DRAFT CORE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION – GPC SERIES ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND CIVIL DISPUTES
Section
Focus
Profile
IDENTIFYING RESPONDENT
CHARACTERISTICS
1.
2.
Question
1
Question P1
Which category of stakeholder will
you be voting as today? (If your
regular practice involves several of
these options, please select the one
in which you have primarily been
involved, or wish your votes to be
counted towards today).
1.
2.
3.
1
2
These profiling questions are
important to identify voters
during each event and for
subsequent data-mining and
analysis following the end of
each event and the end of the
GPC Series.
During each conference,
participants will only be
viewed by their primary
categories in Question 1 (i.e.,
as Users, Advisors,
Adjudicative Providers, etc.
User: A client or party involved
in commercial or civil disputes
a. Director
b. Executive
c. Manager
d. Partner
e. In-house counsel
f. Other – please specify
Advisor:
a. External transactional
lawyer/solicitor
b. External litigation
counsel/barrister
c. Consultant
d. Expert
e. Other – please specify
Adjudicative Provider:
Litigation or Arbitration
a. Judge
b. Arbitrator
Session 1
ACCESS TO JUSTICE & DISPUTE
RESOLUTION SYSTEMS: WHAT DO USERS
NEED & EXPECT?
1.
What may influence the choice of
dispute resolution processes?
2.
What are the norms in a given
jurisdiction/locale?
Session 2
HOW IS THE MARKET CURRENTLY
ADDRESSING USERS’ NEEDS AND
EXPECTATIONS?
1.
2.
3.
Question 1.1
What outcomes do users want from
commercial and civil dispute resolution?
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st highest
priority, ‘2’= 2nd highest priority, ‘3’ = 3rd
highest priority etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that are not a priority.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Financial: e.g. compensation,
expenses paid
Psychological: e.g. vindication,
principle, fairness, closure, be heard
Action-focused: e.g. prevent action or
require action from one of the parties
(such as an injunction or specific
performance of an obligation)
Relationship focused: e.g. terminate
or preserve a relationship
Process-focused: e.g., ensuring due
process regardless of the outcome
Judicial: Setting a legal precedent or
creating new jurisprudence
No opinion/I don’t know
Other: (please specify) 1
What are the candid views on dispute
resolution processes, in how they are
currently practised both domestically
and internationally?
What are the factors that may
underpin the effectiveness of the
current status quo?
How are current obstacles and
challenges to the use of appropriate
dispute resolution (ADR) being met?
Session 3
Session 4
HOW CAN DISPUTE RESOLUTION BE
IMPROVED? (OVERCOMING OBSTACLES
AND CHALLENGES)
PROMOTING BETTER ACCESS TO
JUSTICE: WHAT ACTION ITEMS
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND BY
WHOM?
1. What promotional efforts could
improve the understanding and
use of a wider range of
appropriate dispute resolution
options and policy issues in the
future?
2. How do these factors possibly
affect access to justice?
CONFERENCE EVALUATION
AND FEEDBACK
Question 4.1
Who has the greatest responsibility
for taking action to promote better
access to justice?
Question E1
Is the GPC Series providing a
valuable service to the
dispute resolution
community?
1.
2.
What are the optimal ways to
improve how disputes are
addressed and resolved including
tools and processes?
Are any changes required?
Question 2.1
With reference to the type(s) of
process(es) in which you are usually
involved, what outcomes do providers
tend to prioritise?
Question 3.1
What are the main obstacles or
challenges users face when attempting
to resolve commercial and/or civil
disputes?
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st highest
priority, ‘2’= 2nd highest priority, ‘3’ = 3rd
highest priority etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that are not a priority.)
