Why this new legal practice?

When I started life as a new lawyer 21 years ago, I didn’t know what I wanted to be when I grew up. Having just finished a year as an Associate to a Supreme Court judge, I had vague dreams of presenting compelling cases in court, but that was about it.

I took a position in a boutique law firm on the rise (then called Cosoff Cudmore and Partners) and tried to settle in. Over the first few years, I worked gained broad experience. I worked for liquidators and got a feel for insolvency law I worked on commercial transactions and learnt what a contract looked like and the rudiments of tax law. I discovered what was expected of a member of this honourable profession.

Over time I found a focus. The field of construction and engineering fit me well. First, it had a link to my academic background in studying architecture. Secondly, it suited my inquisitive temperament, always wanting to learn new things. I loved learning the ‘ins and outs’ of a construction technique, an engineering marvel or a technological innovation (and still do). I was very good at understanding both the technical and the technological. Breakwaters, power stations, roads, bridges, fire retardant coatings, mining equipment, drill rigs and computer software (to name a few) all fascinated me.

In that light, I saw my fair share of litigation. I achieved my new lawyer dreams of appearing in the Supreme Court and the Federal Court and having my name appear as counsel in published judgments.

More importantly, however, I saw what litigation led to for the parties. All too often, even an outstanding result was a bitter-sweet ending to a gruelling experience they hoped never to repeat. That is neither a good advertisement for the legal process nor often something I could wholly recommend. Over recent years, I have seen (and encouraged) a trend away from litigation. In turn, I have focussed more on preparing contracts in a way that would, hopefully, minimise the chance of litigation down the track.

In early 2022, I had a realisation. I wanted something different. I want to help the construction and engineering industry find a way toward a more efficient and satisfactory resolution of its disputes.

Sadly, my observations are that the Security of Payment legislation around the country has been a laudable but failed effort in that direction. It has become too cumbersome and hemmed in by lawyers and precedent to serve its original purpose. In any event, that legislation does not apply to all potential litigation in the industry.

I now encourage players in this industry to look at alternatives to litigation. These are not new—arbitration, mediation, expert determination and other methods have been around for decades. But the last decade or so has seen new techniques and new life breathed into these bastions of alternative dispute resolution. The legal profession has been slow to re-adopt these new techniques. For example, few of the dozens of mediations I have participated in have followed modern best practices.

I intend now to practice as a dispute resolution professional. When appropriate, that may mean working as mediator. At other times, as an arbitrator or a conflict coach. In all cases, the goal will be better outcomes, sooner, and with fewer regrets.