Not that "me toos" are all that useful, but I agree fully with Norma. Might as
well make the best of it while they're there. But in no way would I agree to
delete the DQ provision.
----
Douglas J. Sanderson
McCandlish & Lillard, P.C.
11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 500
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Tel: 703-934-1122
Fax: 703-352-4300
www.mccandlaw.com
________________________________________
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Norma
L. Trusch [nltrusch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 9:33 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [CollabLaw] WACTD?
My instinct would be to look for another, nonadversarial, option. That could
probably be explored with the clients present, as long as your client
understands that any comments he or she makes will not be treated as
confidential. Perhaps sending the clients to an early intervention mediator or
using a dispute resolution manager might work. Norma Trusch
________________________________
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ;
Tom Nagel
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 8:14 AM
To: collabgroup
Subject: [CollabLaw] WACTD?
WACTD? stands for What's A Collaborator To Do?
I've been WACTD twice in recent months when a fully trained collaborative
practitioner has announced in our first 4x meeting that their client does not
want to sign the collaborative law agreement (in one case) or wants to delete
the attorney disqualification provision from the participation agreement. Both
times the other attorney wanted to continue working on the case with me and my
client, but without it being a full fledged collaborative case.
So do you play along, or throw the client to the wolves of litigation, or
is there some other option?
Here's what I did. I proposed the question to this forum. (Next best
thing to posting the attorney's picture on YouTube.)
Thoughts?
Tom H. Nagel
Judicatum Procurator Recuperatio
