RESOURCES: Articles:
Collaborative Law
Divorces range from the "kitchen table hand-shake" to a War of the Roses all-out battle. Most, of course, fall somewhere in the middle. Though most people, for their own and their families' sakes, would choose to be "sane", "objective," and "civilized," when it comes to the untangling of the deep emotional ties of marriage, feelings of hurt, betrayal, failure - of divorce - fuel the human "dark side" of anger, resentment, and revenge, regardless of the fact that we'll hate ourselves in the morning.
In "simplifying" the case for the judge, in the court system, little bothers are often made larger. Problems and desires are painted in broad strokes of black-and-white and me-versus-you, often spiraling out of control. Exhausted and disheartened by this "arms race," many persons are turning to an out-of-court option called Collaborative Law.
Collaborative Law is but one option in a full menu of divorce methods. It is not for every divorce; it is not meant to be. Collaborative Law's virtues for one couple would be disastrous for another.
Collaborative Law puts the couple in charge of their own fate: the spouses, each with a lawyer at his/her side, and with the added help of any required "allied professionals" (financial consultants, mental health professionals, negotiation coaches, etc.), resolve themselves the issues between them. In Collaborative Law, if the couple can not settle their difference and court intervention is required, the lawyers and allied professionals are, in a word, fired. This means, if the Collaborative Law process fails, the couple must start over with new lawyers and new advisors.
This settle-or-fail clause gives "teeth" (or sticking power) to the process. It has been shown to liberate problem-solving thinking, ideally moving the spouses from a defensive posture to one of "we can work this out." It stresses and reinforces team commitment, where the obstacles to settlement become the "opponent," rather than the other spouse and his/her divorce team. However, this means that the couple (with the help of their specially trained lawyers and other "allied" professionals) must be able to set aside their individual differences to achieve the common goal.
With its team setting, Collaborative Law seeks to keep high-emotion out of the decision making process, to keep all "eyes on the prize" - the fair settlement. When one spouse or the other flounders, the team is there to help them get back on track. The Collaborative Law professionals understand the importance of emotional state, of behavior, even the influences word choices can make on the settlement climate. However, by the time many couples reach the divorcing point, they are unable to agree on the time of day, let alone how best to divide their assets.
Collaborative Law's emphasis that the individuals make their own decisions might cause some to wonder, "Why bring in lawyers?" There are people who sell their house without a Realtor, as well. But just as a good Realtor can help the home seller and buyer through the complicated legal and emotional territory to a binding and fair contract, so does the expertise of a divorce lawyer guide the couple past the errors and pitfalls - simple and complex - that can cripple a lasting settlement. Lawyers are excellent problem solvers. Collaborative Lawyers, particularly, have the training and experience to offer options that the spouses themselves might not have considered.
In Collaborative Law, the lawyers are at the side of and in association with their clients at all times. Even in the team setting, with everyone considering the reasonable desires and needs of both spouses and their family, with everyone called to "play fair," and strive for equitable solutions, there is no doubt whose lawyer is whose. It is that the Collaborative Lawyer sees that the best solution for his/her client must also fit into a larger picture beyond the immediate circumstances and divisions of the divorce.
The Collaborative Law lawyers (and other allied professionals) are like white water river guides. They know how to handle the raft, to avoid and recover from boulders and snags, and have the perspective that sees the smooth water beyond the current rapids.
In Collaborative Law, both sides are expected to "play an open hand," with all their cards showing. If one side is not being fair and open, their lawyer is called to referee that behavior and call a misdeal. If the couple is incapable of that level of openness, they should not be in a Collaborative Law setting. If a spouse feels he/she really won't be able to share the same team with his/her soon to be ex-partner, if he/she feels the spouse is unable to be fair and open, or is unable to trust that spouse regardless, definitely don't attempt Collaborative Law, for all its "but that's how we should be" temptations.
Of course, intentions of "how we should be" at the start are no good if, at the end, the case doesn't settle and one of the spouses has revealed all his/her trump, as it were. This inequity is a danger of any divorce, and one would hope, as the Collaborative Lawyer hands the case off to other counsel, the new trial lawyer will be well briefed. The client is not left high and dry.
Collaborative Law demands that couples "keep their heads," when their battered feelings are shouting "off with their heads!" In many cases, it teaches the couple to negotiate intelligently, which can set the stage for positive, or at least working, post-divorce interactions (critical when there are children).
Spouses in a Collaborative Law divorce have to focus on fairness. They have to be able to place the common goal above their own desires of the moment. They have to understand the difference between want and need. They must understand - or be open to understanding - their own motivations for insisting on certain concessions. They must be willing to do the hard work to set aside their "dark sides."
