DATE DOWNLOADED: Wed Jul 8 13:34:03 2020

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 20th ed.

Stu Webb, Collaborative Law: A Practitioner's Perspective on Its History and Current
Practice, 21 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law. 155 (2008).

ALWD 6th ed.

Stu Webb, Collaborative Law: A Practitioner's Perspective on Its History and Current
Practice, 21 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law. 155 (2008).

APA 7th ed.

Webb, S. (2008). Collaborative law: practitioner's perspective on its history and
current practice. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 21(1),
155-170.

Chicago 7th ed.

Stu Webb, "Collaborative Law: A Practitioner's Perspective on Its History and Current
Practice," Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 21, no. 1 (2008):
155-170

McGill Guide 9th ed.

Stu Webb, "Collaborative Law: A Practitioner's Perspective on Its History and Current
Practice" (2008) 21:1 J of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lyers 155.

MLA 8th ed.

Webb, Stu. "Collaborative Law: A Practitioner's Perspective on Its History and
Current Practice." Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, vol. 21,
no. 1, 2008, p. 155-170. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

Stu Webb, 'Collaborative Law: A Practitioner's Perspective on Its History and Current
Practice' (2008) 21 J Am Acad Matrimonial Law 155

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your license, please use:
Copyright Information
Vol. 21, 2008 CollaborativeLaw

Note,
COLLABORATIVE LAW: A
PRACTITIONER'S PERSPECTIVE ON ITS
HISTORY AND CURRENT PRACTICE
by
Stu Webb*

I offer my personal recollection of the creation and develop-

ment of collaborative law. For further information on collabora-
tive law, see my book " The Collaborative Way to Divorce
written with Ron Ousky. 1

I. Definition
Collaborative law is a method of practicing law in which at-
torneys assist their clients in resolving conflict and making agree-
ments using cooperative strategies rather than litigation.
Collaborative law clients may elect to disqualify their collabora-
tive attorneys from participating in any ensuing adversarial
2
proceedings.

II. History and Development

A. Personal Experiences
How did the collaborative-law concept come about? In the
late 1980's, after practicing traditional civil law for eight years

* Mr. Webb practices in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

1 STUART WEBB & RON OUSKY, THE COLLABORATIVE WAY TO Di-
VORCE (Hudson Street Press 2006).
2 For other works on collaborative lawyering, see, e.g., RICHARD W.
SHIELDS, ET AL., COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAW: ANOTHER WAY TO RESOLVE
FAMILY DISPUTES (2003); PAULINE H. TESLER, COLLABORATIVE LAW:
ACHIEVING EFFECTIVE RESOLUTION IN DIVORCE WITHOUT LITIGATION
(2001); Gay G. Cox & Robert J. Matlock, The Case for Collaborative Law, 11
TEX. WESLEYAN L. REV. 45 (2004); James K.L. Lawrence, CollaborativeLawy-
ering: A New Development in Conflict Resolution, 17 OHIO ST. J. ON DIsP.
RESOL. 431 (2002); Elizabeth K. Strickland, Putting "Counselor" Back in the
Lawyer's Job Description: Why More States Should Adopt Collaborative Law
Statutes, 84 N.C. L. REV. 979 (2006); Pauline H. Tesler, Collaborative Law: A
New Paradigmfor Divorce Lawyers, 5 PSYCHOL. PUB. POL'Y & L. 967 (1999).
156 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