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st greatest
obstacle, ‘2’= 2nd greatest obstacle, ‘3’ =
3rd greatest obstacle etc. Please use ‘0’
to indicate options that are not
obstacles)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Financial: e.g. compensation,
expenses paid
Psychological: e.g. vindication,
principle, fairness, closure, be heard
Action-focused: e.g. prevent action or
require action from one of the parties
(such as an injunction or specific
performance of an obligation)
Relationship-focused: e.g. terminate
or preserve a relationship
Process-focused: e.g., ensuring due
process regardless of the outcome
Judicial: Setting a legal precedent or
creating new jurisprudence
No opinion/I don’t know
Other: (please specify) 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Financial
Time constraints
Geographical issues
Social or cultural issues
The legal system or knowing how to
initiate proceedings
Lack of informal or early dispute
resolution processes (e.g. choice of
consensual processes before
adjudicative processes)
Unpredictable behaviour by
adjudicative providers or lack of
certainty that outcomes will be
enforced
Insufficient understanding of all of
users’ procedural options
No opinion/I don’t know
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
responsible, ‘2’= 2nd most
responsible, ‘3’ = 3rd most
responsible etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that have no
responsibility.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Session 5
1. Initial satisfaction
indicator
2. Permission to follow up
1.
2.
3.
4.
Yes
Neutral
No
No opinion
Users: business executives or
governance (e.g., owners, Csuite executives, directors or
business managers)
Users: in-house advisors (e.g.,
in-house counsel)
Users: owner or rights holder
Advisors: legal
Advisors: non-legal
Individual Providers: judges,
arbitrators, mediators or
conciliators
Provider institutions : court
administrators, arbitration
institutions, mediation centres,
secretariats, etc.
Insurers/sources of funding
Categories 1-4 adapted from Tamara Relis, Perceptions in Litigation and Mediation: Lawyers, Defendants, Plaintiffs and Gendered Parties (Cambridge University Press, 2009). See also Julie Macfarlane, J., ‘Culture Change? A Tale of Two Cities and Mandatory Court-Connected Mediation.’ (2002) 2002(2) Journal of
Dispute Resolution 241, 244, 252, 264,297–99, 320. Categories 5 and 6 Drawn from expert group (GPC COG).
Categories 1-4 adapted from Tamara Relis, Perceptions in Litigation and Mediation: Lawyers, Defendants, Plaintiffs and Gendered Parties (Cambridge University Press, 2009). See also Julie Macfarlane, J., ‘Culture Change? A Tale of Two Cities and Mandatory Court-Connected Mediation.’ (2002) 2002(2) Journal of
Dispute Resolution 241, 244, 252, 264,297–99, 320. Categories 5 and 6 Drawn from expert group (GPC COG).
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- © IMI 2015-16 (prepared by Danielle Hutchinson and Emma-May Litchfield). All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 6
DRAFT CORE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION – GPC SERIES ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND CIVIL DISPUTES
c.
d.
Question 2
4.
Consensual Provider:
Mediation or Conciliation
a. Mediator
b. Conciliator
c. Administrator of
primarily consensual
services
d. Other – please specify
5.
Other:
a.
b.
c.
d.
9.
Question 3.2
To improve the future of dispute
resolution and access to justice, which of
the following processes and tools should
be prioritised?
Question 4.2
What is the best way to improve
users’ understanding of the options
for dispute resolution?
Question E2
Should the GPC Series be
repeated in a few years’
time?
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1 most
influential, ‘2’= 2nd most influential, ‘3’ =
3rd most influential etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that have no influence.)
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most often
determined by, ‘2’= 2nd most often
determined by, ‘3’ = 3rd most often
determined by etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that have no influence
over the determination.)
Please rank all options – 1= 1st highest
priority, 2= 2nd highest priority, 3 = 3rd
highest priority etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that should not be a
priority.)
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
effective, ‘2’= 2nd most effective, ‘3’
= 3rd most effective etc. Please use
‘0’ to indicate options that are not
obstacles)
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
1
1.
1.
Governments/ministries of
justice
10. Others (please specify)
Researcher/Academic
Educator/Trainer
Policy maker
Government
employee/civil
servant
Other – please specify
e.
