Imagine...A Collaborative Approach to Divorce. Divorce doesn't have to be about arguing, fighting and long legal battles anymore. There is a collaborative approach.
United States of America (Press Release) December 4, 2007 --
There is a movement in family law whereby divorcing couples can sign agreements with lawyers to not go to court. More specifically, the process is known as Collaborative Family Law (CFL) and the agreement to not go to court is binding upon the lawyers, not the couple. If one or both clients are unsatisfied, either may still march the dispute to court. They will however have to find new lawyers.
At heart, the CFL process seeks to develop consensus between the parties for a mutually acceptable settlement. The settlement can include the division of assets, spousal or child support and/or the ongoing care of children.
In traditional dispute scenarios both parties retain their own financial advisor and may be subject to a custody/access assessment. The results from financial planners may vary and in such cases, the dispute then widens to include the experts. The recommendations of the assessor may not reflect the position of either or both parties and hence their involvement may fall to conflict as well. Often, other third parties are drawn into the dispute as well.
In the CFL process, while the couple retains separate collaboratively trained lawyers, they then retain a single financial advisor and/or child expert and/or divorce coaches who form a team with the lawyers and clients. The financial advisor, child expert and divorce coaches act as consultants within a team framework. Because each party has their own lawyer though, they are assured their respective legal rights are preserved. Certainly the disposition of the lawyers is one of settlement as litigation is openly off the table. The risk of conflict is reduced in favour of improving the probability of settlement.
At issue to some persons considering CFL, is concern that they may be forced to capitulate or acquiesce on matters of importance or safety.
Firstly, no party is to be forced to agree to anything. That is why they both retain separate counsel; to protect legal rights and assure a process that addresses mutual concerns.
Secondly, either party can table contentious issues and even treatment issues. The objective is not to capitulate, but to address all issues forthrightly and develop plans to genuinely mitigate concerns.
The actual CFL process occurs in four-way meetings (clients and lawyers) and can be expanded to include the financial planner, child expert or any other consultant for that matter. Depending on the style of CFL, ancillary experts may automatically form part of the team. Various jurisdictions have developed some unique differences in approach while all the while adhering to the basic premise of reaching a settlement without the threat of litigation.
At heart, the CFL process seeks to develop consensus between the parties for a mutually acceptable settlement. The settlement can include the division of assets, spousal or child support and/or the ongoing care of children.
In traditional dispute scenarios both parties retain their own financial advisor and may be subject to a custody/access assessment. The results from financial planners may vary and in such cases, the dispute then widens to include the experts. The recommendations of the assessor may not reflect the position of either or both parties and hence their involvement may fall to conflict as well. Often, other third parties are drawn into the dispute as well.
In the CFL process, while the couple retains separate collaboratively trained lawyers, they then retain a single financial advisor and/or child expert and/or divorce coaches who form a team with the lawyers and clients. The financial advisor, child expert and divorce coaches act as consultants within a team framework. Because each party has their own lawyer though, they are assured their respective legal rights are preserved. Certainly the disposition of the lawyers is one of settlement as litigation is openly off the table. The risk of conflict is reduced in favour of improving the probability of settlement.
At issue to some persons considering CFL, is concern that they may be forced to capitulate or acquiesce on matters of importance or safety.
Firstly, no party is to be forced to agree to anything. That is why they both retain separate counsel; to protect legal rights and assure a process that addresses mutual concerns.
Secondly, either party can table contentious issues and even treatment issues. The objective is not to capitulate, but to address all issues forthrightly and develop plans to genuinely mitigate concerns.
The actual CFL process occurs in four-way meetings (clients and lawyers) and can be expanded to include the financial planner, child expert or any other consultant for that matter. Depending on the style of CFL, ancillary experts may automatically form part of the team. Various jurisdictions have developed some unique differences in approach while all the while adhering to the basic premise of reaching a settlement without the threat of litigation.
Email
Print
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