and family law for an additional seventeen years, I was approach-

ing burn-out. I had come to hate the adversarial nature of my
practice and hated to go to work. It was becoming harder and
harder to tolerate family practice. Incivility seemed on the in-
crease rather than the decrease. I was prepared to stop practic-
ing law. In preparation to change careers, I began started taking
psychology courses at a local university. It did not take too many
courses to convince me that my future did not lie in becoming a
psychologist. So then I started thinking: Rather than stop prac-
ticing law, maybe I could continue my family law practice by de-
veloping a model that would allow me to do those parts of my
practice I enjoyed and eliminate the parts I did not like. I felt
that there had to be a better way to help people resolve their
divorcing issues. I developed the insight that lawyers needed to
be working with and representing clients for settlement. I saw
and respected the efforts of many litigating lawyers to "try to
settle all their cases." My personal experience was attempts to
settle cases in the context of an adversarial atmosphere were
often clouded by the litigation. In addition, litigation settlement
often had strong adversarial position overtones. I started experi-
menting with different ways to work with divorcing couples.
From the experiments I tried, the most promising model was one
in which the role of settlement lawyers was created. Working
with this model convinced me that if a case turned adversarial,
the settlement lawyers needed to withdraw from the case and
turn it over to trial attorneys. The solicitor and barrister model
from England is loosely analogous.
I observed that most family law lawyers find themselves in
settlement conferences with opposing counsel and clients where
the climate of positive energy encouraged the development of
creative settlement alternatives. In that context, everyone con-
tributed to a final settlement that satisfied all concerned-and
everyone left the conference feeling high energy and with good
feelings. When such parties made such a settlement, the potential
for future litigation was significantly reduced. The lawyers in
such cases developed a degree of trust that might make future
dealings between them more productive. So I asked, "Why not
create this settlement climate deliberately by creating a process
for settling family law matters by, where possible, removing the
trial aspects and creating a coterie of lawyers who would agree to
Vol. 21, 2008 Collaborative Law

take cases only for settlement. I saw the possibility of creating a

settlement specialty bar consisting of lawyers who would take
cases only for settlement.
I termed this new process "collaborative law" and on Janu-
ary 1, 1990, I declared myself a collaborative lawyer. There was a
slight glitch: there were no other collaborative lawyers! I sent a
letter to a small number of family-law lawyers in Minneapolis
inviting them to "play the collaborative game." The response
was gratifying and collaborative law became a reality. Over time,
word spread (by attraction rather than promotion) and the col-
laborative approach began to catch on. Along the way the collab-
orative team approach was developed to add, on an as needed
basis, neutral financial specialists, neutral child specialists, and
3
mental health coaches as discussed later in this article. Cur-
rently collaborative practice is alive and well in at least 40 states,
all the Canadian providences, Austria, Australia, Ireland, North-
ern Ireland, Scotland and Britain. 4 It is estimated that there are
5 '
8,000 to 9,000 collaborative practitioners at the present time. "

B. Advantages of CollaborativePractice
Some of the advantages of the collaborative-law model are:
1. Each party is represented by an attorney of his/her choice
who is dedicated to settlement.
2. The attorneys and clients focus on settlement without the
threat of "going to court" lurking.
3. With the focus on settlement and avoiding court, the law-
yers and clients are motivated to learn what works to achieve
settlement, e.g., how to problem-solve without getting "plugged
in" to negative emotions ("I'll see you in court!") that escalate
conflict.
4. Collaborative lawyers are motivated to develop win-win
settlement skills such as those practiced in mediation.
5. Lawyers focus on analysis, problem-solving, creating alter-
natives, tax and estate planning and best interests of the parties
and their families.

3 See infra text at Part IV.C.

4 See generally International Academy of Collaborative Professionals,
www.collaborativepractice.com (last visited Oct. 13, 2006).
5 Author's estimate.
158 Journal of the American Academy of MatrimonialLawyers

6. Four-way conferences become the norm with positive en-

ergies being generated as all work for a fair settlement.
6
7. Clients are encouraged to fully participate.
7. Neutral experts such as child specialists, financial special-
ists and mental health coaches are available to help achieve
settlement.

