![https://www.collaborativepractice.com/media/40517/verticalCP_RGB.png][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B9rhW4FWF3IFcHlEbXJlM2lmbGs&revid=0B9rhW4FWF3IFdWZsTEplTE1TZExSdmpteDBXZGJWc01namJrPQ](https://www.collaborativepractice.com/media/40517/verticalCP_RGB.png][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B9rhW4FWF3IFcHlEbXJlM2lmbGs&revid=0B9rhW4FWF3IFdWZsTEplTE1TZExSdmpteDBXZGJWc01namJrPQ){kind=link}
I agree with Diane.
This month, Ron received one of the ABA's most prestigious honors: he was
presented with the 2015 ABA Lawyer as Problem Solver Award .
Congratulations, Ron. So well deserved! Ron's recognition by the wider legal
profession will help the entire Collaborative movement as well as reflects
Ron's monumental individual accomplishments.
Forrest (Woody) Mosten
Collaborative Attorney
Certified Family Law Specialist
Board of Specialization, State Bar of California
9401 Wilshire Blvd, 9th Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90212
Office Phone 310-473-7611
Training Phone 310-441-1454
Cell Phone 310-721-4291
Fax 310-470-2625
Adjunct Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
www.MostenMediation.com
www.CollaborativeDivorceHandbook.com
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 10:08 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Assessing the lawyers.....
Well said, Ron!
On Apr 26, 2015, at 12:00 PM, Ron Ousky ron@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ron@xxxxxxxxx>
[CollabLaw] <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
This has been a very interesting thread. Thanks to all of you that have offered
useful contributions.
I agree with most of what has been said and, of course, have my own perspective
as well. I do believe that the best Collaborative work requires both a
certain "mindset" (which requires a true "shift" for many people) as well as a
skill set that can take many trainings and cases to develop.
The centerpoint of Stu's great idea 25 years ago was the notion that if lawyers
were disqualified from going to court, an entirely different environment would
ultimately develop. It takes a different type of mindset to even dare to try
advocacy operating outside the shadow of the courthouse and Stu had already
developed that mindset and was therefore qualified to practice Collaboratively
from that day forward. However, as Rita points out, these past 25 years have
taught us a great deal about how we might best operate in this "new"
environment and these new learnings helped us all, including Stu, become more
effective. In my view, we are still probably just beginning to learn what
works best, and I hope our trainings will continue to evolve with new
discoveries. Nevertheless, anyone who its truly dedicated to this type of
work will be eager to learn from those who have experienced success in this
model.
I do think that the future of Collaborative Practice depends, to a large
extent, in helping all of our practitioners become as skilled as possible.
However, I don't think we will ever be able to regulate or even quantify our
notions of "good Collaborative work" in a way that is productive. Moreover,
our efforts to regulate or even standardize has, at times, divided us as a
community and distracted us from our primary focus of truly helping families.
I have observed many new practitioners who, with very little training, are
capable of doing Collaborative work at a very high level and I have seem
practitioners with many years of training who do not seem to grasp some of the
basic principles. Nevertheless, I am always careful to tell new members that,
if you truly want to become good at this work, and enjoy a satisfying career
as a Collaborative practictioner, you must be prepared to make an extraordinary
commitment (both of heart and of time) or you will ultimately become
frustrating for you. It is my belief that this message, (told more artfully
than my summary would suggest) will lead to a self selection of the truly
committed future members that will help us create high quality outcomes.
In the end, the future of Collaborative will depend on the number of families
who truly experience something of greater value. That will require a
redoubling of our public education efforts as well as our active recruitment of
those professionals who truly have a passion fo this type of work.
My two cents, plus change.
Ron Ousky
Collaborative Attorney and Mediator
Wevorce Associate
3300 Edinborough Way, Suite 550
Edina, MN 55435
(952) 806-9787
www.ousky.com<http://www.ousky.com/>
www.collaborativedivorceoptions.com<http://www.collaborativedivorceoptions.com/>
www.wevorce.com<http://www.wevorce.com/>
<image002.jpg>
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 5:28 PM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Assessing the lawyers.....
Thanks, Rita.
And I'm sorry about the 'not collaborative' comment. I was being sarcastic.
I don't have a problem at all with Standards or Membership requirements. I
do, though, think that they do not adequately, or even appropriately, address
the problem of people who aren't ready for it getting 'trained' and declaring
themselves 'certified'.
