I have enjoyed reading the replies on the issue of little "c".It does happen
that we are enticed to act beyond the norm, to believe that facts of the case
require us to act beyond otherwise good judgement. I am routinely requested to
provide service in a manner that could undermine the integriy of the work.These
requests are almost always fear based with the fear being that the prescribed
way of doing things somehow don't apply in this situation. That something
terrible will occur without our acquiescence.These requests also play on our
ego, that we are the one who must save the day, lest some terrible fate befall
the client.Fear and ego.We must be clear in our conviction and when faltering,
seek support and consultation.We must strive to manage our ego, our own
narcissism that we are somehow the only one available to keep things well.When
we let go of fear and hold our ego in check, the allure of little "c"
subsides.Clients may go. We may not be there as they would wish us to
be.However, should things not transpire as they would have wished. We remain
available for their possible return.If that should transpire their faith in us
is heightened. Why? Because we maintained our integrity and that creates trust.
That serves the process, our client and ourselves.Gary Direnfeld, MSW,
RSWwww.yoursocialworker.comwww.garydirenfeld.com.
-------- Original message --------From: "Robert Merlin rmerlin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[CollabLaw]" <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 2019-03-28 8:19 p.m.
(GMT-05:00) To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Lorrie Kehl-Paul
<lorrie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Ideas for Advanced Symposium
Training in NM
Absent the signed contract and disqualification provision, call it what you
will, but it is NOT the Collaborative Process. Professionals are free to
practice as they want, but they should not claim to use the Collaborative
Process unless they are following
the rules. When Stu Webb created this concept, he intended the attorney
disqualification to be THE distinguishing characteristic. There is a reason why
the Uniform Laws Commission made the signed Participation Agreement and
attorney disqualification requirements
of the Collaborative Process. 18 jurisdictions now have the UCLA. Feel free to
contact me if you want help adopting it in New Mexico.
Bob Merlin
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 28, 2019, at 6:31 PM, Bobbie Batley
bbatley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw] <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all –
The NM Collaborative Practice Group is planning a fall 2019 Symposium. Our
community has been struggling with something that keeps bubbling up. Over the
last 5 years give or take, there has been a development of practitioners in our
community
that do not feel the need for signing a Collaborative Agreement with a
disqualification requirement. Please don’t shoot the messenger – I am “old
school”. The folks doing this are calling it “little C” and have only recently
begun to see issues with this.
We are looking for insight from other communities that may have struggled with
this AND we are looking for some speakers on this topic.
Any help from this group would be sooo appreciated!
Very truly,
Bobbie Batley
<image001.png>
T 505.246.0500 | F 505.246.9953
316 Osuna Rd NE, Suite 301
Albuquerque, NM 87107
www.lgtfamilylaw.com
<image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png>
<image006.jpg>
