Tom,
If this person is a member of a collaborative law group, it appears to me that
this is also a practice group issue. The groups in California that I am aware
of (and belong to) have protocols for conduct of cases. Many groups have a
committee that deals with conflicts with cases and between group members using
experienced colleagues to debrief and mediate. A protocol for case facilitation
is available on the IACP website and our local version is attached to this
comment.
Julie A. Hicks
Attorney at Law
906 N Street, Suite 110
Fresno, CA 93721
Telephone (559) 489-0906
Facsimile (559) 489-0511
--- On Thu, 1/27/11, Tom Nagel <tomnagel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Tom Nagel <tomnagel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [CollabLaw] WACTD?
To: "collabgroup" <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2011, 6:13 AM
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
Attachment:
bin4eAdTo3uPq.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped
