Don't we have a problem preserving confidentiality by bringing in a coach
before the participation agreement is signed? I can see suggesting a
therapist who may be collaboratively trained to get the case on track but
then that therapist would not be on the team. Maybe a collaboratively
trained financial professional can also serve to get it back on track if
there are money concerns or maybe a litigator who has been collaboratively
trained who can contrast the court model. Seems we need to provide the
options to get the hesitant client to believe the process suits them. The
participation agreement has to be signed otherwise how do we protect a
client from divulging information that might not be discoverable in a court
setting?
ANNA-MARIA PITTELLA
ATTORNEY/COLLABORATIVE FAMILY PRACTITIONER/ACCREDITED MEDIATOR
Representing you in transitions relating to divorce, separation or other
family matters, real estate, social security disability, small business
disputes and estate planning
55 No. Bridge Ave. Ste 1, Red Bank NJ 07701
Ph. (732) 842-6939 Fax (732) 842-6775
Other locations: Wall Township & Toms River
Please visit my website at www.Pittellalaw.com
_____
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Beth
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 12:46 PM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Re: WACTD?
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 <mailto:beth.karassik@xxxxxxxxx>
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
<mailto:drkarassik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
<mailto:cns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 <mailto:rwistner@xxxxxxx> 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
