Exactly, Rita.
We don't think twice about making judgments about whether a particular
client is "right for" Collaborative Practice. [Myself, I've always
reframed THAT question into one of "AM I the right Collaborative
professional for this client"]
But even suggest that maybe some attorneys should NOT be offered the
opportunity to declare themselves to be "Collaboratively Trained" or
"Certified in Collaborative Practice" and OMG you would think you had
suggested that they be disbarred! ;-) lolol
My own pitch has always been along the lines of, for example....
we should stop calling these 2 or 3 day things "Trainings" when all they
are is introductions. Call then instead what they are.... orientations or
overviews or highlights of the process.
we should stop anything that even remotely suggests, or leaves anyone with
the impression that they are 'good to go' after a 2 day experience.
we should start offering 1 to 3 hour Introductions to Collaborative
Practice.
we should stop issuing "Certificates" at all; instead giving them simply
Attendance Acknowledgments.
*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* <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 2:02 PM, 'Rita S. Pollak' ritaspollak@xxxxxxxxxxx
[CollabLaw] <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think about this differently: we use our professional judgment "muscle"
all the time. In fact, our clients count on us and trust us to do that;
that's why they follow our direction and take our advice.
Part of that for me, is knowing myself well and being honest about my
strengths and limitations. It also means being discerning about who I work
well with and who I don't. (and I expect that others will make the same
judgment about me). There are some folks with whom I am not a good "fit"
and having us both on the same case/matter/file will not be good for the
clients or the process.
Of course this could change over time but it is more than just "making
mistakes"; we all do that. The good "fit" for me, means having
authentically shifted into the collaborative mode and holding that
commitment throughout the case, even when things get rough.
I think it is fine to encourage colleagues to take our introductory
training and allow them to decide what they want to do next. I would not
steer anyone towards or away from litigation (that's their call and there
are other options between collaborative and litigation).
I don't think a formal assessment tool works in this situation. Our
experience, discernment , judgment and wisdom help us figure out who to
encourage and then who to work with and that's really all we can do.
Rita S. Pollak
Collaborative Law trainer and educator
Leadership Council, Center for Community Dialogue
Oro Valley, AZ. 85737
ph:617-851-9863
------------------------------
*From: *"David Murch davidmurchesq@xxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw]" <
CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*To: *CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Sent: *Friday, April 24, 2015 8:22:44 AM
*Subject: *[CollabLaw] Could I suggest a reframe?
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
[CollabLaw] <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 <773-442-2751> *
*cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx* <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
[CollabLaw] <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
gary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.yoursocialworker.com
www.ipromiseprogram.com
http://www.facebook.com/GaryDirenfeldSocialWorker
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=60758978&trk=tab_pro
https://twitter.com/socialtworker