III. Training of Settlement Lawyers

The key to successful collaborative cases is the collaborative
lawyer. It's a 180 degree shift for lawyers and clients to change
from "settlement/litigation" to settlement only. Collaborative
lawyers call this a "paradigm shift" because all negotiations are
for settlement and none are for litigation. 7 As the collaborative
process is "client settlement centered", lawyers assume a position
in support of the clients. Collaborative lawyers provide support
for settlement, clearing miscommunications and keeping the cli-
mate as open as possible for productive conversation.
In my experience, attorneys with mediation experience have
an easier time working collaboratively compared to lawyers with-
out mediation training. Mediation is also a client-centered pro-
cess. Like mediation, collaborative law stresses interest-based
negotiations and helping clients articulate their interests and
goals.
In a recent edition of the InternationalAlliance of Collabo-
rative Professional Reviews, I listed some aspects of successful
collaborative "lawyering":
* Subvert, if not totally abandoning the urge to litigate.
* Guarding against adversarial instincts. One adversarial
statement can subvert 20 collaborative ones.
* Maintaining an outlook of total unconditional respect to
all the participants.
" Dispelling negativism.
" Listening with understanding and can respond
appropriately.
6 At times this can result in lawyers not telling the stories that their cli-
ents want to tell. Binny Miller, Telling Stories About Cases and Clients: The
Ethics of Narrative, 14 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 1 (2000).
7 See, e.g., P. Oswin Chrisman, et al., CollaborativePractice Mediation:
Are We Ready to Serve This Emerging Market?, 6 PEPP. Dis,. RESOL. L.J. 451,
455 (2006).
Vol. 21, 2008 CollaborativeLaw

* Encourage clients to participate fully.

Do not bring elaborate unilateral proposals designed by
him/her to the table.
* Not being the center of attention.
* Keeping an open mind.
* Using metaphors when helpful to explain the process.
* Assist clients in bringing their interests (not positions) to
the table.
* Letting go of personal attachment to the outcome.
* Developing multiple problem solving strategies.
• Using natural sense of honesty and integrity to the
process.
The list is endless. Every reader of this note could add to
the list. That is one of the beauties of collaborative law- col-
laboration creates collaboration.

IV. The Collaborative Method

In general the collaborative law process works as follows:

A. Conference with Prospective Client

Since many prospective clients are not familiar with collabo-
rative law-or other alternative methods of dispute resolution-I
spend time with prospective clients "re-framing" the divorce pro-
cess. The goal of the divorce process for me is to find ways for
the parties achieve agreement on their divorce issues. I furnish a
general list of such issues in an attempt to take the mystery out of
the process.
I spend time with prospective clients reviewing all the differ-
ent methods for achieving a divorce and the review includes liti-
gation. I do a "triage" to determine if the prospective client
seems appropriate for collaboration. Primarily this is a measure
of the party's willingness to be an active participant in the collab-
orative process and be committed to the process. Our recent
book, The Collaborative Way to Divorce, contains a test that
gives an indication of amenability to the collaborative process.,
When the party seems to want "someone else" to make decisions
or the situation does not otherwise seem to lend itself to collabo-
ration, I refer the prospective client to other lawyers.

8 WEBB & OUSKY, supra note 1, at 34-60.

160 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

If the prospective client is interesting in pursuing a collabo-

rative approach, I explore how s/he might interest the other in
the process. For a case to be collaborative, each party needs rep-
resentation by a collaborative lawyer. I provide prospective cli-
ents with brochures and other educational materials for their
spouse and generally obtain an enthusiastic response-but some-
times what one spouse embraces, the other rejects. Collaborative
law Web sites are increasing in number and a good source to re-
fer clients for more information and for information to give to
their spouse. Giving the spouse a copy of our book is another
option. I have had some success sending a letter to the spouse
explaining that I have been contacted by his or her spouse, ex-
plaining the process and inviting the spouse to consider engaging
a collaborative attorney.

1. Retainer
For me an essential feature of collaborative practice is com-
pliance with the ethical codes of most jurisdictions, he/she must
enter into an agreement with the client "limiting the lawyer's
representation." This agreement is normally a part of the collab-
orative lawyer's retainer agreement which specifies if the attor-
ney will be disqualified from representing the client in court if
adversarial procedures appear imminent. Getting the client's
written, informed consent is essential.

2. Lawyer Contact
When both spouses have retained collaborative lawyers, the
retained lawyers contact each other, start to accumulate the cli-
ents' information and documents, begin sketching an agenda for
the first four-way meeting and scheduling a meeting date if
possible.

