Agreed Sue. Might it be possible that Stu might gaze into his crystal ball
again and foresee a future course of study inclucing mental health,
mediation and law - a degree in collaborative law?
Christopher A. Burr PhD.
cburr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1 Pittsford, NY 14534
(585)442-7198
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue Brunsting" <sbrunst1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: [CollabLaw] Five-year practice requirement?
John,
In Rochester, New York, when we began we borrowed the wisdom of previous
groups (we latched onto the Cincinnati group's rules as a place to start)
and adopted a five year rule. We, too, attracted new members with "clout".
After three years and requests from committed practitioners with less than
our required number of years in the trenches to work collaboratively, our
organization dropped the requirement to two years so long as the less
experienced attorney had a more experienced mentor from the group.
I strongly believe that we didn't go far enough. This conflict resolution
process should be taught in law schools, in college and in high school
(right beside Moot Court, thank you). The "newbie" could be assigned a more
experienced collaborative lawyer mentor and they could learn together - one
to understand the nuances of procedural protocol and the legal standards in
the community and the other to see the dispute with perhaps fresher eyes and
practiced conflict resolution skills.
I've had the privilege to meet a law school graduate at the IACP Forum in
Atlanta and again at CP-Cal in Sonoma who is trying to be accepted to work
as a collaborative practitioner in California. She has no interest in
litigating, ever. What should we do with her, with her enthusiasm, skill,
dedication? As this message spreads, there will be many like her who
follow. Perhaps we should question our assumptions and see if there is a way
to include, rather than exclude.
Sue
Suzanne L. Brunsting, Esq.
202 Clovercrest Drive
Rochester, NY 14618
(585) 244-4239
sbrunst1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.suebrunsting.com
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of John Crouch
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 5:26 PM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CollabLaw] Five-year practice requirement?
What is the current wisdom on whether groups should require five years of
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
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home
is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/aQSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/352 - Release Date: 5/30/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.0/352 - Release Date: 5/30/2006
Yahoo! Groups Links
