Honey, in MN the Rule is being proposed for a few reasons:
* To provide protections for Collaborative cases that do not
settle in the Collaborative process, including
o Protecting confidentiality of communications for all
Collaborative professionals (some judges are of the view that they can
require parties to testify about alleged oral agreements made in the
Collaborative process; some non-Collaborative professionals view that
coaches and child specialists can be called to testify in subsequent
litigation)
o Providing for orderly transition to litigation counsel (that
is, enforcement of the 30 day waiting period before a party can proceed
in court with a motion)
o Providing for the enforceability of written agreements made
during the Collaborative case
o To exempt parties that have participated in Collaborative cases
from having to participate in other ADR processes (in MN Collaborative
Practice is currently not recognized as an ADR process)
* To protect the integrity of the Collaborative Law model by:
o Defining Collaborative Practice
o Requiring the signing of a Participation Agreement in order for
a case to be referred to as a Collaborative case
* To defer court scheduling deadlines for cases that become
Collaborative after filing
* And to require that Notice of the Collaborative process be
provided to clients along with notice of other ADR options
Linda K. Wray
Twin Cities Legal Service
7625 Metro Boulevard
Suite 140
Edina, MN 55439
(952) 806-9900
(952) 746-7853 (fax)
*CONFIDENTIAL*
The information contained in this message is intended only for the
individual named above. If you are not the individual named as the
intended recipient or you are not designated to deliver it to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that the information is
attorney privileged and confidential. Any dissemination, distribution or
copying of this information is strictly prohibited. If you received this
communication in error, please immediately notify us by e-mail or
telephone at (952) 806-9900, and delete this from any data storage files
and destroy any hard copies of this message.
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Honey Hastings
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 6:25 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CollabLaw] Re: rules and statutes regarding collaborative law
Friends
Collaborative Practice is clearly "ADR" as it is generally understood,
decision-making method that is an alternative to court. (Our goal is to
reverse the comparison, so that CP & mediation are the norm and court is
seen as the "other," as it is statistically.)
I am impressed with this comprehensive proposal. My first quick review
raised the same question I've had when reading CP statutes - what is the
purpose of the rule/statute? They all appear to be based on an
assumption of court involvement before the case is settled.
What is the goal of the MN proposal? Why did you spend all the hours
doing this? Is it to address specific problems you have encountered? Is
it to increase visibility/credibility?
Will the Texas & other folks who have gone either of these routes please
answer for their jurisdictions?
Honey Hastings
honeyhastings@ <mailto:honeyhastings%40earthlink.net> earthlink.net
office/Wilton NH 603.654.5000
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
