Madonna and Ritchie May Pursue Collaborative Divorce

Interesting article in the London Times online edition edition today, reproduced in full below, regarding the Madonna – Guy Ritchie split up. As I have said before, I usually try to avoind writing about celebrity stories here. But this story I think warrants mention. It had looked like Madonna’s divorce was headed toward being the same sort of donnybrook that Paul McCartney had become embroiled in with Heather Mills. The gloves were off, the snarky comments to the media from “friends” and “confidantes” had started. But it looks like Madonna and Guy have stepped back from the abyss, and intend to pursue a process that is more civil, and will allow them a better chance of moving forward, with their children as a family. I’d like to think that the story would garner great press coverage and be a boon for collaborative practice – of which I am a HUGE advocate. But friendly and civil doesn’t make headlines, and that’s too bad. In any event, here’s the story:

Madonna and Guy Ritchie could be the first high-profile couple to divorce collaborative-style.

The new, fast-track and non-confrontational way of reaching arrangements over money and children on divorce has just won senior judicial backing – in the week that the couple’s split became public knowledge.

Collaborative law does not sound buzzy. But it is the in-method of reaching divorce agreements, with the benefits of speed, huge cost savings and, above all, minimum acrimony.

Last week a couple of hundred lawyers gathered to celebrate the fifth year since American-style collaborative law was introduced in the UK. In 2003, four London lawyers were among a handful who had qualified in the new method; now there are more than 1,250 and more than 300 in London. This year has also seen the appointment of London’s first “collaborative” silk: Tim Amos, QC.

What is it? It aims to help couples reach agreement out of court, avoiding the risk of the public mud-slinging and battles epitomised in the split between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

Settlements are reached in four-way, face-to-face talks between the parties and their lawyers. There is an incentive to agree: if the talks fail, then new lawyers have to be instructed for court proceedings – at extra cost.

The couple draws up a consent order which is then agreed by the court. This process used to take three to four months. But last week , Mr Justice Coleridge, a senior family judge, announced a fast-track procedure whereby such orders could now be approved within a couple of days.

He said that If every aspect of the case had been agreed, and the hearing before a judge for approving the order would not take longer than ten minutes, all that was needed was a day’s notice to the court and a chance for the judge to read the papers overnight.

The fast-track initiative, which has the backing of Sir Mark Potter, president of the Family Division, comes about after an un-named couple had asked for urgent approval of their settlement because one was about to move to the United States with the children.

At first, Mr Justice Coleridge said that he thought the application rather cheeky. But he added: “However, I am, as is well-known, a pussycat, and agreed to hear the application for approval as the first in the list on the following day.”

The key benefits of the new “good divorce” method are that it is non-adversarial; solutions can be tailormade and flexible; clients have control of the pace; experts (accountants, financial advisers, therapists or counsellors) can be brought in and work with the couples; and privacy is preserved.

He did sound one note of caution, however. Lawyers needed to be “acutely sensitive” to the process failing so that “costs are not run up first by one process and then, after the trial has hit the buffers, by the old-fashioned scheme”.

Isobel Robson, partner and head of family at Andrew Jackson, the Yorkshire law firm, said there was a big take-up in the new method.

“I believe that collaborative law is the most exciting development in family law in my 24 years of practice. Clients love it; they regard the process as direct, clear and amicable whilst avoiding the expenses and latent aggression of the court process.”

Cost savings were considerable too, she said. “I have dealt with collaborative cases with assets in the millions and costs of under £10,000 – perhaps only 10 per cent or less of the costs for contest cases with the same assets.”

The take-up among lawyers is still patchy, however, with some hugely successful pockets in the regions where lawyers have embraced the new method, but a slower take-up in other areas, including London.

“The clients embrace the concept that the whole focus of their case is on settling – rather than fighting,” she said.

Suzanne Kingston, head of family at Dawsons LLP, said that for Madonna and Guy Ritchie, the privacy would be a big incentive. The settlement could be reached “in one of the offices of the solicitors rather than in court”.

So it’s down to Fiona Shackleton (for Madonna) and (Lady) Helen Ward, for Ritchie. The couple are said to want a deal by Christmas. Using this route, they could well do it.

Collaborative Law and Mediation: What’s the Difference?

In mediation, there is one “neutral” who helps the disputing parties try to settle their case. The mediator cannot give either party legal advice, and cannot help either side advocate its position. If one side or the other becomes unreasonable or stubborn, or lacks negotiating skill, or is emotionally distraught, the mediation can become unbalanced, and if the mediator tries to deal with the problem, the mediator is often seen by one side or the other as biased, whether or not that is so. If the mediator does not find a way to deal with the problem, the mediation can break down, or the agreement that results can be unfair. If there are attorneys for the parties at all, they may not be present at the negotiation and their advice may come too late to be helpful.Collaborative Law was designed to deal more effectively with all these problems, while maintaining the same absolute commitment to settlement as the sole agenda. Each side has quality legal advice and advocacy built in at all times during the process. Even if one side or the other lacks negotiating skill or financial understanding, or is emotionally upset or angry, the playing field is leveled by the presence of the skilled advocates. It is the job of the lawyers to work with their own clients if the clients are being unreasonable, to make sure that the process stays positive and productive.