I also agree that people who 'just get it', can benefit from learning
structures and techniques for 'delivering it'. My concern is around my
judgment that no amount of such training will insure that anyone will 'get it'.
My comment to folks about Stu not having been 'trained' is more to open those
to whom it has been made to the possibilities available to them. To the
reality that this work is at least as much about trusting the 'other' before
you as it is about the techniques that can yield productive results within such
a trusting arrangement.
Any thoughts on the idea of a 1 to 3 hour 'exposure to', 'outline of' CP?
And I agree that I'd love to hear from others..... as i'm sure the IACP would
in the 'listening tour' that was mentioned before.
Hope you're well!
InJoy!
cMr
Collaborative Practice Chicago
Divorce Without Warfare
carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.
Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor
773-442-2751
cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.CPChicago.net<http://www.cpchicago.net/>
Executive Director, Collaborative Practice Professionals of
Illinois<http://cppillinois.com/>
Publisher, The World of Collaborative
Practice<http://theworldofcollaborativepractice.com/>: A Magazine Promoting
Collaborative Dispute Resolution for the Full Range of Possibilities. An
international online magazine for professionals and the general public
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 4:26 PM, 'Rita S. Pollak'
ritaspollak@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:ritaspollak@xxxxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
CarlMichael, I don't experience your comments as negative at all. I agree that
we should call our 'trainings' an Introduction to Collaborative Practice (or
interdisciplinary collaborative practice) because it is an introduction, barely
a beginning; that is what IACP is calling them now.
From my perspective, it should be a minimum of 3 days, followed by a series of
skills based workshops, on a regular basis, for a year long curriculum of
learning. No one, no matter their profession learned the skills necessary to be
a competent practitioner in a 2 day class type setting. Imagine trying to learn
Evidence in 2 days and being done!
If we are making a commitment to work in any way which is significantly
different from how we were originally educated and trained, no matter our
profession, we should be willing to devote the time and energy to learning this
particular 'dance.' I disagree that some people just 'get it.' They may have
intuition and intention, however, there are real skills to this work and we
need to teach them, demonstrate them and then allow plenty of time for
practice. Competence follows practice and experience.
I do disagree with your comment that having standards or some kind of
requirements isn't "collaborative;" that feels like a false equivalency to me.
Being 'collaborative' does not mean anything goes or anyone goes. I want to
work with folks who have thought about this seriously and have taken the time
to understand what it takes to be good at this work (and that can happen for
beginners).
Of course Stu didn't take a training, and collaborative practice looks very
different from the way he conceived it so many years ago. We are growing,
learning, fine-tuning, discarding and creating. I imagine that Stu practices
differently than he did when he began.
Very interested to hear more from others, Rita
Rita S. Pollak
Collaborative trainer, teacher
________________________________
From: "carl Michael rossi cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx>
[CollabLaw]" <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 2:17:27 PM
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Assessing the lawyers.....
Hi hate this feeling that I'm being a negative nancy but I think this stuff is
important.
I see two challenges in what you've suggested, Carolann.
To begin with, I come from a firm belief that there are some folks who quite
simply don't even need a "basic introduction" to CP. They have done their own
work enough that they just 'get it'. Unless of course one subscribes to the
notion that "only those trained in CP and who meet all the standards and
membership requirements should be involved in a CP case" [talk about elitism,
exclusionary, 'not very collaborative' ;-) ] To those folks I always ask.....
you know who didn't take a Basic Training before he started doing Collaborative
Practice? Stu Webb. They usually get the point.
So, the first problem I see is that those who 'don't get it', who are just
taking the training and putting it on their websites to 'not miss a potential
client'..... those folks aren't even interested in growing, getting
better....in changing at all. Just in business opportunities. Lots of them
don't even join IACP much less local practice groups. That does NOT keep them
from getting clients to buy them to deliver services they are not 'up to'. And
when the other spouse has hired such an attorney, what are my options? Try to
work with them? Of course. Get engaged 'only for settlement'? Sure, I guess.
But if they haven't signed a participation agreement, it ain't nothing but
malpractice for me to try to handle 'settlement negotiations' when NONE of me
is thinking in terms of court. So really the only option is to decline.