Not everyone can remain that objective in such difficult and trying circumstances. This is why there are many options for divorcing couples, no one "cure all." And, divorcing couples are urged, nay, mandated, to investigate all the available options, and chose the method that best suits their particular personalities and situation.
In "simplifying" the case for the judge, in the court system, little bothers are often made larger. Problems and desires are painted in broad strokes of black-and-white and me-versus-you, often spiraling out of control. Exhausted and disheartened by this "arms race," many persons are turning to an out-of-court option called Collaborative Law.
Collaborative Law is but one option in a full menu of divorce methods. It is not for every divorce; it is not meant to be. Collaborative Law's virtues for one couple would be disastrous for another.
Collaborative Law puts the couple in charge of their own fate: the spouses, each with a lawyer at his/her side, and with the added help of any required "allied professionals" (financial consultants, mental health professionals, negotiation coaches, etc.), resolve themselves the issues between them. In Collaborative Law, if the couple can not settle their difference and court intervention is required, the lawyers and allied professionals are, in a word, fired. This means, if the Collaborative Law process fails, the couple must start over with new lawyers and new advisors.
This settle-or-fail clause gives "teeth" (or sticking power) to the process. It has been shown to liberate problem-solving thinking, ideally moving the spouses from a defensive posture to one of "we can work this out." It stresses and reinforces team commitment, where the obstacles to settlement become the "opponent," rather than the other spouse and his/her divorce team. However, this means that the couple (with the help of their specially trained lawyers and other "allied" professionals) must be able to set aside their individual differences to achieve the common goal.
With its team setting, Collaborative Law seeks to keep high-emotion out of the decision making process, to keep all "eyes on the prize" - the fair settlement. When one spouse or the other flounders, the team is there to help them get back on track. The Collaborative Law professionals understand the importance of emotional state, of behavior, even the influences word choices can make on the settlement climate. However, by the time many couples reach the divorcing point, they are unable to agree on the time of day, let alone how best to divide their assets.
Collaborative Law's emphasis that the individuals make their own decisions might cause some to wonder, "Why bring in lawyers?" There are people who sell their house without a Realtor, as well. But just as a good Realtor can help the home seller and buyer through the complicated legal and emotional territory to a binding and fair contract, so does the expertise of a divorce lawyer guide the couple past the errors and pitfalls - simple and complex - that can cripple a lasting settlement. Lawyers are excellent problem solvers. Collaborative Lawyers, particularly, have the training and experience to offer options that the spouses themselves might not have considered.
In Collaborative Law, the lawyers are at the side of and in association with their clients at all times. Even in the team setting, with everyone considering the reasonable desires and needs of both spouses and their family, with everyone called to "play fair," and strive for equitable solutions, there is no doubt whose lawyer is whose. It is that the Collaborative Lawyer sees that the best solution for his/her client must also fit into a larger picture beyond the immediate circumstances and divisions of the divorce.
The Collaborative Law lawyers (and other allied professionals) are like white water river guides. They know how to handle the raft, to avoid and recover from boulders and snags, and have the perspective that sees the smooth water beyond the current rapids.
In Collaborative Law, both sides are expected to "play an open hand," with all their cards showing. If one side is not being fair and open, their lawyer is called to referee that behavior and call a misdeal. If the couple is incapable of that level of openness, they should not be in a Collaborative Law setting. If a spouse feels he/she really won't be able to share the same team with his/her soon to be ex-partner, if he/she feels the spouse is unable to be fair and open, or is unable to trust that spouse regardless, definitely don't attempt Collaborative Law, for all its "but that's how we should be" temptations.
Of course, intentions of "how we should be" at the start are no good if, at the end, the case doesn't settle and one of the spouses has revealed all his/her trump, as it were. This inequity is a danger of any divorce, and one would hope, as the Collaborative Lawyer hands the case off to other counsel, the new trial lawyer will be well briefed. The client is not left high and dry.
Collaborative Law demands that couples "keep their heads," when their battered feelings are shouting "off with their heads!" In many cases, it teaches the couple to negotiate intelligently, which can set the stage for positive, or at least working, post-divorce interactions (critical when there are children).
Spouses in a Collaborative Law divorce have to focus on fairness. They have to be able to place the common goal above their own desires of the moment. They have to understand the difference between want and need. They must understand - or be open to understanding - their own motivations for insisting on certain concessions. They must be willing to do the hard work to set aside their "dark sides."
Not everyone can remain that objective in such difficult and trying circumstances. This is why there are many options for divorcing couples, no one "cure all." And, divorcing couples are urged, nay, mandated, to investigate all the available options, and chose the method that best suits their particular personalities and situation.
Gutterman Griffiths PC © 2002-2007 All rights reserved.