Open Forum

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.

In 2009 the NSW Parliament legislated an amendment to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) which would have had the effect of requiring intending litigants to make reasonable efforts to resolve their disputes before commencing litigation in a NSW Court.  Despite widespread community consultation and bipartisan support from the major political parties, the newly enacted Part 2A did not take effect and was ultimately repealed.  In an article I have written and will appear in the next edition of the Journal of Civil Law and Practice (JCivLP vol. 9 pt. 3) I have traced the passage of Part 2A through the parliament and considered some of the commentary that has been written about it over the last decade. My argument is that the reasons advanced against introducing the Part 2A amendment are now far from convincing, if indeed they ever were, and that it is now time to reintroduce a "reasonable efforts" requirement into the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).  It is more than forty years since American researchers Carnevale and Isen identified 'positive affect' as a contributing factor to disputants' disposition towards mediation and it is clear both that lawyers influence their clients' attitudes to mediation (and indeed whether to agree to mediation at all) and that there remains a significant undercurrent of resistance to mediation in NSW.  Legislation cannot by itself bring about a change in attitudes.  In the words of the aphorism "You can't legislate for common sense."  However, the introduction of the abandoned Part 2A amendment will do much to focus attention on the fact that there are more constructive ways to resolve most disputes than resorting to litigation.  I commend the article to your attention.