Is the collaborative lawyer permitted to represent the client in a later
action to enforce the settlement (nonpayment of support for example) or in a
suit
to modify the original order (such as increase in support or relocation of
child)?
This point should be getting pretty clear by now. I would suggest that more
energy should be spent in creating this scenario...
"Hello. Another collaborative attorney and myself have taken a case in which
we have not been retained as collaborative attorneys. Our clients have been
appreciating the way the two of us have been working cooperatively with them to
fashion agreements that have kept them out of court. Do you think it is too
late to turn this into a collaborative case, or should be run them through a
temporary hearing first so they can better appreciate what they will be giving
up?"
The point is, in order to be successful at being a collaborative attorney you
need to throw your hat over the fence, so to speak. Align with the concept,
and do everything in your power to make collaborative law work for your
clients. Don't keep looking for loopholes. You not only undermine the integrity
of
the organization, you sell yourself short in the process.
An old saying goes, "Calm seas never made a good sailor." Consider that when
you have a case that is threatening to leave the process and opt for
litigation, you have a very special opportunity to develop some collaborative
muscle by
putting your energy into figuring out how to keep them in the process, rather
than looking for an excuse to go back to being a litigator.
Bruce Peck
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
