The public and probably even the mental health profession are not aware that Family Law (divorce and related matters) is the area of law where attorneys are most often sued for malpractice. This is because there is almost NO are of law which may not become critical in a divorce:

• Tax (federal)
• Bankruptcy (federal)
• Probate
• Characterization of property tracing and commingling
• Child support and custody laws
• Collection and enforcement of judgements
• Work injuries and civil lawsuit recoveries

A family law practitioner must know a lot about a lot of areas of the law-- and the temptation for frustrated spouses to turn on their lawyers in the end to feel less powerless is very great. By the same token- many family law practitioners have been killed by not clients, but clients' ex spouses. In shirt-- as litigated, Family Law is fraught with peril and rife with unhappy lawyers AND clients

Is there a remedy?

Yes! Collaborative Divorce^SM!

Collaborative Divorce^SM is a new approach to divorce which makes it unnecessary to use adversarial techniques while preserving and making good use of the expertise and advocacy a good lawyer can and should bring to this complex legal area. To be adverse means to oppose-- to ad-vocate means to speak for. As accustomed as we have all become to seeing them as similar or identical-- these are in fact two very different skills, with markedly different outcomes.

The Orange County Group Begins (www.CDSOC.com) The purpose of Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County is to create and practice collaborative non-adversarial strategies to help clients in family law matters achieve agreement with integrity, in a dignified, respectful, and honest manner, and to help them heal whatever conflicts they may have and thus move on with their lives and resources intact.

Vision Statement

The Consortium is dedicated to transforming family law into a collaborative process, in order to preserve family integrity and empower the parties for their benefit and the benefit of any children of their union.

What Is Collaborative Law?

Collaborative law is a way of practicing law whereby the attorneys for both of the parties in a family dispute agree to assist them in resolving conflict or legal issues using cooperative strategies rather than adversarial techniques and litigation. Early, nonadversarial, participation by the attorneys allows the parties and attorneys to use attributes of good lawyering not often utilized in the "business as usual" adversarial proceedings; such as:

1. rational analysis and creative solutioneering to solve problems,
2. generation of multiple options,
3. maintenance of a positive context for settlement, and
4. building a foundation for long term co-parenting where applicable.

Why Should You Retain Collaborative Lawyers? (From http://www.collaborativelaw.org/ ;used by permission)

LESS COSTLY: This process is generally less costly and time-consuming than litigation.

CLIENT FRIENDLY: You are a vital part of the settlement team (consisting of both parties and both attorneys).

SAFE BUT COOPERATIVE: You are each supported by your lawyers and yet you work cooperatively with your spouse and his/her lawyer in resolving your issues.

LESS STRESS: The process generates much less fear and anxiety than Court proceedings or the threat of such proceedings.

BREATHING ROOM: Everyone can focus on creative approaches to settlement without the imminent threat of "going to Court".

WIN WIN: The participants are free to create a climate that facilitates "win-win" settlements.

LESS TIME: This approach is much less time consuming. Parties can reach agreement and the legal proceeding can be finalized within a short time, as contrasted with the one or more court dates, and spending hours waiting for your calendar to be called once the date arrives.

YOU ARE IN CHARGE: You control the proceedings - your destiny is in your hands rather than In the hands of a third party (the courts).

What Happens If Settlement Can Not Be Reached?

In the event that the parties are unable to arrive at a settlement through the collaborative-law approach, the collaborative lawyers withdraw from the case and the parties are free to retain trial attorneys to pursue their matter in court . The result is that the parties will have had the best representation for each phase of their proceeding.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question: Just what is collaborative law?

Answer: It's having a lawyer in your corner in a divorce situation, with the understanding that s/he is there to support you and work with you and your family in addressing the divorce issues, but with the further understanding that the lawyer will not participate in contested court proceedings.

Question: How does this approach differ from traditional legal divorce proceedings?

Answer: The "bottom line" in divorce work is finding a way for the parties to reach agreement on all relevant issues--legal, emotional, financial, perhaps even spiritual. To accomplish that, in collaborative law the parties and their attorneys work toward agreement before either party has been served with divorce papers, rather than invoking the adversarial arena of the court system just when the parties are working to reach agreement.

Question: The divorce stereotype is one in which there is lots of fighting and attacking. Does that have to happen?

Answer: No. While it is true that the "War of the Roses" scenario is often the reality in traditional divorce proceedings, it is not invariably the case. Many people have stayed away from lawyers altogether because they do not desire such conflict.

However, in the collaborative law approach, the lawyers and their clients are can choose (or learn) to work a different way--to leave any anger and resentments at the door and come to the arena with at least some spirit of cooperation and motivation to work things out. As collaborative lawyers ask: "how can we work together to help these people reorganize their family in a humane way, and arrive at a fair settlement and get on with their lives?"

Question: How do you assemble the necessary information to proceed?

Answer: The first step is to determine what the parties have (such as assets and income) using an informal, trust based "share and verify" approach. This is on improvement on the usual expensive and divisive expensive legal procedures to get this information. That is, the parties are asked to disclose this information voluntarily and to verify it with documentation and tax returns. If experts are needed the choice is an agreed one.

