I have been given permission by the sender of an email to publish it on this site. I will respond to it publicly in a day or so.

HERE IS THE TEXT OF THE EMAIL -

I am a Law student at the University of Western Australia currently studying Alternate Dispute Resolution.

Your website, particularly your free library, I have found very helpful to my studies and I found reading through your credo and policies quite inspiring as a young future lawyer.

I was wondering, if I could ask your opinion on a topic that would assist me greatly with an assignment, I would love to know where such a well-respected legal practitioner stood in respect to this argument.

“To be able to properly discharge their duty to their clients, legal practitioners must have thorough knowledge of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution”

Why, in your opinion is it so important for Lawyers to have sound knowledge of different types of ADR, in particularly mediation? How does it affect their ability to properly discharge their duty to their clients?

I understand if you are too busy to reply to my email, I would imagine you would have an enormous workload. However, if you are able to find the time to reply, it would be greatly beneficial and very much appreciated.

Anonymous

Law Student University of Western Australia

These key principles were published in LEADR’s response to the rent Commonwealth NADRAC report on how to improve use of alternative dispute resolution in the civil justice system.

Key National Principles for Resolving Disputes

Social justice and inclusion is advanced by:

1. Encouraging people to take genuine steps to resolve or reduce their

disputes by themselves or by using an ADR process before considering

court or tribunal proceedings

2. Encouraging people using litigation to seek opportunities to use ADR

before and at all stages during the litigation process

3. Reserving courts and tribunals for disputes that cannot be resolved

otherwise or that involve a significant public interest issue

4. Developing and promoting standard definitions of dispute resolution

processes that clearly distinguish one process from another

5. Making information widely available that enables people to choose the

most suitable process to address their dispute

6. Explaining the ADR process and the role of the practitioner to people

using an ADR service

7. Ensuring that dispute resolution services and practitioners meet

standards that aim to avoid harm and maximize effectiveness

I was recently interviewed by Lawyers Weekly.

Here is the link - <http://www.boxbreakers.com.au>

They are conducting interviews with people who they think are doing things outside of the box - i.e. in an unconventional way or breaking new ground.

Chris Whitelaw

Dispute Resolver