a middle ground between two respective positions, neither of which may be the best holistic outcome.

But similar strategies are used in some forms of mediation generally, rather than solely within a collaborative setting. Facilitative mediation, for instance, also focuses on steering the parties toward concentrating on positions rather than interests. This occurs in a traditional mediation setting, involving the parties, their legal representatives and a trained mediator. Additionally, several popular negotiation courses offered by institutions such as MIT and Harvard University train legal practitioners and business executives to be aware of the distinction when being involved in a negotiation.

Accordingly, negotiation theory should not be considered solely a skill that is relevant to collaborative practitioners, but to the legal profession generally. Despite the differences in approach to alternative dispute resolution, ensuring that the legal profession is adequately trained to delineate between a client’s needs and wants should be recognised in considering the skills that are desirable for all practitioners to hold.

It is clear that collaborative practitioners are required to be appropriately trained in their interaction with fellow lawyers in a collaborative setting, the collaborative model in general and the manner in which the interdisciplinary focus of the practice differs from the general use of experts in a dispute. These are skillsets that, currently, are largely unique and confined to the practice of collaborative law. It is essential for the continued success of collaborative practice within Australia for the distinction between these attributes to other forms of alternative dispute resolution to be clear.

However, it can also be said that collaborative law requires skills that are not solely used within its discipline. A knowledge of negotiation theory is highly desirable for legal practitioners to possess for everyday dispute resolution, not just that involving collaborative practice. To that extent, it is clear that the collaborative practice “Basic Training” requirements of the Law Council of Australia encompass training that is both unique to collaborative practitioners and also relevant to the legal profession generally.

Mr Ben Zocco has recently completed Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws degrees from Monash University and will be commencing as a graduate lawyer with a national law firm in 2017. He has spent the later years of his legal education studying various forms of alternative dispute resolution and looks forward to the opportunity to put this knowledge into practice as a lawyer.