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]
[Attachment(s) from Robert Wistner included below]
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
Attachment(s) from Robert Wistner
1 of 1 File(s)
OPTIONS FOR AVOIDING THE ADVERSARIAL DIVORCE.doc
