Absolutely. I, too, have had numerous cases that started in litigation and
moved to collaboration, with much relief expressed by the clients after the
first meeting. I recently took over a file that started with 2 lawyers trying
to be "co-operative" and having co-operative all-parties meetings during which
my client was threatened with court applications, and one meeting which she
cried throughout the whole meeting. Husband's lawyer is a trained c.l. lawyer
and we signed a contract and this lawyer behaved very differently (after an
educational and blunt lawyer-lawyer meeting) -- my client couldn't believe it
was the same lawyer who had initially acted so positional and threatening and
who had been posturing during the "co-operative" negotiations. Both clients
were truly relieved that we were moving forward. (Just another example of why
co-operative does not equal collaborative).
Marilyn Herrmann
Marc Hallert <mtrellah@xxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the members of our collaborative law group has a client who is
interested in doing the case collaboratively. The client's
husband,however,does not wish to hire an attorney. Assuming the case
must necessarily proceed on a non-collaborative basis, the attorney
asks whether or not the case may later proceed collaboratively should
the husband change his mind after viewing the adversarial process. Any
thoughts?
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CollabLaw/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
CollabLaw-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
