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

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

mediation
Law
literature

Cite this

@article{be5e00e137e841b094e3659f22233897,
title = "The truth about honesty and candour in mediation: What the tribunal left unsaid in Mullins' case",
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.",
author = "Bobette Wolski",
year = "2012",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "706--742",
journal = "Melbourne University Law Review",
issn = "0025-8938",
publisher = "MELBOURNE UNIV LAW REVIEW ASSOC",
number = "2",

}

The truth about honesty and candour in mediation : What the tribunal left unsaid in Mullins' case. / Wolski, Bobette.

In: Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2012, p. 706-742.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The truth about honesty and candour in mediation

T2 - What the tribunal left unsaid in Mullins' case

AU - Wolski, Bobette

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878734255&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 706

EP - 742

JO - Melbourne University Law Review

JF - Melbourne University Law Review

SN - 0025-8938

IS - 2

ER -