The other problem I see is in your reference to "I don't think we can avoid
that from happening and potentially giving CP a less than stellar reputation";
'that' being the 'wrong' attorneys jumping on board the CP train. A normal,
'reality' based statement. To that I say only that in 'reality', there is
nothing we can really do to keep an angry spouse from yelling at, harassing,
even harming our client. That doesn't keep us from asking for orders of
protection, from trying to prevent harm that we see as a possibility, from
burying our heads in the sand.
And I think one thing we CAN do is to be more selective in who we invite to any
'trainings'.
Growing numbers won't make anyone better. Bringing in better people will grow
our numbers.
InJoy!
cMr
Collaborative Practice Chicago
Divorce Without Warfare
carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.
Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor
773-442-2751<tel:773-442-2751>
cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.CPChicago.net<http://www.cpchicago.net/>
Executive Director, Collaborative Practice Professionals of
Illinois<http://cppillinois.com/>
Publisher, The World of Collaborative
Practice<http://theworldofcollaborativepractice.com/>: A Magazine Promoting
Collaborative Dispute Resolution for the Full Range of Possibilities. An
international online magazine for professionals and the general public
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Carolann Mazza
carolann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:carolann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
This is a great discussion! I think one of the potential pitfalls of having a
collaborative statute passed in a state is that those who wouldn't have been
inclined to train in CP and transition their practice to non-litigation
services before such a statute existed to do so after a statute is passed.
They may not be the types of attorneys who ask questions such as carl Michael
posed and might not be the sort of attorneys who will "do CP work".
While I don't think we can avoid that from happening and potentially giving CP
a less than stellar reputation, I do think that we who are willing to do the
inner and outer work necessary to hopefully be successful in this process/field
will have greater responsibility to debrief, form stronger practice groups of
people we have worked with, be open to the possibility that someone who isn't
initially doing CP work may just begin the life long journey of paradigm
shifting.
Carolann
Carolann Mazza
KEEPING FAMILIES OUT OF COURT
Carolann Mazza, P.A.
12 SE 7th Street, Suite 704
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-527-4604<tel:954-527-4604>
Facsimile: 954-527-4634<tel:954-527-4634>
Email: carolann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:carolann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Website: www.collaborativenow.com<http://www.collaborativenow.com/>
[https://www.collaborativepractice.com/media/40517/verticalCP_RGB.png][https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B9rhW4FWF3IFcHlEbXJlM2lmbGs&revid=0B9rhW4FWF3IFdWZsTEplTE1TZExSdmpteDBXZGJWc01namJrPQ]
http://choosecollaborative.com/
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This communication and any documents, or files, attached to it constitute an
electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This communication may contain non-public,
confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of
the designated recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use, or disclosure of
such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable
laws. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us
at the above telephone number or via reply e-mail and permanently delete the
original and any copy of any e-mail, file or attachment and destroy any
printout thereof.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 2:56 PM, carl Michael rossi
cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi David!
Much as I embrace your sentiments, I do not accept your 'reframe'. You are
talking about something else entirely. You're simply talking about aspiring to
being 'nice' and 'welcoming' and 'big tent'.
Those are good things. But not enough if they become what we hide behind
rather than accept responsibility for what Stu has handed us and for some level
of safety of the clients who come to choose and trust the Collaborative
Practice process.
I do not believe that the fact that "I" or "you" might grow from the
experience of trying to do something that we're no good at [even though we
might become so with intention and growth on "our" part] is any reason to
subject clients to "us".
Those who invited you to the training saw "something" in YOU. Like it or
not, David, they "assessed" you. If they didn't, if they were just hoping for
a miraculous conversion for you, then they were just trying to sell tickets to
the training 'show'.
All I am suggesting is some set of particular 'things', 'qualities',
'traits', 'attitudes'... about a person to look at and for that suggest "THIS
person has potential for this work". I'm NOT talking about some list of
experiences or accomplishments. I continue to believe that any set of
"Standards", much less "Membership Requirements", do not do what we need.
For example, there is a huge difference between "have you taken a mediation
course?" and "WHY did you take that mediation course? WHAT did you get out of
it? HOW has it changed your view of your role as an attorney, of your
relationship to your client, of your relationship with your colleagues, even
your 'adversaries' in litigation? How has it impacted your actual practice?"
