This brings up an interesting conversation -- Never got "that far"
that a coach was involved. How much are people working with full/
multidisciplinary teams? With a coach? A financial specialist? A
child specialist?
Are people including coaches from the outset? In the work I've been
doing, it seems that this is more effective than calling them in when
a breakdown occurs, as if the clients have a problem or something is
wrong with them. In Connecticut I am part of one group that has been
fairly effective in having coaches involved immediately, all of us
around the table, with intermittent 3-way meetings with the coach,
really to be cost-effective for the clients. And, in another group,
more of a therapy or consultation model seems to persist -- send the
couple out to the coach for however many sessions to deal with
something and then they come back in to the 4-way meeting with lawyers
afterwards and less 5- or 6-way meetings occur.
As I've been of the opinion that people don't know what they are
missing when they do not involve coaches in the team meetings from the
outset, I've then wondered if a similar phenomenon were occurring for
financial professionals. I've noticed that there is some sense that
we - the attorneys and then the coaches involved - know when it makes
sense to bring in a financial professional and often hold off in doing
so, often never do so. I do know that we don't know what we don't
know and it seems to me that financial professionals would/could
contribute something we cannot predict, for anyone's future as they
reorganize themselves and their family. (Of course, the clients'
financial resources must be considered in who gets brought into the
team.)
Tom's comment did get me wondering, though, how far is far in when
coaches are involved out there? What challenges are people
encountering with bringing in coaches - and financial people?
Beth Karassik, Ph.D.
Connecticut
On Jan 30, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Tom Nagel wrote:
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
