Thanks, Siri. Interesting. I can see where the settlement process does not end,
just its collaborative nature. I see mediation as inherently adversarial, where
the parties are still jockeying for position. It is “litigation light.” That
does mean it is a bad thing if it gets the case fairly settled. We may simply
be discussing definitions and semantics. Does the mediator operate and
function differently in the collaborative process than in the adversarial
process—just as the parties’ counsel operates and functions differently?
Best,
Bonnie
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2019 11:59 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] RE: MHPs
The Collaborative process does not end when a mediator is brought in. Here in
Michigan, we have included mediators on the team almost from the beginning of
our adoption of Collab many years ago. A mediator can be very helpful in many
ways.
We also make very effective use of one coach for the process itself.
Siri Gottlieb
In a world where you can be anything, be kind.
Sent from my iPhone, please excuse typos and brevity.
Siri Gottlieb, JD, LMSW
1945 Pauline Blvd., Ste. 10
Ann Arbor MI 48103
734-994-4045
www.sirigottlieb.com<http://www.sirigottlieb.com>
On Oct 22, 2019, at 10:33 AM, Bonnie Brown
bmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Rana, as I have understood it, mediation is not collaboration. When a mediator
is brought in, the collaboration has stopped. If the case gets settled that
way, fine for that case, but it is not collaboration.
Mediation has two sides, albeit proceeding more politely than in hard ball
litigation, and remains a tool within the adversarial process and potential for
court processes looming as leverage. Collaboration has one side, with the
whole team pursuing the same goal—family stability and peace--and court not
possible under the Collaborative Agreement.
If the case is very difficult, such as when full-blown personality disorders
are present, the team may need 3 MHPs, one neutral to lead the sessions, and a
coach for each party. Sometimes even the financial neutral is pressured by the
dynamics into morphing into a coach—a manifestation to be avoided, and a clue
more and/or different professionals need to be involved at that point.
I get the impression you have had a negative experience along these lines. If
so, wonder how it worked out.
Best,
Bonnie
BONNIE M. BROWN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Suite 201, Bailey Office Park
4205 Springhurst Boulevard
Louisville, Kentucky 40241-6160
U.S.A.
+1 502 412-9190 ext. 226 telephone
+1 502 587-0040 direct line
+1 502 412-9196 facsimile
bmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:bmb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
When does/can a non-licensed but qualified mediator replace a qualified
licensed MHP on a collaborative case when a full team is available?
Can attorneys choose to have less than a full team, include a mediator and call
it a collaborative case? Do attorneys call the configuration of a case? What
has happened to the full team approach?
According to IACP guidelines, standards and ethics, one does not replace the
other. Is it accurate to assume full teams are not being used in collaborative
cases and the role of the MHP is being minimized?
Thank you in advance.
Please offer feedback.
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