Question P2
Approximately how many times
have you been involved in any
dispute resolution proceedings
(i.e., litigation, arbitration,
conciliation and/or mediation)?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10. Other (please specify)3
Administrator of
primarily adjudicative
services
Other – please specify
0-10
11-50
51-200
201-500
> 501
Question 1.2
When users are making decisions about
which type(s) of dispute resolution
process(es) to use, which of the following
do you think has the most influence?
st
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Speed: securing the earliest possible
outcome
Expense: cost containment
Certainty and/or Enforceability: risk
reduction and control of outcome
Relationships: preventing conflict
escalation whenever possible
Confidentiality
Advice: from lawyer or other external
expert
Compliance: with traditional
behavioral norms or industry
practices, model contracts/existing
agreement models/court
Question 2.2
As a general rule, the outcome of a
commercial or civil dispute is determined
primarily by:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Rule of Law: findings of fact and law
or other norms
Equity: general principles of fairness
Social Justice: based on social equality
or economic risk allocation principles
Harmony: based on community values
The parties’ interests: based on
subjective future interests
Consensus: based on a fair
compromise
Status: deferring to
authority/hierarchies
Religion: application of religious
norms
No opinion/I don’t know
3
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
6
Paul M. Lurie and Jeremy Lack, ‘Guided Choice Dispute Resolution Processes: Reducing the Time and Expense to Settlement’ (2014) 8(2) Dispute Resolution International 167
7
Source: Based on L. Riskin “The New Old & New Grids”. See Also London Guildhall Data, 36
13
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
14
New Jersey/ North Carolina – draft legislation or enacted legislation? – find citation
2.
3.
4.
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- © IMI 2015-16 (prepared by Danielle Hutchinson and Emma-May Litchfield). All rights reserved.
Guided Choice: Initial joint analysis
and discussion of users’ needs and
priorities, and the possible
consequences of any given process
as soon as possible6
Facilitating access to consensual
dispute resolution processes before
adjudicative processes. (e.g., the
earlier the better) 7
Facilitating access to early case
assessment or expert evaluation
(e.g., magistrates, expert opinions
or conciliators)
Facilitating ways to combine
consensual and adjudicative
2.
3.
Yes
Neutral
No
No opinion
Educating users on the range of
options for resolving their
dispute (e.g., in business schools
and law schools)? 13
Prior to the commencement of
adjudicative proceedings,
requiring advisors or users to
sign a declaration stating that
the user has been informed of
the possibility of using
consensual dispute resolution
processes?14
Providing access to dispute
resolution experts who can
Page 2 of 6
DRAFT CORE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION – GPC SERIES ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND CIVIL DISPUTES
recommendations/policies &
guidelines etc.4
Question 3
Question P3
In what kinds of dispute resolution
processes are you usually
involved? (Please select one only)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Litigation
Arbitration
Conciliation
Mediation
Adjudicative processes:
Litigation & Arbitration
Consensual processes:
Conciliation & Mediation
Approximately equal amounts
of adjudicative and consensual
processes
No typical process
Other (please specify)
Question 1.3
When lawyers are making
recommendations to users about
procedural options for dispute resolution,
which of the following do you think has
the most influence?
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
influential, ‘2’= 2nd most influential, ‘3’ =
3rd most influential etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that have no influence.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
The desired outcome as described by
the user (e.g. if the user seeks an
apology then a process most likely to
accommodate such an outcome is
recommended)
An analysis of the merits/strengths of
the case
Familiarity with a particular type of
dispute resolution process
Impact on costs/fees the advisor can
charge
4
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
5
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
8
Source: J. Lack from London Guildhall Data, 42
9
Source: Based on L. Riskin “The New Old & New Grids”. See Also London Guildhall Data, 40
10
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
11
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
12
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
15
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
16
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
19
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
20
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
21
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
10 Other: (please specify)5
Question 2.3
What is achieved by participating in a
consensual process (whether voluntary or
court ordered)?