Source: DivorceNet.com

Source for post: Oklahoma Family Law Blog

The Collaborative Team

Lawyers and other profesisonals who are involved in collaborative practice often talk about the “collaborative team.” Just what is the “collaborative team?” The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals describes the idea:

The premise of the “collaborative team” is that parties and their chosen professionals act as a problem-solving team rather than as adversaries. A collaborative team can be any combination of professionals that the parties choose to work with to resolve their dispute. It can be just the parties and their collaborative lawyers, which in all cases comprise the Collaborative Law component of Collaborative Practice. It can be the parties, their collaborative attorneys and a financial professional. It can be the parties and divorce coaches, working as a team either before or after the collaborative attorneys are chosen and the legal process begins.

How Does the Collaborative Process Work

As in traditional family law/divorce cases, your lawyer supports only you and your spouse’s lawyer supports only your spouse. In the collaborative process, both lawyers are trained to consider the other parties’ perspective in order to help both of you reach agreements that accomplish the goals of both parties and preserve the welfare of the entire family.

Collaborative practitioners work as part of an inter-disciplinary network of professionals to provide expertise and advice on issues relevant to the ultimate settlement of the case.

Before the process begins, the lawyers and clients formally contract to work together to resolve the issues of the case. Both lawyers contract not to take the case to court. They sign a contract titled ‘Participation Agreement’. In traditional litigation the divorce process begins with the filing of a lawsuit. The collaborative process begins with the signing of the Participation Agreement.

The parties also sign a document ‘Statement of Understanding Among Team Members’. This document contains the commitment of the professionals and the parties to work together as a team with the common goal of resolution of all issues in a way that best meets the needs of all involved.

The collaborative process differs significantly from the traditional litigation process. After both parties have each retained their collaborative lawyer, the lawyers contact one another to ‘triage’ the case. The lawyers immediately begin to address the needs of their clients by discussing their clients’ needs and desires with the other lawyer. The lawyers schedule an initial 4 way meeting which includes both lawyers and both parties. An agenda that outlines the items that will be discussed at the first meeting is sent to both parties. Any pressing issues will be covered in that first meeting, after the required participation agreements are signed.

At the first meeting, the parties will also identify the other professionals with whom they will be working. The other professionals include coaches, a child specialist if children are involved and a single financial neutral.

The collaborative process begins only with the signing of the Participation Agreement and Statement of Understanding by the attorneys and parties at their first 4 way meeting. After that first meeting, depending on the needs and desires of the parties, they may work with their coaches, the child specialist and/or the financial neutral before seeing their attorneys again. In this way, costs are minimized as the professional with the appropriate expertise deals with their particular area. For example, the coaches will help the parties address their communication issues in order to assist them in creating a parenting plan for their children. The child specialist will hear from the children and offer feedback to the coaches and parties to insure that the children’s developmental needs are considered. The financial neutral will gather information from the parties and work with them and the attorneys to craft a financial plan based on a realistic financial picture.

The meetings in the collaborative process promote improved communication and cooperation. The collaborative environment is one that fosters informed analysis and reasoning. In the process, the professionals and parties generate options and create a positive context for settlement. The parties always retain control over their outcome. The commitment to continued cooperation, even if communication becomes difficult, increases the likelihood of a solution that builds a foundation for the future of the family even as the parents begin separate lives.

Ultimately, once all issues are resolved, the attorneys draft a settlement agreement and the pleadings necessary to obtain a divorce. The pleadings are filed jointly and indicate to the court that the parties have reached an agreement through the collaborative process. If possible, the attorneys file a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, a document which allows a Final Judgment and Decree of Divorce to be granted by the court without the necessity of a court appearance. If the court will not grant a final divorce in that manner, one or both of the parties will appear in court for the short amount of time it takes for the court to accept their settlement agreement and grant them a final divorce.

Source for Post: Georgia Family Law Blog

Source: Kansas Divorce and Family Law Lawyer

Settlements, Cooperation and Collaborative Practice

My friend and fellow blogger Grant Griffiths of the Kansas Family and Divorce Lawyer blog recently has the follwing on the use of settlements and mediation in family practice, and the appeal of collaborative law, posted on the resources section of his blog:

A fellow family law blogging friend of mine, James Gross of the Maryland Divorce Legal Crier has a great post today. One that is one sentence long and contains some great content. Here it is:

“A good settlement is where each side gives up 60%.”

