Collaborative Law: What You Need to Know Now
Back to Publications
Collaborative Law refers to a method of resolving cases in a way that prohibits court intervention. This movement started about 10 years ago, and is relatively new to Seattle divorce attorneys, Bellevue divorce attorneys, and Washington State family law attorneys in general.
Collaborative Law can be used in a variety of Washington State family law cases, including divorces, legal separations, child support modifications, parenting plan modifications, paternity matters, and relocation cases.
The idea is that parties can preserve some aspect of mutual respect for one another, and parents are better able to co-parent if they can work together as a team in resolving their conflicts, rather than attacking one another in court.
Although MI Attorney, Justin M. Sedell, is a member of the King County and Pierce County Collaborative Law Associations - MI believes it is important that clients understand the pros and cons of using this approach. In short: Buyer Beware.
In theory, the Collaborative Law process sounds like the perfect choice. The reality is, however, that during divorce proceedings and other contested family law cases the parties frequently cannot work together effectively in what is often an emotionally charged environment. They are often unable to agree on what constitutes a fair and reasonable resolution of all issues.
|
The four key principals of Collaborative Law are:
|
|
1.
|
Both parties commit at the outset to resolve all issues by agreement without court intervention, and without threatening court intervention.
|
| 2. |
If either client seeks court intervention at any time, both attorneys must withdraw from representation, and each party must hire a new attorney to represent them.
|
| 3. |
Both parties and the attorneys agree to participate in good faith negotiations, disclosure of all information openly and freely, and interact in a respectful manner.
|
| 4. |
All participants agree that all communications (oral or written) prepared during the Collaborative Law process are inadmissible in any future court proceeding without the express written consent of the participants.
|
We believe that whereas the Collaborative Law method can work in unique circumstances, we also believe it presents many sand traps that an uninformed client could fall into unwittingly.
Moreover, we believe that the fundamental difference between Collaborative Law and traditional law practice is the following: if negotiations don't work - in Collaborative Law you fire your attorney, hire a new attorney who will go to court, and start your case over. In traditional law practice, your case continues with your attorney, the work done up to the point of failed negotiations is preserved, and the court or arbitrator decides unresolved issues. Here are a few more of our concerns:
|
1.
|
There are several options for alternative dispute resolution available in traditional family law practice that, unlike with Collaborative Law, do not require a client to,
a. Prohibit their access to court if needed,
b. Either accept a settlement they feel is unjust, or fire their attorney and start their case over if they do pursue a decision from the court, or
c. Divulge information to the other side that would normally be considered protected and confidential under attorney/client privilege rules.
|
| 2. |
Typical and often required forms of alternative dispute resolution in traditional family law practice include,
a. Mediation,
b. Arbitration, and
c. Settlement Conferences.
|
| 3. |
After many years of representing hundreds of parents in divorce proceedings, we find that although emotions are high while the case is pending, once the case ends and as time passes, parents who are mostly concerned with their children's needs learn to develop mutually cooperative and respectful co-parenting relationships with their ex-spouse.
|
| 4. |
Court appearances can be stressful for everyone and even the attorneys. For some attorneys, family law practice may be less stressful when the attorney knows he or she will not have to go to court in a case. A client may feel the same way. However, we believe that a family law attorney should be able to represent their client at any stage of the case, and a family law client should have access to justice in the event a settlement cannot be reached.
|
| 5. |
Getting divorced can take many months regardless of the method used to resolve the case. After months of developing a relationship with an attorney, fact finding, negotiations, and considerable emotional and financial cost, it seems akin to undue pressure when a client is faced with either accepting a settlement they believe is unjust, or firing their attorney and starting the process anew.
|
| 6. |
In many Collaborative Law cases, a team of professionals is assembled to assist the parties in settlement. These professionals could include property valuators, parenting evaluators, counselors to mediate negotiating behavior, and so on. The process can be expensive. Not unlike traditional family law practice.
|
| 7. |
The very nature of the Collaborative Law method prevents the use of certain litigation styles and strategies. It is critical that a client understand what he or she is giving up by pursuing the Collaborative Law method, and what the long and short term consequences could be as a result.
|
In conclusion, McKinley Irvin offers Collaborative Law representation in family law matters. We believe it can work for some. But we also believe that clients should approach this method with their eyes wide open, after full and complete disclosure of the associated pros and cons.
For more information about McKinley Irvin, or to contact us about
your case, click here.
