The truth about honesty and candour in mediation: What the tribunal left unsaid in Mullins' case

Bobette Wolski*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Some commentators have suggested that, as a result of the decision in Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins, legal representatives owe different standards of honesty and candour in mediation from that which they owe in litigation. This article challenges that proposition. The author argues that legal representatives owe exactly the same standards irrespective of whether they are acting in mediation or in litigation. The decision in Mullins did not change the law in this respect. In fact, the Tribunal did no more than iterate the existing law governing relations between legal representatives and their opponents. As to the duties owed by legal representatives to mediators, the case provides no insight at all. There is also a dearth of literature on the topic. The purpose of this article is to provide some insights on the duties of honesty and candour owed by legal representatives for parties in mediation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)706-742
Number of pages37
JournalMelbourne University Law Review
Volume36
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The truth about honesty and candour in mediation: What the tribunal left unsaid in Mullins' case'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this