John's comments have led me to suggest forming a Collaborative Family
Practice Inns of Court. Inns of Court are a wonderful organization
dedicated to the mentoring of newbies by more established professionals,
with an emphasis on ethical practice. I have belonged to a family law Inn
for years, and find it to be very exciting and gratifying. We have three
tiers of membership: Masters (board certified family lawyers who are also
Fellows of the AAML), Barristers (board certified family lawyers) and
Associates (newer attorneys who are not yet board certified). The groups
are divided into teams of about 10 persons each, with members from all three
groups, who meet regularly (usually on a monthly basis) to discuss cases and
issues that come up in their practices and to prepare annual presentations
on a question of family law to the entire group, which also meets monthly.
It has been very successful here in Houston and I think would answer the
problem raised by those who feel that newer attorneys should not be
practicing collaboratively. Many of the responders on this issue have
presumed that one of the attorneys will be very experienced and the other
will not, but what of the two, inexperienced attorneys want to do a case
collaboratively? Wouldn't it be nice if they could do it with the guidance
of the more experienced members of their Inns of Court team? Norma Trusch
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of John Crouch
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 10:08 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Five-year practice requirement? Logic?
Two things about all this:
1. The issue of legal competence can't be disposed of simply by relying on
the casual collaborative-lawyering mentoring that would happen between a
newer lawyer and a more experienced counterpart counsel, nor even in a
group's formal mentoring/observation program. Lawyers dealing with
situations or issues that are new to them need to consult other lawyers in
their firms, other more experienced lawyers, books, and the occasional
fortuitously-scheduled CLE. They may have to consider occasionally hiring
another lawyer as a consultant on an issue. They may need to do some basic
research on their own dime instead of the client's. They can gain a lot from
starting a wide-open debate on a legal issue in a bar group or listserv --
even if it includes their opposing counsel. But what is more difficult, and
harder to be sure about, is figuring out what else about a case they need to
know, what additional questions they need to ask. That takes some heavy-duty
one-on-one help.
2. I've been thinking that if a group admits less-experienced lawyers, it
could require them to participate in a "study group" -- 4 to 8
geographically-close lawyers who meet for a drink or something every two
weeks to discuss substantive-law questions that have come up in their cases,
collaborative and otherwise. More-experienced lawyers should be welcome to
attend, too -- in fact it would work a lot better with one or two of them
there. Here's why I think it would actually work:
A. If you get lawyers talking, they are eager to jump in with opinions and
advice. (And in a bigger group, worthless advice will be corrected by
others.)
B. This kind of group cultivates the long-term friendships, with peers and
elders, that lawyers need.
C. Though it wouldn't provide ALL the guidance young lawyers need, it would
give them more ways to get the rest of what they need.
D. New lawyers are more willing to adapt to a group's qualification demands
than older ones.
E. New lawyers have more spare time, and they mostly know they need to be
out there building professional relationships.
F. A few of the older lawyers would be glad to participate even if most
wouldn't.
-- John Crouch
Arlington, Virginia
703-528-6700
crouch@xxxxxxxxxxx
Yahoo! Groups Links
