We never got that far in the most recent case. Maybe I'll suggest a coach.
Tom Nagel
----- Original Message -----
From: Beth
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Re: WACTD?
Are there coaches in any of these cases being discussed?
Beth M. Karassik, Ph.D.
Comprehensive Neuropsychological Services
1095 S. Main Street
Cheshire, CT 06410
203.271.3809
203.272.6968 FAX
www.clinicalneuropsych.com
drkarassik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The information contained in this email is confidential and privileged, and
is intended only for the use of the named receiver. If you are not the named
receiver or the person responsible for delivering this email to the named
receiver, you are notified that any use of this email or its contents,
including any dissemination, copying, forwarding or use of this email and/or
any attachment hereto is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please reply by email to the sender at once indicating your receipt
of this message and confirmation of secure deletion of the message and any
attachment(s) from your email server and your computer. Please immediately
notify CNS at (203) 271-3809 or cns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. We will reimburse
your telephone expense for doing so. Thank you. It is impossible to assure
privacy of any communication by electronic means. If you are uncomfortable with
this possible limitation to your privacy, please communicate by other means.
On Jan 29, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Tom Nagel wrote:
Bob:
I was WACTD by two different folks, and both cases are still in
process.In the most recent one I am working with my opposite number to get both
clients signed on to the collaborative law agreement. In that particular case
I am disappointed that my opposite number has not tried very hard to convince
the client to stick with the original plan to do this case as a full
collaborative law case, and I have expressed that. At at the same time I have
been urging my client to take some steps to build trust.
Also I have indicated that I am done trying to negotiate individual
parts of the dissolution unless we have a signed collaborative law agreement,
and that unless this is a full collaborative law case I am going to withdraw
as counsel. We'll see how that works.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Wistner
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:28 AM
Subject: [CollabLaw] Re: WACTD? [1 Attachment]
Tom – You presented an interesting problem to the CollabLaw listserv.
First of all, in my opinion, any Collaborative Divorce Professionals, Inc,
member (our Columbus collab group) who pulls a stunt twice like you describe
deserves to be sanctioned by the CDP Board, or at least warned that such
conduct is not acceptable in the future. My understanding and philosophy always
has been that there is not supposed to be any unanticipated significant
surprise arise at any 4-way meetings. Maybe we can deal with this problem in
writing our new Protocols this year.
Possible solution: Send both parties to Early Neutral Evaluation.
Attached is an article I wrote for Columbus Bar Briefs in 2005 which contains a
brief description of how I practice ENE. I also plan to write another article
about ENE for the next issue of THE COLLABORATOR, and how it is a friendly
companion to Collaborative Divorce.
Over the last 10 years, my experience has been that 100% of all couples I
have seen as a neutral have voluntarily chosen ENE over facilitative mediation,
and my success rate of settlement has been extremely high. ENE always has been
a first step (before litigation or CFL) because it is primarily an educational
process which cannot cause either party any harm or loss. The end result is a
decision either to move on to the collaborative process to complete the
necessary dissolution of marriage documents and filing, or to proceed to
litigation, which has happened very rarely. When my work as a Neutral Evaluator
ends, my standard practice is to refer both parties to the CDP website to
choose collaborative lawyers (if neither is already represented), or to refer
them back to any attorneys who initially referred the parties to me for ENE
services. This preserves and protects the interests of both parties and any
attorneys involved because the parties are able to make informed decisions
regarding the choice between collab law and litigation, without being forced to
change attorneys for litigation, and any attorneys already involved need not
fear losing a client. In addition, if neither party is represented yet, usually
two collab lawyers get new clients upon my referrals of them to the CDP website.
From my perspective, my version of ENE meets the interests of everyone
involved (parties, attorneys and me), plus it can save the parties a lot of
money compared to the total cost of starting with litigation or collab law from
beginning to end. My experience over the past 10 years has been that offering
ENE as a preliminary process to ambivalent or undecided parties has been a very
successful tool to create more collaborative divorce cases for the parties and
for local collaborative lawyers.
Robert N. Wistner, J.D.
Collaborative Practice for Divorce
5650 Blazer Parkway, Suite 100
Dublin, OH 43017
Phone: 614-734-8354
Fax: 614-553-7138
Email: rwistner@xxxxxxx