James is exactly right. But even more important, the parties in a divorce case should strive for some form of settlement. I have yet to see any client of mine, even when we win everything we want, happy after a divorce trial. Settle the darn thing. Not only is it easier on the husband and wife. When there are children involved, they almost always come out better from a settlement. A divorce trial does not do either side any good. In fact, I usually see both sides coming out damaged in some way.

This is why I am such a firm believer in mediation and now collaborative law. Both, especially collaborative law, strive to come to some form of an agreement. Best of all, you the parties are deciding your case and not the court.

If you don’t or won’t come to an agreement, the judge will for you. And chances are, neither side is going to be happy with the order of the court. Work with your lawyer and your ex-spouse and make every possible effort to settle your case. And remember, “a good settlement is where each side gives up 60%.”

I agree with Grant and James completely.

Source for post: Kansas Family and Divorce Lawyer.

How Does Collaborative Divorce Differ from a Conventional Divorce?

One of the first questions I expect people ask (I know it was my first) is what is the difference between a collaborative divorce and a normal divorce? Isn’t it just really a fancy term for everyone trying to play nice? The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals describes the difference as follows:

In conventional divorce, one spouse sues the other for divorce and sets in motion a series of legal steps. These eventually result in a settlement achieved with the involvement of the court. Unfortunately, spouses going through a conventional divorce can come to view each other as adversaries, and their divorce as a battleground. The ensuing conflicts can take an immense toll on the emotions of all the participants, especially the children.

Collaborative Practice, by definition, is a non-adversarial approach to divorce. The spouses—and their lawyers—pledge in writing not to go to court. They negotiate in good faith, and achieve a mutually-agreed upon settlement outside of court. The cooperative nature of Collaborative Practice can greatly ease the emotional strain caused by the breakup of a relationship, and protect the well-being of children.

Obviously its a little more datiled than that. I’ll be posting more about the collaborative process shortly.

Collaborative Divorce – What Is It?

Collaborative practice is something that I have become very, very interested in, and that I plan to try and integrate into my practice. I largely agree with those who believe that colalborative practice could revolutionize the practice of family law, and that it could be applied, to positive effect, to many more practice areas. If you are not familiar with collaborative practice, you might wonder exactly what people mean when they use that term. The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals offers the following discussion:

Collaborative Practice is a new way for a divorcing couple to work as a team with trained professionals to resolve disputes respectfully, without going to court. The term encompasses all of the models that have been developed since Minnesota lawyer Stu Webb created the Collaborative Law model in the 1980s. This model is at the heart of all of Collaborative Practice. Each client has the support, protection and guidance of his or her own lawyer. The lawyers and the clients together comprise the Collaborative Law component of Collaborative Practice.

While Collaborative lawyers are always a part of Collaboration, some models provide child specialists, financial specialists and divorce coaches as part of the clients’ divorce team. In these models the clients have the option of starting their divorce with the professional with whom they feel most comfortable. Then the clients choose the other professionals they need. Therefore, the clients benefit throughout collaboration from the assistance and support of all of their chosen professionals.

Although Collaborative Practice comes in several models, it is distinguished from traditional litigation by its inviolable core elements. These elements are set out in a contractual commitment among the clients and their chosen collaborative professionals to:

• negotiate a mutually acceptable settlement without using court to decide any issues for the clients
• withdrawal of the professionals if either client goes to court
• engage in open communication and information sharing, and
• create shared solutions that take into account the highest priorities of both clients

There is a lot more good stuff on the IACP website. I will have much more to say about collaborative practice in the days and weeks to come.

Source for Post: The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals website, where this article is posted.

Mediators without borders

Victoria Pynchon at the Settle It Now Bl AR G has a post about a newly launched outfit known as Mediators Without Borders. I strongly urge you to have a look at Victoria’s site, as well as the information on Mediators Without Borders. I am a strong believer in alternative dispute resolution, and these are two fine resources.

Source: Divorce Law Journal

Collaborative divorce – the team approach

My initial training as a lawyer was as a litigator, and for a long time that training colored how I analyzedmy clients legal issues and also impacted the advice that I gave. As family law practice has come to dominate my practice, I have realized that the adversary, litigation oriented way of practice is often, and perhaps most often, not the best for the client. The movement towards collaborative divorce represents a recognition that, where a family is involved, litigation and adversary proceedings may be more salt in the wounds than oil on the water. This article from the newsletter of the Young Lawyers’ Division of the American Bar Association is a pretty good introductory primer on the subject. I expect to post a good bit more on this very important subject in the future.

Source: ABA Young Lawyers’ Division, via Grant Griffiths’ Kansas Family & Divorce Lawyer