Of course, some couples have already done this when they seek legal advice, but there are often aspects of the divorce which they cannot know as lay people, such as tax consequences, and how far back support payments can be backdated, and the like.

Question: How is this done?

Answer: Our usual method is in the form what are known as "4-way conferences" -- the parties and their collaborative lawyers (and sometimes other professionals) sit around a table and discuss the issues and seek ways to create or arrive at agreement. We put the issue we're working on in the center of the table, and we also put any and all possible solutions in the center as well. All parties focus on ways to resolve it---rather than seeing the other party as the problem (or the solution!) and attacking--which really has never worked very well..

Question: How can you get the two parties together in the same room? Isn't it tense?

Answer: In most cases it works wonderfully--far better than you might expect. (In an adversarial divorce practice, attorneys tend to resist the idea of getting the parties together. Instead, they would bring motions to have the Court "solve" the problems).

When a problem comes up in this method, a collaborative lawyer's first thought is "We'll get together and work this out!" Perhaps due to this focus, something extraordinary often happens in the 4-way process. This is hard to picture until you have seen it, but a "shift" often takes place in the dynamics in the room, once the adversarial viewpoint fades. Parties start seeing things more from their spouse's position. (This is similar to Aikido in its approach- rather than the oppositional single response, 180 degrees of possibilities are present in the situation.)

One example: in one such case in Minnesota, the husband was looking at the wife's budget sheet and he said "You're not going to have enough money, I need to give you an extra $200 per month." The wife thought a minute and said "I think I'm supposed to say that." This generated some laughter, as well as an improved financial arrangement!

Question: Why is this so different from mediation or "combat lite" (same process, less intensity) approaches to settlement?

Answer: Stu Webb states: We believe [it is] in the importance of "setting a tone" in the conference room--keeping a good energy or feeling, with everyone monitoring it to the best of their abilities. A clean "energy" [or mindset] results in good decisions, a negative energy creates (or reflects) and perpetuates a climate of tension and dissent." Another way to say this, in collaborative law we don't "ignore the elephant in the room." Feelings are addressed-- and can be altered/improved, even healed-- for the benefit of all.

Collaborative lawyers in this context perform a valuable function in "modeling" appropriate behavior, rather than picking up on, aligning with, and/or magnifying negative client emotional response. (Of course, it might be the client doing the modeling and the lawyer who is "caught up.")

In addition, the determination and intent of collaborative lawyers to remain in the realm of creating rather than destroying makes a world of difference to both process and result.

Question: When the parties reach agreement through collaborative law, what's the next step?

Answer: The next step is for one of the parties' lawyers to draft legal documents to convert their informal agreements into legally binding ones which are then submitted to the Court for approval, usually without any Court hearing.

Question: What happens if settlement is not reached?

Answer: If the parties cannot reach settlement with the help of their collaborative lawyers, there may be an exploration of whether they may want to try an alternative way to resolve their matter. If not, then their collaborative lawyers would withdraw and the parties would proceed to obtain attorneys to prepare the matter for trial.

Question: Isn't it duplicative to have non-trial lawyers and then possibly having to hire trial attorneys as well?

Answer: It does seem that way, out of context , but in actuality it is not. The context is that we lawyers, by training and instinct, are trial and litigation (court) oriented. Even though we say we try to settle all our cases, we tend to be habituated to court proceedings. Once in the court "pipeline", time and costs--and stress--escalate. That is the nature of formal combat -- which is what legal proceedings are modeled on, and replaced.

This was a situation which created the original impetus for Collaborative Law. The lawyer hired as a collaborative lawyer for a matter then, by definition, cannot go to adversarial court proceedings in that matter.

By choosing collaboration over litigation, s/he then is permitted (or obliged!) to become a resolution specialist. The trial lawyer is a trial specialist. The parties who have had to engage collaborative lawyers for settlement and trial lawyers for trial have, at a minimum, had the best of both approaches.

Question: Who should retain collaborative lawyers?

Answer: We're biased, of course, but we feel that any person approaching a divorce situation should talk with a collaborative lawyer to get an assessment of his or her situation with respect to the prognosis for settlement. The earlier this is done the more chance there is for the other party to be oriented toward a settlement approach.

If settlement is the aim, then a collaborative lawyer can be a coach to guide you through that process or any other alternate dispute resolution approach, such as meditation. No matter what settlement approach is chosen, a collaborative lawyer is a valuable ally.

Question: What is the history of Collaborative Law?

Answer: Collaborative law was invented in Minnesota. It was started in 1990 in the Twin Cities' area with an initial group of four family-law lawyers. Since then, it has spread to Texas, Northern California, and the San Fernando Valley, and now Southern California/Orange County.

Question: What would a pioneer collaborative lawyer say in summary?

Answer: Stu Webb says "Collaborative law is a simple concept, yet profound. That's the best kind of concept: simple and profound. We're pleased that Collaborative Law is alive and well and growing from Minnesota to all parts of the nation".