What is Access to Justice?

Access to justice is the most pressing justice issue today. It has recently and very quickly become the major focus of attention of essentially all stakeholders in the legal community – governments, regulators, judges, bar associations, researchers and educators. And it needs also to become an increasing topic of attention for those who use the system – the public. But with all of this new attention, do we really know what we are talking about? What does the phrase access to justice mean, particularly from the perspective of the public? Primarily through a series of qualitative interviews, this study looks to better understand the concepts of justice and access to justice, particularly through the eyes of the public. This study fits within a growing wave of literature and recent reform efforts that are looking to refocus the justice system so as to put the public squarely at the centre of those efforts

The Negotiator-as-Professional: Understanding the Competing Interests of a Representative Negotiator

This article is about lawyers as negotiators, and in particular, it is about identifying and understanding the influential and potentially competing interests that are - or at least should be - in the minds of lawyers (and potentially other third party representatives) during the overall negotiation process. While there continues to be an increasing amount of literature on the mechanics and strategies of negotiation, the underlying interests that are typically at stake in representative negotiations from the perspective of representatives - particularly negotiations involving lawyers - have not been adequately studied. And until all interests are identified and placed squarely on the table as active parts to the overall process, representative negotiation will be less than fully effective, ethical and satisfying as a process for all those involved, including clients, lawyers and the public

The Negotiator-as-Professional: Understanding the Competing Interests of a Representative Negotiator

This article is about lawyers as negotiators, and in particular, it is about identifying and understanding the influential and potentially competing interests that are - or at least should be - in the minds of lawyers (and potentially other third party representatives) during the overall negotiation process. While there continues to be an increasing amount of literature on the mechanics and strategies of negotiation, the underlying interests that are typically at stake in representative negotiations from the perspective of representatives - particularly negotiations involving lawyers - have not been adequately studied. Current accounts of the representative negotiator do not paint a full picture of what is typically going on inside the representative\u27s mind, and as such, provide an impoverished view of his or her role, both in terms of its responsibilities and its potential opportunities. To address these deficiencies, this article advances an alternative, expansive model of the representative negotiator: the negotiator-as-professional model. It is a model that sees the role of the representative negotiator as being defined by at least four sets of interests: client interests, a broad understanding of the representative\u27s self-interests (that may include, but are not limited to, interests vis-a-vis the representative negotiator\u27s bargaining opposite), ethical interests and the public\u27s interests

What is Access to Justice?

Access to justice is the most pressing justice issue today. It has recently and very quickly become the major focus of attention of essentially all stakeholders in the legal community – governments, regulators, judges, bar associations, researchers and educators. And it needs also to become an increasing topic of attention for those who use the system – the public. But with all of this new attention, do we really know what we are talking about? What does the phrase access to justice mean, particularly from the perspective of the public? Primarily through a series of qualitative interviews, this study looks to better understand the concepts of justice and access to justice, particularly through the eyes of the public. This study fits within a growing wave of literature and recent reform efforts that are looking to refocus the justice system so as to put the public squarely at the centre of those efforts

Dispute Resolution, Access to Civil Justice and Legal Education

This article examines current dispute resolution teaching and research programs in the context of improving access to justice through recent civil justice reform initiatives. Animated by extensive domestic and international literature, online and survey-based research, the article explores the landscape of alternative dispute resolution education (primarily at law schools), comments on the need for continued thinking and reform and acts as a leading resource to assist in the ongoing, collaborative development of dispute resolution initiatives in legal education in Canada and abroad

What is Access to Justice?

Access to justice is the most pressing justice issue today. It has become the major focus of essentially all stakeholders in the legal community—governments, regulators, bar associations, researchers, and educators. It now needs to become an increasing topic of attention for those who use the system: the public. With all of this attention, what does the phrase “access to justice” really mean, particularly from the perspective of the public? In addition to reviewing the access to justice literature and policy initiatives, this article develops a public centered understanding of access to justice. It does so primarily by reporting on a recent survey of public views on justice. This study fits within a growing wave of literature and recent reform efforts designed to put the public squarely at the centre of the justice system

Re-Framing the Sharia Arbitration Debate

This article is a response to Mr. McGuinty regarding his response to religious arbitration in the province of Ontario. First, the issue is not about simply prohibiting religious tribunals. Second, it is not only an Ontario issue. Third, it is not necessarily even a Sharia (or religion) issue. This article focuses on these three problems