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
achieved, ‘2’= 2nd most achieved, ‘3’ = 3rd
most achieved etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that are not achieved.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Better knowledge of the case: e.g.
Fact finding, learning the
strengths/weaknesses of the parties’
positions, reality testing etc.
Better knowledge of the users’
subjective interests
Likelihood of an early settlement or a
mutually agreed outcome
Retaining control over the outcome
Tactical/strategic: e.g delay
processes (e.g. Combining providers
or hybrids of consensual and
adjudicative process that run
sequentially, in parallel or are
integrated.)8 9
5. Encouraging or enabling all
providers to be assertive or
directive in reducing time and/or
costs10
6. Access to technological innovations
to assist communications or case
management (e.g. Online Dispute
Resolution, electronic
administration or yet to be
developed technology)11
7. Gathering and responding to
feedback or data from users 12
8. No opinion/I don’t know
9. Other (please specify)
Question 3.3
To improve dispute resolution and
access to justice, which of the following
areas do you think should be prioritised
for regulation (If any)?
Please rank all options – 1= 1st highest
priority, 2= 2nd highest priority, 3 = 3rd
highest priority etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that should not be a
priority.)
1.
2.
3.
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- © IMI 2015-16 (prepared by Danielle Hutchinson and Emma-May Litchfield). All rights reserved.
Domestic registration or
accreditation systems for dispute
resolution providers19
International accreditation or
certification systems for dispute
resolution providers20
Domestic protocols for resolving
disputes (e.g. mandatory
consensual processes before
adjudicative processes, or “opting
out” provisions)21
4.
5.
6.
guide parties in diagnosing the
most appropriate dispute
resolution process15
Automatically incorporating
mediation or conciliation into all
litigation and arbitration
processes16
Providing no-cost/low-cost
resources to the community e.g.
model dispute resolution
clauses, short courses on
resolving disputes, public access
websites etc.
Other (please specify)
(THIS QUESTION IS STILL BEING
RESEARCHED)
Question 4.3
To promote better access to justice,
where should policy makers,
governments and administrators focus
their attention?
Please rank all options – 1= 1st best
promotes, 2= 2nd best promotes, 3 =
3rd best promotes etc. Please use ‘0’
to indicate options that do not
promote access to justice.)
1.
2.
3.
Reducing pressures on the
courts
Compulsory consensual
processes or waivers of
consensual processes before
adjudicative processes can be
initiated
Requiring providers to offer
processes with fixed costs and
timelines (e.g., a costs cap of
Question E3
Would you be willing to
participate in a follow-up
focus group following this
event?
1.
2.
Yes
No
If so, please provide your
contact details below:
Name:
Email:
Phone No. (including
international area code):
Page 3 of 6
DRAFT CORE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION – GPC SERIES ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND CIVIL DISPUTES
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Impact on repeat business from the
user
The user’s relationships with the
other party(ies) or stakeholders
Compliance traditional behavioral
norms or industry practices, model
contracts/existing agreement
models/court
recommendations/policies &
guidelines etc.
No opinion/I don’t know
Other (please specify) 17
6.
7.
8.
9.
Compliance: e.g. avoidance of cost
sanctions, meeting contractual
obligations,
Improving or restoring relationships
No opinion/I don’t know
Other (please specify)18
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
International conventions or
treaties for resolving disputes (e.g.
Bilateral or multilateral mediation
or arbitration agreements) 22
Limits on or incentives for third
party funding23
Quality control or complaint
mechanisms for dispute resolution
providers24
No opinion/I don’t know
Other (please specify)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Question 4
Question P4
Within which jurisdiction do you
usually work? (If your practice
involves several of these
jurisdictions, please select the one
in which you are primarily
involved, or select the one you
wish your votes to be counted
towards today).
1.
2.
