Our local interdisciplinary collaborative association in Colorado Springs
also has the 5 year requirement for full membership for the same reasons of
wanting professionals with real life experience in the litigation process so
that they better understand the alternatives they present in the CP process.
I believe it is becoming more apparent though that it is the skill set that
each professional brings to the team that is more likely to assist the
process then just an arbitrary period of experience (i.e. Five years).
And the skill set may have come from areas unrelated to family law (e.g.
teaching; group facilitation, etc.) but easily convert into the CP team
structure.
With that said, some experience with divorce seems helpful to avoid spending
time bringing a team member up to speed on the "basics" of the divorce
process from each of the professions. As Ross suggests in his response, what
each team member brings to that team for that case seems more important then
just their number of years experience.
Jim Musante,
CP coach and trainer
Ross Evans5/31/06 5:42 PM
John: We started our group with a 5 year requirement on the premise that it
took at least that long to have a good understanding of the elements of
Family Law. We thought this would be of benefit to the model. We have since
modified the requirement to 3 years with the hope that as long as an attorney
has been collaboratively trained, neither party would feel at a disadvanatge
at the table. It is certainly important for the more seasoned counsel to
propoerly choreagraph the 4-ways so neither party feels that one of the
attorneys is dominating the process. I recently completed a case with an
attorney who has only been licensed for 2 years ( I knew her by reputation as
she is an associate for one of the top DR attorneys in town). She had a good
grasp of Family Law issues and was a pleasure to work with in a signed
Collaborative agreement.
We spoke at legnth prior to our sessions to fairly divide the talking points
that each of us would lead. On numerous occasions we had good discussions
with the clients as to what all the options might look like.
I think that as long as the professional has a good underastanding of what
they are bringing to the table, they should be welcome. There is also no
question in my mind that a willingnness to adopt the principles of
Collaborative is the guiding light.
It is my understanding that there are law schools offering collaborative as
part of ADR training and education. Just think, new attorneys that know a
different way than advesarial!! I think that may help bridge the gap to
"years in practice" requirements.
Best of luck!
Ross
Ross M. Evans, Esq.
Katz, Greenberger & Norton LLP
105 East Fourth Street, Fourth Floor
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4056
Voice (513)721-5151 Fax (513)621-9285
e-mail: rme@xxxxxxxxxx
mobile e-mail (Emergency) rmevans@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended by sender only for the use of
the recipient(s) named above and may be subject to the attorney-client and/or
work product privileges, neither of which is waived by this transmission. If
you received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by
reply email or telephone (513)-721-5151 and destroy this communication. Thank
you.
What is the current wisdom on whether groups should require five years ofcrouch@xxxxxxxxxxx 05/31/06 6:26 PM >>>
family practice before practitioners can join?
Our group was unanimously in favor of such a requirement when we started out
-- we wanted competent, well-regarded members, and we wanted them to have
the experience to advise clients on what would happen in court. But when we
finally "become Medicine Hat" and collaborative is the norm, it'll be
counterproductive to say lawyers can't collaborate for their first 5 years.
The more difficult question is, we're somewhere between those two points,
but where? And at what point should the rule change?
And does any group have different years-in-practice requirements for
different professions? It seems to me that if there is already a reliable
system for certifying members of a certain profession to work with divorcing
families, that might be an effective substitute for a years-in-practice
requirement.
-- John Crouch
Arlington, Virginia
703-528-6700
crouch@xxxxxxxxxxx
