This is what now appears on the Federal Government’s new Access to Justice website at www.accesstojustice.gov .au -

“About Access to Justice

Access to justice is not just about courts and lawyers, but is also about better and early access to information and services to help people prevent and resolve disputes.

While courts are an important part of the justice system, there are many situations where other options for resolving a dispute will be faster, cheaper and more suitable in the circumstances. Often a full blown court case will be completely disproportionate to the issues in dispute.

Sometimes, simply having access to good information can help people to resolve their own disputes quickly and effectively. It may also be that parties will have an ongoing relationship after the dispute is resolved, such as a family matter or employment issue, so using a method of alternative dispute resolution that promotes agreement between the parties may be a better option. In complex and entrenched disputes, a court determination may be the most appropriate outcome. ”

This website was launched as part of the Federal Government’s initiative when introducing the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill and providing its response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report “Access to Justice December 2009″.

The time has come for Mediators to ensure that their skills are up to the task so that “access to justice” via Mediation truly succeeds. The extent to which non-mediator lawyers will strongly recommend and endorse Mediation and other “alternative dispute resolution” strategies, including “hybrid ADR” (use of more than one ADR strategy to help successfully resolve a dispute) will correlate directly to their own perception of how well Mediators perform at Mediations.

I am well aware from talking to lawyers in the field, and from my own direct experience appearing for clients at court ordered mediations that many current mediators to whom such disputes are being referred are doing no more than presiding as the host of a settlement conference where the real prospects of success are determined by the willingness and preparedness of the lawyers and the clients to negotiate a settlement before the matter is given a hearing date by case managing judge or registrar.

This is not real mediation. The outcome is hardly ever positively affected or influenced by specific strategies and methods adopted by the mediator to facilitate discussion outside of the tightly fixed boundaries of legal issues, principles and “prospects of success” on each issue determined by the lawyers prior to the so-called “mediation”.

What intrigues me is WHY so many solicitors leave it to the last moment to conduct these settlement negotiations. Why do they feel compelled to require their clients to engage in LITIGATION for many months and run up a legal costs bill of many thousands of dollars BEFORE they say “Lets go to Mediation” before the Judge sets the trial date. The fact is that they could schedule such “hosted settlement conference” (where a mediator is asked to be the host of the settlement conference) or schedule such a conference without asking a mediator to host it MUCH EARLIER and BEFORE a whole heap of legal costs have been run up. By why don’t they?

Here is my theory - Lawyers tend to think like lawyers and their art as “litigators” is to view a dispute through legal eyes and to apply a legal perspective to  it. This legal approach to “dispute analysis”, “dispute management” and “dispute resolution” is almost the antithesis of how a skillful mediator will handle a dispute. As to how a skillful mediator will handle a dispute please refer to many of my earlier posts on this blog.

The current “hosted settlement conference” model of mediation that has taken root in the legal justice system has been created by and developed by lawyers. It is not the model of mediation that is applied by non-lawyer mediators who eschew it. It fits in with the lawyers’ paradigm of how to handle and manage a dispute. They understand “settlement negotiations” as part of handling a dispute. Most of them have not spent a lot of time truly trying to learn the art of mediation and other ADR skills that can be applied to any dispute in its infancy with the aim of resolving the dispute before it gets channelled into the legal domain and becomes “litigation” and subjected to the lawyers’ paradigm of dispute handling, management and resolution.

What the Federal Government wants is EARLY DISPUTE RESOLUTION and a reduction of Litigation and its consequential burden on the Courts, the public purse and on the lives of the litigants.

The bottom line is that part of the formula to achieve this ambition must be to up-skill more lawyers in the true Art of the Mediator, as distinct from the Art of the Lawyer and the Litigation Specialist.

Christopher Whitelaw

Mediator - www.chriswhitelaw.com.au

As many of you will now know the Federal Attorney General recently introduced the Civil Dispute Resolution Bill 2010. If made into law the Act will require prospective litigants to take “genuine steps” to resolve their legal disputes before they will permitted through the gates by the case managing judge to continue their litigation war. They will need to detail what steps they have genuinely taken to resolve their dispute out of court and without resort to litigation.

This new law will herald a new dawn for mediators and mediation. We need to be ready. In my view the new law, if enacted, is heading in the right direction.

A few days ago I successfully resolved a dispute between two business people who had done business together for over 10 years before falling out during the Global Financial Crisis. They were clearly heading down the path of litigation and if not averted could have looked forward to over 12 months of fun in the courts and probably both ended up over $100,000 each out of pocket. That is nothing unusual in commercial litigation arising out of a broken business relationship.

The two parties, and their lawyers, opted into my strict protocol for dispute resolution that covers both things to be done BEFORE mediation as well as at the Mediation.

The Mediation went to about 3pm. Settlement was accomplished and the parties were able to return to the Joint Session Room and sit opposite each other and shake hands.

This is what Mediation is all about. The path to success in Mediation is entirely different to the path to success in Litigation. In Mediation it is often the case that parties can be reconciled as well as settle their dispute. This hardly ever happens when people go down the path of Litigation.

In my next post I will provide some examples of “genuine steps” to resolve a legal dispute.

Until then…..Christopher Whitelaw

Mediator

There is a Civil Dispute Resolution Bill currently before Federal Parliament in the House of Reps. It reflects strongly the current federal government perspective that more needs to be done to foster early out of court dispute resolution. Its proposed new laws strongly support the line of thinking that I have been putting forth on this blog.

The aim of the new law i s to “improve access to justice by focusing parties and their lawyers on the early resolution of disputes.” It wants to ensure that parties take “genuine steps” to resolve a civil dispute before proceedings are commenced in any federal court or tribunal.

It wants lawyers to do more than just pay lip service to ADR (alternative dispute resolution) thinking and strategies and then return to the standard litigation mode of thinking. This is definitely NOT taking “genuine steps” to resolve the dispute out of court and, best of all, BEFORE court proceedings are commenced.

The new laws, if passed, will give more power to the courts to use stricter case management powers to ensure that such genuine steps have been taken before allowing the case to be further progressed down the litigation pathway.

It will also invest the court with greater power to use cost orders at the end of a case to penalize those lawyers who are revealed to have categorically failed to have genuinely attempted to apply alternative dispute resolution strategies to avoid long and expensive litigation.

This Bill draws on the recommendations of the National Alternative Dispute Resolution Advisory Council (NADRAC) in its report published in November 2009. A copy of this Bill and the NADRAC report are available in the Free Library of this website. Just click on “home” to go to www.chriswhitelaw.com.au where you will see the link in the top bar menu.

I will keep you posted on developments in this area.

Chris Whitelaw

www.chriswhitelaw.com.au