3. ParticipationAgreement
The other essential process document to be agreed upon and
entered into by the parties and their lawyers is the Participation
Agreement. This document is carefully reviewed by the clients
and attorneys and signed at the first four-way meeting. The
agreement sets out the rules and protocols that will govern the
way the settlement process is to proceed.
Our Participation Agreement covers the following topics:
Vol 21, 2008 Collaborative Law

1. Agreement to Collaborate
2. Bases for Collaboration
3. Agreement Not to Go to Court
4. Agreement of Full Disclosure
5. Utilization of Settlement Conferences
6. Communication Issues
7. Commitment to Use Collaborative Process
8. Role of Attorneys
9. Attorneys Fees
10. Use of Neutral Experts
11. Children's Issues
12. Negotiation in Good Faith
13. Abuse of Collaborative Law Process
14. Enforceability of Agreements
15. Legal Process and Withdrawal from Process
9
16. Confidentiality

B. Four-Way Conferences

1. PreparingClient for Four-Way

I have a short meeting to prepare my client for the first four-

way conference. During this meeting, I review the Participation
Agreement, describe the informality of the meeting, the physical
appearance of the room and setting and the need for good will
and commitment to the process. I explain that we can communi-
cate around the table in every possible way, and that we stay out
of past events and focus on the present and future. I state that we
need the client to actively participate in the process.

9 See Krista Riddick Rogers, Comment, Promoting a Paradigm of Col-

laborationin an Adversarial Legal System: An Integrated Problem Solving Per-
spective for Shifting Prevailing Attitudes from Competition to Cooperation
Within the Legal Profession, 6 BARRY L. REV. 137 (2006); Larry R. Spain, Col-
laborative Law: A Critical Reflection on Whether a Collaborative Orientation
Can Be Ethically Incorporatedinto the Practiceof Law, 56 BAYLOR L. REV. 141
(2004). See also Sherri Goren Slovin, The CollaborativeProcess: Divorce With
Dignity, 16 EXPERIENCE 13, 13 (Spring 2006) ("Three states have rendered
opinions regarding the ethical considerations and CP, and each has determined
that CP does not violate a lawyer's ethical obligation, so long as certain criteria
are met.").
162 Journal of the American Academy of MatrimonialLawyers

2. First Four-Way
One of the great lessons from working with the collaborative
process is the power that comes from getting the interested par-
ties together in one room in a non-adversarial context. While
this is not the normal practice in adversarial settings, the ability
to solve problems in a group setting can be dramatic. When dis-
solution proceedings commence spouses often feel fearful.
Sources of that fear are misunderstandings and poor communica-
tion. Fear often leads parties to court. Addressing fears and
concerns at the first collaborative four-way meeting can reduce
fear. Reducing the "fear factor", helps parties negotiate
settlement.
Four-way meetings are informal and generally last about two
hours. Subsequent meetings are scheduled normally at two week
intervals until settlement is reached.
The settlement work in the four-way setting is often "bor-
rowed" from mediation such as interest-based negotiation tech-
niques.10 Distributive negotiations occur. Collaborative lawyers
are encouraged and motivated to learn ways of work with clients.
Assuming the collaborative lawyers have made the collaborative
"shift', the tone and positive feeling in the conference room is the
single most important factor in achieving settlement.
The collaborative lawyers have developed rules of conduct
in working with each other cooperatively. One practice is cor-
recting each other's mathematical mistakes and other errors.
This aids in developing trust. Examples of rules that facilitate the
collaborative process include,
Attorneys do not deceive or intentionally mislead
Welfare of children is paramount
Attorneys explore reconciliation
Attorneys do not to threaten to withdraw from the collabo-
rative process for tactical reasons
Attorneys do not impair the neutrality of experts
Attorneys respect other dispute resolution approaches. 1