We continue to 'train' anyone and everyone with a naive egalitarian view that
"everyone should have a chance to try this". While at the same time we wring
our hands about those who've taken the training and hold themselves out as
'Collaborative Professionals'.... who, let's just say, aren't doing "CP work".
I just continue to think it would be better for the clients, and for CP, if
we were a bit more selective in whom we 'anoint' by giving them a 2 [or even 3]
day training and then washing our hands of responsibility for whatever harm
they may do to clients and to Collaborative Practice by declaring "well we
SAAAAID that was only an introduction".
InJoy!
cMr
Collaborative Practice Chicago
Divorce Without Warfare
carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.
Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor
773-442-2751<tel:773-442-2751>
cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.CPChicago.net<http://www.cpchicago.net/>
Executive Director, Collaborative Practice Professionals of
Illinois<http://cppillinois.com/>
Publisher, The World of Collaborative
Practice<http://theworldofcollaborativepractice.com/>: A Magazine Promoting
Collaborative Dispute Resolution for the Full Range of Possibilities. An
international online magazine for professionals and the general public
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:22 AM, David Murch
davidmurchesq@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:davidmurchesq@xxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Asking assessment questions to determine where I am comfortable working, within
my values, is useful. I turned down an opportunity for work yesterday.
Assessments of other people as collaborative or not, doesn't feel
collaborative; it feels judgmental. How I conduct myself can make all the
difference in the world. I am forever grateful that my colleagues did not
judge me from their past experiences with me. Colleagues gave me a chance and
I made mistakes. They showed me the power of example. Every human contact is
a chance for us to grow and transform conflict.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 24, 2015, at 10:25 AM, carl Michael rossi
cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Gary,
You've touched on something that I have long considered an ignored essential
to Collaborative Practice. That being the assessment of the professionals,
particularly the attorneys, for doing this kind of work.
I would love to see some kind of even informal assessment tool be developed.
Something, other than 'gut' or 'faith in mankind' that might help us to
discern which individual professionals to persistently encourage to give CP a
try and which we should actively support in continuing to do litigation.
Something to help us, as you put it, "to ascertain their degree of
litigiousness and likelihood for holding their own client accountable to the
helping process.... [or] that the lawyer may be an intervening variable adding
to the escalation of the dispute".
Since you have a head start in that you have begun to actively do just
that..... I'd like to conscript you to start us off. ;-)
So, if you wouldn't mind? What questions do you ask? What answers move
your judgement to yay or nay?
InJoy!
cMr
Collaborative Practice Chicago
Divorce Without Warfare
carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.
Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor
773-442-2751<tel:773-442-2751>
cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.CPChicago.net<http://www.cpchicago.net/>
Executive Director, Collaborative Practice Professionals of
Illinois<http://cppillinois.com/>
Publisher, The World of Collaborative
Practice<http://theworldofcollaborativepractice.com/>: A Magazine Promoting
Collaborative Dispute Resolution for the Full Range of Possibilities. An
international online magazine for professionals and the general public
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Gary Direnfeld
gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Many thanks for the kind replies and words of encouragement.
Like others who are trained collaboratively yet who work with many others who
haven't been trained, I try to run my files collaboratively. As such, I try to
get the lawyers on board with a common understanding of the problem and to
assure we are pulling in the same direction.
For about a year now I have been "assessing" the lawyers if they are unknown to
me at the time of referral. By that I mean, before accepting a referral, I
speak with the lawyers individually to ascertain their degree of litigiousness
and likelihood for holding their own client accountable to the helping process.
If I come to the belief that the lawyer may be an intervening variable adding
to the escalation of the dispute, I will decline the referral.
Fighting doesn't produce durable results. Entrenchment in positional posturing
doesn't lend itself to successful resolution of issues. I don't want to be a
party to a process that may exacerbate conflict in relationships and bring harm
to children.
Best,
Gary
Gary Direnfeld, MSW, RSW
Interaction Consultants
20 Suter Crescent, Dundas, Ontario, Canada L9H 6R5
(905) 628-4847<tel:%28905%29%20628-4847>
gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
www.yoursocialworker.com<http://www.yoursocialworker.com/>
www.ipromiseprogram.com<http://www.ipromiseprogram.com/>
http://www.facebook.com/GaryDirenfeldSocialWorker
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=60758978&trk=tab_pro
https://twitter.com/socialtworker
