The Truth about Honesty and Candour in Mediation: What the Tribunal Left Unsaid in Mullins' Case

By Wolski, Bobette | Melbourne University Law Review, August 2012 | Go to article overview

The Truth about Honesty and Candour in Mediation: What the Tribunal Left Unsaid in Mullins' Case


Wolski, Bobette, Melbourne University Law Review


[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.]

CONTENTS

  I Introduction
 II The General Duties Owed by Legal Representatives in Mediation
III Current Requirements in Relation to Honesty and Candour
      A Professional Conduct Rules
      B Other Components of the Law of Lawyering
 IV The Impact of Other Obligations Owed by Lawyers
      A The Question of Good Faith Participation
          1 Professional Conduct Rules
          2 Other Components of the Law of Lawyering
      B Requirements in Relation to Cooperation
          1 Professional Conduct Rules
          2 Other Components of the Law of Lawyering
      C Requirements in Relation to Fairness
          1 Professional Conduct Rules
          2 Other Components of the Law of Lawyering
  V Lawyer Independence as against Client Authority: Resolution
    of Conflicting Duties
 VI Mullins and Garrett Revisited
VII Conclusion and Directions for Further Research and Analysis

I INTRODUCTION

The case of Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins ('Mullins') (1) has been discussed in numerous articles, commentaries, case notes and texts. (2) The facts of the case are reasonably well-known, at least in mediation circles: in the mediation of a claim for damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff's barrister (Mullins) failed to disclose to the defendant and its insurer that the plaintiff had been diagnosed with terminal cancer subsequent to the preparation and exchange of expert reports detailing the plaintiff's assumed life expectancy. Estimates of losses and future care needs were based on that assumption. The defendant settled in ignorance of the plaintiff's cancer diagnosis and on the basis of the inaccurate reports. Mullins was found to have intentionally and fraudulently deceived his opponent and was fined for professional misconduct. It is less well-known that the instructing solicitor in the matter, Mr Garrett, was similarly dealt with by the Legal Practice Tribunal several years later. (3) Following from the decision in Mullins, it has been suggested that '[t]he obligation of truthfulness in a mediation context is different from that required in litigation and negotiation'; (4) that legal representatives have a positive obligation to disclose the relevant facts during a mediation; (5) and that they have a duty 'to be forthright and honest' (6) when mediating. In the author's opinion, Mullins is not authority for these propositions. Currently, legal representatives in Australia owe exactly the same obligations of honesty and candour in mediation (7) as they owe in litigation; in neither context do they owe a general duty to be candid, open or forthright.

This article seeks to answer the following related questions:

1 Are legal representatives in Australia required to be honest and candid in mediation and, if so, what are the appropriate standards of honesty and candour required of them?

2 If these duties exist, to whom are they owed?

3 When should these duties, if they exist, supersede or conversely give way to the duties owed to a client?

These questions highlight three preliminary points that are central to an understanding of the disclosure obligations of legal representatives in mediation (and in any other context).

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Truth about Honesty and Candour in Mediation: What the Tribunal Left Unsaid in Mullins' Case
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.