10 See, e.g., ROGER FISHER ET AL., GETTING TO YES: NEGOTIATING

AGREEMENT WITHOUT GIVING IN (2d ed. 1981); Carrie Menkel-Meadow, To-
ward Another View of Legal Negotiation: The Structure of Problem Solving, 31
UCLA L. REV. 754 (1984).
11 Rules of Conduct for Members of the Collaborative Law Institute.
Vol. 21, 2008 Collaborative Law

C. Neutral Experts
Neutral experts are important in collaborative cases. When
we need expert opinions to supply information or an informal
opinion, we ask the parties to agree on one expert - an expert
with no "axe to grind" and no interest in favoring one party or
the other. Where appropriate the expert attends a four-way ses-
sion, presents his or her opinion or report, and answers questions
by the clients and the attorneys.

D. Impasses
It is estimated that 90-plus percent of all collaborative case
settle without the need for adversarial proceedings. 12 Sometimes
the parties reach apparent impasse on an issue and it appears
that the collaborative process will end. At such junctures, parties
and attorneys get together and brainstorm impasse solutions.
The parties might bring in a mediator for a five-way conference
to add new energy to the process. They might bring in an arbitra-
tor to advise on eve decide an issue. Options for eliminating im-
passe are limited only by the imagination of the parties and
lawyers.
In his book Beyond Winning, Robert H. Mnookin addressed
the motivation present in the collaborative process to avoid im-
passe: "[T]his system creates powerful incentives to search for a
reasonable solution without litigation. Each lawyer knows that
he cannot profit from the use of litigation; and each client knows
that litigation will impose the extra cost of hiring and educating
'13
new counsel.

1. Resolution
The parties continue to meet with their attorneys in the four-
way configuration at scheduled intervals until complete settle-
ment is reached. At that point, the parties decide which of their
attorneys will draft the necessary legal documents required to
submit the matter for court approved. These documents are re-
viewed, edited, finally approved by the clients and their attor-
neys and submitted to the court.

12 International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. Collaborative

Practice Survey Data, 10/15/0 through 12/31/07.
13 ROBERT H. MNOOKIN, BEYOND WINNING 319 (2000).
164 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

2. Closure
The conciliatory nature of the collaborative process opens
the way for the parties to consider some act, ceremony or ac-
knowledgment that might assist in bringing closure to the pro-
cess. Some parties bring to the final meeting champagne or a
fancy fruit juice to share, other parties choose their private ways
to bring closure to the process.

3. Impact on the Courts

While it is difficult in most large jurisdictions to measure the
impact of collaborative law on the judicial system, collaborative
lawyers in some of the smaller communities have been able to
measure their effect. For example, Medicine Hat, Alberta, Ca-
nada is a community of about 50,000. There are about 17 family
law lawyers in Medicine Hat. Several years ago, 16 of those law-
yers took collaborative law training and began to change the way
they practiced law from adversarial to collaborative. Within a
year, most of the dissolution cases in that community were col-
laborative and the court motion calendar showed decreases from
approximately twenty cases to two! One family law judge has
14
been reassigned to another court.

4. What Happens If Settlement Cannot Be Reached?

As stated earlier, if the parties are unable to arrive at a set-
tlement through the collaborative process, the collaborative law-
yers withdraw from the case and the parties retain trial attorneys
to pursue the matter in court. 15 The settlement negotiations be-
tween the parties in collaboration are not by the parties' agree-
ment not admissible at trial and the tentative "agreement"
reached in collaboration would not be enforceable nor admissi-
ble as evidence in court, unless both parties agreed to so stipulate
in the court proceedings.

