Choosing to 'pile on' a little bit here since I share the
perceptions/concerns that George and several others have expressed.
For me the difficulty arises when Collaborative Practice is seen as "another
way of doing what we've always done".
In fact, CP is a way of doing something that is fundamentally different from
"what we've always done" [whether we are attorneys or MHP/coaches (perhaps
less so for financials, but probably true as well)] The is the way in which
I see the items that George and the others are referring to in the table;
they are really just "other words" for the same old thing.
Here in Chicago we recently had the pleasure of an entire day with Pauline
Tesler. I can't hope to adequately summarize all the different perspective
she worked to encourage in the training.
I would suggest that, as I see it, CP is at it's true best when it strives
actively to NOT be just another way of getting from where we are to a
settlement agreement, to a piece of paper that reflects what the law says.
Pauline refers to such as a shallow peace formed in the "shadow of the law."
The way in which CP is different is its FORWARD focus. In other words, we
start from the description of the new relationship the couple seeks post
divorce and work backwards to see how best to use the full range of
'assests' at hand to create that new relationship. CP is not simply a
'friendly' way to divide the present assets; there is a goal in mind. And
that goal is more than simply a piece of paper.
If you'd like to hear Pauline describe this, you might want to pick up a
recording of her Stu Webb Lecture at the Atlanta IACP Forum in 2005.
"Basking in the Present Moment: Where We Are Now: The Stu Webb Lecture" It
is still available from the company that recorded it:
http://www.impactlearning.org/store/seminar/seminar-details.php?sessionid=4c
2df3ab778e84cf223e5e1d047f50f6-2726164
<http://www.impactlearning.org/store/seminar/seminar-details.php?sessionid=4
c2df3ab778e84cf223e5e1d047f50f6-2726164&seminar=494> &seminar=494
It was also available to hear on the Toronto website, but I have had no luck
trying to play it there.
http://www.collaborativepracticetoronto.com/IACP%20Reflections.htm
It is, in my humble opinion, an excellent and inspirational statement of the
nature of Collaborative Practice and most importantly how it is NOT "another
way of doing what we've always done".
InJoy!
cMr
Collaborative PracticeChicago
Resolving Disputes Respectfully.
Divorce Without Warfare
carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.
Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor
773-292-3456
<mailto:cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://www.cpchicago.net/> www.CPChicago.net
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of George B. Richardson
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 4:56 PM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] "Unbundling the Collaborative Divorce Process:
Different Models for Different Families".
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 Models<https://s08.123signup.com/servlet/SignUp?P=17287191155612400&PG=1728718>
that is the basis for my training with the Los Angeles Collaborative
Family Law Association (Fred Glassman, President) tomorrow evening
.<https://s08.
2300&Info and for a fuller presentation at the University of<http://law.missouri.edu/cle/program-descrip/descrip08/innovativelawyerin>
Missouri Conference on Innovative Lawyering Practices (Professor
John Lande, Convenor, David Hoffman, Keynote Speaker) to be held
this Friday in Columbia.
<http://law.missouri
Forrest S. Mosten
