Collaborative
Law grew out of a recognition that this process discourages the
often destructive and divisive war created by litigation, while
encouraging creative, time-saving, cost-effective resolution of
issues through the involvement of clients, their attorneys and interdisciplinary
network professionals in the process of settlement.
There
appears to be general agreement among lawyers and clients that the
costs of litigation are out of control. This is perhaps most evident
in the area of family law, where the personal and financial costs
of bitter court fights are staggering. Corporation counsel and the
small business community agree, recognizing that even when they
"win," they lose valuable time, energy and money. The
costs, when measured in lost relationships, lost productivity and
fees, far too often outweigh the gains.
Despite
this recognition, it is still easy to get trapped in our adversarial
reflexes and methods. When negotiations get difficult, when frustration
and perceptions of injustice grow, lawyers and angry clients instinctively
turn to the courts with demands for vindication.
Over
the last decade, lawyers and litigants have been using mediation
to explore options and negotiate settlements with the assistance
of a neutral third party. This development in civil practice has
been positive. Mediators can help by buffering jabs and re-framing
issues to make negotiations easier. However, mediation may be avoided
and, when tensions get high, it can always be abandoned. In addition,
given the role of the mediator as a "neutral" there is
no one to advocate for the weaker party in a dispute in order to
level the playing field.
The
Collaborative Law Standards of Conduct, and Participation Agreements
details how the collaborative lawyers and their clients approach
each other and their disputes with a written commitment not to go
to court or even threaten to go to court. In signing the Participation
Agreement, both lawyers and parties pledge to cooperate in a good
faith effort to appraise and resolve the dispute fairly, and to
voluntarily disclose relevant information. Should one of the parties
insist that its lawyer behave inconsistently with these commitments
the lawyer must withdraw.
Also,
if one party decides to terminate the collaborative process and
initiate court action, the collaborative lawyers all must withdraw
from the case and the clients will have to start over with new litigation
lawyers. The collaborative lawyers will cooperate fully in the transfer
of the case to the litigation counsel. However, from the moment
of an "adversarial" court filing, the collaborative lawyers
(and their firms) are prohibited from receiving any additional fees
from the case. This is the heart and the discipline of Collaborative
Law. Lawyers function as counselors. They use all of their legal
perceptive and advocacy skills to analyze problems and work out
solutions that their clients can accept, without going to court.
Correlatively,
each party makes a formal commitment to find a way to resolve the
despite in a manner that is also acceptable to the other, even if
the process of doing so is difficult.
Collaborative
law may not be for every lawyer or every case. To sign the Participation
Agreement is to cross an intrenched line. Lawyers leave behind the
familiar, unilateral practices of adversarial law and enter into
a new territory. Retreating to the office in a huff to fire off
that inconsequential motion or a new set of interrogatories is not
an option. Techniques to intimidate likely will be counterproductive.
Aggressive
arguments will be less effective than attentive listening. The skills
needed for the effective practice of collaborative law will not
come easily or naturally to everyone. Nor should potential defendants
assume this process will yield them cheap settlements of would-be
lawsuits. Well-represented parties will not throw away their rights
and remedies just to avoid court.
What
parties can realistically hope to do is trade the antagonistic feelings
that result from a hard fought court battle, for a genuine sense
of resolution. They can hope for significant savings in the transaction
costs of litigation. They can expect much greater compliance with
the terms of the collaboratively reached agreement than the terms
of an imposed order. And they can expect a continuing, if not improved
relationship with the other party.
|
|