14 See Terri Perrin, The Best Place to Get Divorced in Canada, CANADIAN
LIVING, June 2000, at 10.
15 Pauline H. Tesler, CollaborativeLaw: A New Approach to Family Law
ADR, CONFLICr MGMT., Summer 1996, at 12, 13 ("In the collaborative law pro-
cess, the parties agree that no one will threaten litigation to coerce com-
promises, and if either party does resort to the courts for dispute resolution,
both lawyers are automatically disqualified from further representation of ei-
ther of them against the other.").
Vol. 21, 2008 CollaborativeLaw

5. Collaborative Divorce-A Team Approach

The collaborative law process can expand with the addition
of non-lawyers professionals who provide an integrated, cross-
disciplinary system that enhances the process. Non-attorney
professionals most often added to the collaborative process are a
licensed mental health professional for each spouse, (usually psy-
chologists, licensed clinical social workers or family systems
councilors), a neutral child specialist (typically a licensed psy-
chologist) and a neutral financial specialist. Clients may choose
any or all of these professionals to work with them and their col-
laborative lawyers.
Mental health professionals function as coaches, not ther-
apists. Coaches work with the clients to quell or re-direct emo-
tional forces that can drive the parties' conflict. This is a
valuable service since it frees the lawyers to address the legal
concerns with reduced emotional overlay. Coaches assess the
personality dynamics of the clients and help clients prioritize
their concerns. They work to reduce the clients' personal stress
by, among other techniques, teaching stress reduction tech-
niques. In short, they serve the clients' emotional needs from the
standpoint of better preparing them to be able to work on their
legal issues in 4-way meetings with their attorneys.
Child specialist. We all know what short shrift the children
of divorcing parents experience from the normal divorce pro-
cess. 16 The child specialist's role is to be concerned with the
child's development, temperament and relationship to family
members. The specialist assesses the child's reactions to family
changes, her worries, hopes, fears and expressed needs. Feed-
back about the children and their needs is presented by the child
specialist to the parents at one of their four-way meetings with
the coaches.
Financial specialist. Generally, on financial advisor pro-
vides neutral financial expertise to both parties. The specialist
helps the couple collect and organize the financial data needed
for the divorce process and in developing realistic budgets.

16 JUDITH WALLERSTEIN ET AL., THE UNEXPECTED LEGACY OF Di-

VORCE: A 25 YEAR LANDMARK STUDY 188-90 (2000); Stephen J. Bahr, Social
Science Research on Family Dissolution: What It Shows and How It Might Be of
Interest to Family Law Reformers, 4 J.L. & FAM. STUD. 5 (2002).
166 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

Often one of the parties needs additional assistance in under-

standing financial concerns.
Case manager. This is a separate function, but not a sepa-
rate team member. One of the coaches is asked to fill this role,
which is to be the spark plug or catalyst/coordinator that keeps
the team on tract and accountable.
While team members and their functions have been de-
scribed separately, it should be emphasized that this is a team-
a team that includes the clients as well-whose purpose is to help
the divorcing couple restructure from a single family system into
17
a two family system.
Non-attorney professionals can also be retained "piecemeal"
by the parties. For example, the parties may choose just to work
with a neutral financial specialist or a child specialist.
In the team approach to collaborative law, the lawyers func-
tion as they would in any collaborative case, except efforts are
enhanced by the input from the other professionals. They are
still the responsible for working with the clients and to create
together, the documents needed to finalize the clients' divorce.

E. Team Building
With both collaborative law and collaborative divorce, one
of the side benefits to the professionals is the camaraderie of par-
ticipating with like-minded practitioners. In my prior litigation
practice, I did not enjoy associating with my fellow attorneys who
I generally perceived as adversaries. Now, however, the collabo-
rative practitioners meet several times a month to exchange
views, discuss practice issues and relate socially. The financial
and mental health professionals add new, but equally valid, ways
we lawyers have traditionally looked at issues.

1. Organizations
Some collaborative groups are organized by states, others
are individually autonomous. The international umbrella organi-
zation is the International Academy of Collaborative Practition-
ers (IACP). Its website lists all the individual practice groups
and all the collaborative practitioners who are members of the

17 For further information on collaborative divorce, see PAULINE TESLER

& PEGGY THOMPSON, Collaborative Divorce (Regan Books 2006).
Vol 21, 2008 Collaborative Law

Academy. 18 IACP publishes a quality review on a quarterly basis

and hosts an annual gathering in the fall of each year.

