Woody, I really wish I had time to discuss this further with you. If
I were even close to LA tomorrow, I'd try to get to your seminar,
but, alas, I'm too far away and have a 7-way scheduled.
Perhaps I misunderstand because I don't have the context. However,
when I looked at your chart "Range of Collaborative Models", I could
only find three or four of the ten categories listed that could be
considered "collaborative".
My real concern is that we, as Collaborative Practitioners, must not
create any confusion that suggests that Collaborative Practice
includes any form of dispute resolution other than one with a
disqualification requirement with respect to all of the professionals
involved in the case if the clients turn to court to resolve any of
their dispute. Anything else is NOT collaborative. Period. It may be
friendly, it may be cooperative, it may be voodoo, but it's not
collaborative. Anyway, maybe we can chat further in Toronto!
Thanks for your time,
George Richardson
At 7:20 AM -0700 10/9/07, Forrest Mosten wrote:
I have just uploaded a chart on the Range of Collaborative ModelsForrest S. Mosten
that is the basis for my training with the Los Angeles Collaborative
Family Law Association (Fred Glassman, President) tomorrow evening
.<https://s08.123signup.com/servlet/SignUp?P=17287191155612400&PG=1728718>https://s08.123signup.com/servlet/SignUp?P=17287191155612400&PG=1728718
2300&Info and for a fuller presentation at the University of
Missouri Conference on Innovative Lawyering Practices (Professor
John Lande, Convenor, David Hoffman, Keynote Speaker) to be held
this Friday in Columbia.
<http://law.missouri.edu/cle/program-descrip/descrip08/innovativelawyerin>http://law.missouri.edu/cle/program-descrip/descrip08/innovativelawyeringsymposium.pdf.
