The Skeptic and Collaborative Law 

One can envision the following discussion between the skeptic (“S”) and the Collaborative Lawyer (“C”): 

S: -Why is a formal association required in order to practice law collaboratively?

 C:-Individual lawyers can apply collaborative practices effectively in any case.  However, as Chip Rose would say, “there is an exponential increase in value and effectiveness that comes from a community of attorneys forming an organized association of collaborative professionals and training together to develop their own protocols of practice and codes of conduct.”[1]

 S: -What assurance can be provided that the other party will provide complete disclosure in a collaborative setting?

C: -What assurance of full disclosure can be provided in the litigation model?  In Collaborative Law counsel can proceed with confidence that the opposite lawyer will have ensured that the other client agrees to negotiate in a principled fashion, which includes a commitment to provide full disclosure.  A Collaborative Lawyer will not tolerate dishonesty or lack of principle in a client.

 S: -What assurance is there in a Collaborative Law setting there that the other party will negotiate with the best interests of the children at heart? 

C: -What assurance can be provided that the other party will litigate with the best interests of the children at heart? In Collaborative Law one has the confidence that the opposite lawyer will have ensured that the other client agrees to negotiate in a principled fashion, which includes a commitment to hold paramount the best interests of the children.  No such commitment is required in litigation.  A Collaborative Lawyer will continually focus on the best interests of the children.

 S: -What assurance is there in a Collaborative Law setting that _______ (fill in the blank)? 

C: -What assurance is there in litigation? 

The point is that litigation provides no assurances while having none of the advantages of Collaborative Law.