2. CollaborativeApproaches in Civil Practice

Collaborative law has been presented here in the context of
family law, as that is the field in which it originated and from
which it developed. Collaborative lawyers are making strong ef-
forts to establish the practice in a variety of civil areas including
employment discrimination, probate disputes, parent issues, war-
ranty issues, corporate disputes, contract issues, construction dis-
putes, consumer rights and environmental issues and landlord/
tenant issues. 19

3. Training
The best way for practitioners in a location to get started
with collaborative law, is to gather up to 20 attorneys from the
same geographical area and invite a trainer to provide a one or
two day training program. There are several dozen qualified
trainers. Information on collaborative law training is available
20
from IACP.

F. Common Questions
Several issues arise among family-law lawyers concerning
collaborative law and how it functions:
Isn't what collaborative lawyers do, just what all good family
law lawyers do?
The answer is "yes" if we're looking at the results, i.e., that
both groups tend to settle most of their cases. The difference is
in how cases settle. The shift that takes place in the conduct of
collaborative lawyers and clients when the threat/fear of going to
court is removed is remarkable. In my twenty year experience as
a traditional family law attorney, settlement was usually achieved
through the lawyers with traditional negotiation techniques ac-

18 International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, www.collabora-

tivepractice.com (last visited Oct. 13, 2006).
19 See, e.g., William H. Schwab, CollaborativeLawyering: A Closer Look
at an Emerging Practice,4 PEPP. Disp. RESOL. L.J. 351, 354 (2004); Pauline H.
Tesler, Collaborative Law Neutrals Produce Better Resolutions, 21 ALTERNA-
TIVES TO HIGH COST LITIG. 1, 14 (Jan. 2003).
20 See supra note 19.
168 Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers

companied by an adversarial tone and seldom in client face-to-

face meetings. In the collaborative process clients and lawyers
are more relaxed and in higher states of well-being and make
better decisions for themselves and their families.
Why disqualify the attorneys after they and the clients have
formed a productive alliance?
In my view, the disqualification requirement is the engine
that drives collaborative law. The disqualification provision pro-
vides the positive settlement tone and a check on the lawyers'
mind-set and activities. Disqualification requires the lawyers to
act differently. They don't have to be concerned about trial strat-
egies. Without the disqualification rule, the behavior of the law-
yer is likely to be influenced by our trial/court instincts. How
many time have we all heard "See you in court!" as almost an
instinctive litigation response even in preliminary negotiations?
What occurs if the attorneys are not disqualified and do well
in the settlement phase but settlement falls apart, and the parties
go to court. If the settlement lawyer is engaged in a trial matter,
he/she was not totally available for settlement work. Also that
engagement with another collaborative lawyer in a trial setting
could affect their relationship and trust levels in subsequent col-
laborative cases. Ironically, this type of experience was signifi-
cant in the development of the collaborative law concept. In my
initial experimenting with different family-law models, I worked
for a time with a model where two traditional lawyers sought to
help clients in four-way configurations achieve settlement. The
model worked quite well (but not with collaborative understand-
ing) until we got a case that not only fell apart, but fell apart in
spades, with the parties engaging in inappropriate behaviors. At
that point there was no disqualification rule and we took that
case to a bitter and painful conclusion. The dynamics destroyed
my relationship with the other attorney. That experience was the
birth of the disqualification requirement that is the sine qua non
of collaborative law! The settlement lawyer has no motivation or
mind set to remove the case to litigation. The attorney's only
goal is to help the parties achieve settlement in a positive
framework.
Of course, lawyers are free to practice developing their own
models, but are urged to call non-disqualification cases some-
thing other than collaborative law.
Vol. 21, 2008 CollaborativeLaw 169

V. Conclusion
Collaborative law is both a simple and a profound concept:
simple in its basic structure and profound in its effect and impli-
cations. Collaborative law has the potential to transform the way
legal disputes are handled and not just in family law matters. It
can and does also transform the quality of a lawyer's practice. I
can testify to the fact that it has also transformed the quality of
my life!