17
Local (domestic): the
jurisdiction associated with
this current conference
Other country (domestic):
Drop down menu for all
conference locations (by
country)
Question 1.4
In which quadrant below do you usually
recommend users initiate commercial or
civil dispute resolution proceedings? 26
Question 2.4
Who is currently responsible for ensuring
users understand process options, and
the possible implications and
consequences of each process before
deciding which dispute resolution process
to use?
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
responsible, ‘2’= 2nd most responsible, ‘3’
= 3rd most responsible etc. Please use ‘0’
to indicate options that have no
responsibility.)
1.
2.
Quadrant A
Quadrant B
1
Users: business executives or
governance (e.g., owners, C-suite
10% of the value of the dispute
and a deadline of 6-12 months)
Entering into international
treaties promoting recognition
and enforcement of
settlements.
Outsourcing court cases s to
accredited private sector
providers and/or procedural
specialists
Compulsory dispute resolution
insurance policies favouring use
of consensual processes before
adjudicative processes
whenever possible
In-built complaints mechanisms
or dispute systems25 (e.g.
internal dispute procedures to
manage conflict)
No opinion/I don’t know
Other (please specify)
Question 3.4
Which stakeholders do you think will be
most resistant to suggestions for
change?
Question 4.4
Please rank all options – 1= 1st most
resistant, 2= 2nd most resistant, 3 = 3rd
most resistant etc. Please use ‘0’ to
indicate options that should not be a
priority.)
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
significant, ‘2’= 2nd most significant,
‘3’ = 3rd most significant etc. Please
use ‘0’ to indicate options that are
not significant)
1.
1.
2.
3.
Users: business executives or
governance (e.g., owners, C-suite
executives, directors or business
managers)
Users: in-house advisors (e.g., inhouse counsel)
Users: owner or rights holder
Which of the following will have the
most significant impact on future
policy-making in dispute resolution?
2.
3.
Increased demand for
transparency27
Increased demand for
procedural justice/rights of
appeal28
Enforceability of outcomes29
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
18
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG). See also Categories adapted from Tamara Relis, Perceptions in Litigation and Mediation: Lawyers, Defendants, Plaintiffs and Gendered Parties (Cambridge University Press, 2009). See also Julie Macfarlane, J., ‘Culture Change? A Tale of Two Cities and Mandatory Court-Connected
Mediation.’ (2002) 2002(2) Journal of Dispute Resolution 241, 244, 252, 264,297–99, 320
22
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG). See also Petra Butler and Campbell Herbert, ‘Access to Justice vs Access to Justice for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises: The Case for a Bilateral Arbitration Treaty’, (2014) 26 NZULR pp 186-221.
23
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG). See also http://www.burfordcapital.com/burford-submits-response-to-us-senators/#_ftn8
24
GPC November 2015 survey
25
William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict (Jossey-Bas Publishers, 1988) 201.
26
Source: Based on L. Riskin “The New Old & New Grids”. See Also London Guildhall Data, 40, and The Variegated Landscape of Mediation: A Comparative Study of Mediation Regulation and Practices in Europe and the World (Ed. M. Schonewille & F. Schonewille), Eleven International Publishing, the Netherlands (2014),
Chapter 2, pp. 19-44
27
GPC November 2015 survey
28
GPC November 2015 survey
29
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG). See also GPC November 2015 survey
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- © IMI 2015-16 (prepared by Danielle Hutchinson and Emma-May Litchfield). All rights reserved.
Page 4 of 6
DRAFT CORE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION – GPC SERIES ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND CIVIL DISPUTES
3.
4.
Question 5
International (please specify
regions e.g. Asia, Europe, or
multi-region e.g. Americas and
Europe)
Other (please specify)
Question P5
With which gender do you
identify?
1.
2.
3.
Male
Female
Other 34
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Quadrant C
Quadrant D
The intersection point of all 4
quadrants
No preference
Other (please indicate)
Question 1.5
With reference to the type(s) of
process(es) in which you are usually
involved, what role does the lawyer
usually play? (Please select one only)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
An absent advisor: acts as coach,
providing substantive and procedural
advice but does not attend all
sessions with the client.
