I've often wondered, in the context of collaboration, when we would see
the evolution of the legal collaborative role to that of 'legal expert'
and out of advocate.
Although, as noted below, this type of role does not meet our ethical
rules (current) I do believe, that in the very earliest times of English
jurisprudence, that this is exactly the role of the legal expert. They
couldn't accept direct remuneration, as they were supposed to be
completely objective.
I'm not saying that each party in a collaborative case shouldn't have
collaborative advocates, but the question is - must they be attorneys?
I could point out all kinds of reasons why others might easily fit into
this role (coaches for example), like noting that attorneys have to
learn to be advocates without being attached to outcomes, that we aren't
all that well trained, in law school, to be conflict 'resolvers'... but
from a practical point of view, we are really expensive compared to
other professionals.
Judges follow the rules of ethics - they're still attorneys - and they
are not advocates, so there are precedents even under our current rules
for this type of transition.
This is an idea I have been asked about by more than one client.
Ann Gushurst
Gutterman Griffiths PC
10375 Park Meadows Drive, Suite 520
Littleton, CO 80124
Phone: 303-858-8090
Fax: 303-858-8181
The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s)or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or legally
privileged material. Delivery of this message to any person other than
the intended recipient(s) is not intended in any way to waive privilege
or confidentiality. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other
use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any computer.
________________________________
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeff Bean
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 4:57 PM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [CollabLaw] "cordial divorce" - new method in Wash. State
I'm not a family law practitioner, but I don't see how one can represent
both parties to a divorce. Maybe those who do practice it see something
I'm
missing here.
We use the model rules, and recently adopted the comments, too (with
additions -- after all, we are "the Soviet of Washington).
First, there appears to be a concurrent conflict of interest as the
representation of one client is directly adverse to another. RPC
1.7(a)(1).
Second, there's the significant risk that the representation of one
client
will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another
client. RPC 1.7(a)(2).
It appears to be a non-consentable conflict, as the representation
involves
the assertion of a claim by one client against another client
represented by
the lawyer in the same proceeding. RPC 1.7(b)(3).
Jeff Bean
The Bean Law Firm PLLC
Your Solutions - Beyond the CourthouseT
Mediation Services. Collaborative Practice.
Seattle 206 794 5585
This message may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected by
law.
Any use or distribution by anyone other than the intended recipient is
prohibited. If you received it in error please let me know.
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:CollabLaw%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ;<mailto:CollabLaw%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf
Of Ross Evans
Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:09 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:CollabLaw%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] "cordial divorce" - new method in Wash. State
This certainly seems like a perfect ethics contradiction to me. There is
no
way that one lawyer can competently represent the interests of 2
individuals
that are terminating their marriage. How is this not a conflict waiting
to
happen. i would not want to be Ms. Forrier's Malpractice Carrier.
Ohio allows for Dissolution of Marriages with all issues resolved, but
if
only one Attorney is involved, one party waives counsel and is not
represented.
Ross M. Evans, Esq.
Katz, Greenberger & Norton LLP
105 East Fourth Street, Fourth Floor
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-4056
Voice (513)721-5151 Fax (513)621-9285
e-mail: rme@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rme%40kgnlaw.com>
mobile e-mail (Emergency) rmevans@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rmevans%40sprintpcs.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email is intended by sender only for the
use
of the recipient(s) named above and may be subject to the
attorney-client
and/or work product privileges, neither of which is waived by this
transmission. If you received this email in error, please immediately
notify the sender by reply email or telephone (513)-721-5151 and destroy
this communication. Thank you.
04/19/08 1:05 PM >>>luecklawcenter@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:luecklawcenter%40yahoo.com>