An advisor observer: acts as an
advisor and accompanies client at
sessions, but does not interact
directly with other users or the
provider.
An expert contributor: participates in
the process by offering expert
opinion, including reality testing but
does not negotiate or act on behalf of
client.
A supportive professional
participant: Works collaboratively
with client to navigate the process.
May request actions on behalf of
client.
A spokesperson: Speaks for client
and/or negotiates on client’s behalf.
Lawyers are not usually involved
executives, directors or business
managers)
2 Users: in-house advisors (e.g., inhouse counsel)
3 Users: owner or rights holder
4 Advisors: legal
5 Advisors: non-legal
6 Individual Providers: (e.g., judges,
arbitrators, mediators or conciliators)
7 Provider institutions : court
administrators, arbitration
institutions, mediation centres,
secretariats, etc.
8 No opinion/I don’t know
9 Others (please specify)
Question 2.5
Currently, the most effective dispute
resolution processes typically involve
which of the following:
4.
5.
6.
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
effective practice, ‘2’= 2nd most effective
practice, ‘3’ = 3rd most effective practice
etc. Please use ‘0’ to indicate options that
do not impact on effectiveness.)
Please rank all options – 1= 1st most
instrumental, 2= 2nd most instrumental,
3 = 3rd most instrumental etc. Please use
‘0’ to indicate options that should not be
a priority.)
1.
2.
Informal dispute resolution processes:
Combining dispute resolution
processes: e.g. multiple providers
working together or hybrids of
consensual and adjudicative
processes that can run sequentially, in
parallel or integrated into oneanother.36 37
Access to early consensual dispute
resolution processes 38
Use of technology in management of
communications or the proceedings.
1.
39
7.
3.
4.
5.
4.
5.
Question 3.5
Which stakeholders do you think have
the potential to be most instrumental in
bringing about change?
Question 4.5
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Gathering and responding to feedback
or data
30
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG). See also GPC November 2015 survey
31
Julie Macfarlane, The National Self-Represented Litigants Project, http://representingyourselfcanada.com/ . See also Drawn from expert group (GPC COG) and
32
GPC November 2015 survey
33
Inaugural Annual Meeting Resolution Institute Australia. Melbourne Chapter, 2015
34
Gender identifiers as used by University of Melbourne, Australia in staff and student documentation.
36
Source: J. Lack from London Guildhall Data, 42
37
Source: Based on L. Riskin “The New Old & New Grids”. See Also London Guildhall Data, 40
38
Source: Based on L. Riskin “The New Old & New Grids”. See Also London Guildhall Data, 36
39
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
42
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG). See also GPC November 2015 survey
Durability of outcomes30
The rise of the self-represented
user31
Increased demand for
harmonisation/uniformity 32
International trade agreements
e.g. free trade33
Other (please specify)
Advisors: legal
Advisors: non-legal
Individual Providers: judges,
arbitrators, mediators or
conciliators
7. Provider institutions : court
administrators, arbitration
institutions, mediation centres,
secretariats, etc.
8. Insurers/sources of funding
9. Governments/ministries of justice
10. Others (please specify)
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- © IMI 2015-16 (prepared by Danielle Hutchinson and Emma-May Litchfield). All rights reserved.
Users: business executives or
governance (e.g., owners, C-suite
executives, directors or business
managers)
Users: in-house advisors (e.g., inhouse counsel)
Users: owner or rights holder
Advisors: legal
Advisors: non-legal
Individual Providers: judges,
arbitrators, mediators or
conciliators
Provider institutions : court
administrators, arbitration
institutions, mediation centres,
secretariats, etc.
6.
7.
8.
What innovations/issues are going to
have the most significant influence on
the future of dispute resolution?
(Please rank all options: ‘1’= 1st most
significant, ‘2’= 2nd most significant,
‘3’ = 3rd most significant etc. Please
use ‘0’ to indicate options that are
not significant)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Technological innovation and
scientific discoveries (e.g.,
virtual ADR and breakthroughs
in neurosciences)
Sustainability
Growing economic. or social
inequalities
Climate Change/Ecological
impacts or policies
Globalisation /harmonisation
Political unrest or changing
global economic powers
Emphasis on personal wellbeing
and stress reduction
No opinion/I don’t know
Other (please specify) 42
Page 5 of 6
DRAFT CORE QUESTIONS FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION – GPC SERIES ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR RESOLUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND CIVIL DISPUTES
7.
Other: (please specify)35
6.
7.
(THIS QUESTION IS STILL BEING
RESEARCHED)
8.
9.
Proposed
focus
questions
for panel or
group
discussions
following
the votes
during each
session.
Discussion 1.6: User needs and expectations
With reference to the type of process in
which you are typically involved, use this
session to discuss the way that user needs
and expectations change as they become
more familiar with dispute resolution
processes.43
Based on these discussions please discuss the
following:
2.
3.
What does an inexperienced user typically
want or expect from dispute resolution?
What does a user typically want or expect
when they become more familiar with
their dispute resolution process options?
What does a sophisticated user typically
want or expect from dispute resolution?
8. Insurers/sources of funding
9. Governments/ministries of justice
10. Others (please specify)
Discussion 2.6: User expectations and current
practices
Discussion 3.6: Obstacles and
challenges
With reference to the type of process in which
you are typically involved, use this session to
discuss the relationship between user
expectations and current practice.
With reference to the type(s) of
process(es) in which you are usually
involved, please use this session to
discuss the types of obstacles or
challenges faced in commercial and civil
disputes and the extent of change
required to address them
Based on these discussions describe the
following:
1.
1.
A prior analysis and discussions of the
user’s procedural needs and options40
Enabling providers to be more
assertive or directive in reducing time
and/or costs41
No opinion/I don’t know
Other (please specify)
2.
3.


Current practices that fall below user
expectations.
Current practice that meets user
expectations.
Current practice that exceeds user
expectations.
At which of these levels do you think
inexperienced users would say the
process typically operates?
At which of these levels do you think
sophisticated/experienced users would
say the process typically operates?
Based on these discussions describe the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Things that don’t need to change
Obstacles and challenges that can
be overcome easily or with minor
changes.
Obstacles and challenges that are
difficult to overcome or would
require major change
(optional) Obstacles and challenges
that appear to be impossible to
change
Discussion 4.6: Promoting better
access to justice: what action items
should be considered and by
whom?
Use this session to formulate a vision
for the future of dispute resolution,
including innovations and reforms that
are likely to promote and/or improve
access to justice
Based on these discussions describe the
following:
1.
2.
3.
First phase of achieving the
vision (1-5 years)
Second phase of achieving the
vision (5-10 years)
Third phase of achieving the
vision (10+ years)
35
Olivia Rundle, ‘A Spectrum of Contribution that Lawyers Can Make to Mediation’ (2009) 20 Australian Dispute Resolution Journal 220.See also Tania Sourdin and Nikola Balvin, ‘Mediation in the Supreme and County Courts of Victoria: a summary of the results’ (2009) 11(3) ADR Bulletin 1, 5; Kathy Douglas and Becky
Batagol, ‘The Role of Lawyers in Mediation: Insights From Mediators at Victoria’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal’ (2014) 40(3) Monash University Law Review 758.
40
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
41
Drawn from expert group (GPC COG)
43
Felstiner et al., ‘The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming Claiming.’ (1980–81) 15 (3–4) Law and Society Review 631, 631–32, 650–51.
DRAFT -- SUBJECT TO CHANGE -- © IMI 2015-16 (prepared by Danielle Hutchinson and Emma-May Litchfield). All rights reserved.
Page 6 of 6