My impression is that clients are not as large a factor as the portal
collaborative professionals.
When I was unsure about the value of a collaborative team, my clients were
tentative about whether they thought is was of value. When I spoke of
"allied professonals" or said "it might be helpful to have other
professionals", I was offerring "less than and extra cost concepts" I was
unwittingly sinking my client's ship, and my own.
Clients are looking for helpful information and leadership.
The first time I worked with a psychologist at the table, I was
unconfortable. I didn't want to be judged; I didn't want to give up the
control I was trained to assert.
I watched him ask questions, I didn't think of, and receive answers that
were helpful to seeing what was important to my client. Questions that
come from a different perspective. He asked what my client's learning
style was and how she would like to recieve information that would be most
helpful. He asked how the couple resolved conflict when times were good.
I incorporated those two gems in every client interview since then.
I remember that Stu Webb told our group that the most valuable learning
comes from the non-laywers. I have found that to be true for me.
I remember that Pauline Tessler shared that she works with a full team and
it is not an option. I don't offer options, or extras or less thans.
I offer a client centered approach and work with the team and ask the
questions about what will work for this couple.
In our group, it is the most experienced professionals that work as
multidisciplinary teams and we are collaborative professionals.
Change direction and ask a different question: Who is working with team
models and what is their process.
Develop your own new normal.
Best,
Dave Murch
Rochester
Message:
-----------------
From: jim musante jm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:39:05 -0600
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] focus group research
My experience in Colorado Springs is that clients are very likely to use
MHPs (at least in the one coach/facilitator model of team CP) when you make
clear in the beginning that the coach will likely have some initial sessions
with the clients without the other professionals present (e.g. 3-way
meeting). Those meetings with the MHP will be using the expertise of the
coach to review the impact on kids of restructuring families, teach
communication and emotional management skills, develop parenting plans,
introduce problem solving skills, etc. AS much of this would be done with 2
CL attorneys in a meeting with clients in the standard CL model, this aspect
of the team model is clearly a significant cost savings alone (as I have yet
to hear of a CP coach who charges more per hour then a CP Lawyer - nevermind
two of them in the room!).
Jim Musante
CP coach and trainer
Colorado
rlsroth@aol.com3/11/08 3:32 PM
Marg,don't
Our experience in Miami for the reluctance parties have in using the
interdisciplinary model has to do with cost. Our practice group is
interdisciplinary
and most of our MHPs have not been involved in cases, not because we
think it is essential but because the parties are unwilling or unable tothat
spend
the money . We are having Norma Trusch's group coming to do a training
our group, the Collaborative Family Law Institute is sponsoring on April11th
and 12th. Hopefully we will gain some new skills at the training thatwill
help us create more integrated cases. It has been easier to have the(mailto:rlsroth@xxxxxxx
financial
professionals involved.
Rosemarie Roth
Rosemarie S. Roth, Esq.
8525 S.W. 92 Street
Suite B-5
Miami, FL 33156
email: _rlsroth@xxxxxxx <mailto:_rlsroth%40aol.com> _
<mailto:rlsroth%40aol.com> )It
Telephone: 305-596-7303
Ffax: 305-596-1198
In a message dated 3/11/2008 3:10:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mopatovsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mopatovsky%40wilsonop.com> writes:
The Niagara Collaborative Law Group is in the process of setting up a
focus group relating to Collaborative Practice.
The focus group would consist of individuals who went through a
separation/divorce but chose not to use a Collaborative process.
We would like to obtain some insight as to why they did not choose
either Collaborative Law or Collaborative Practice and what would
have made them select either process.
We also hope to gain some insight into the reasons why clients might
choose Collaborative Law over Collaborative Practice. As a group, we
are committed to the inter-disciplinary model of Collaborative
Practice but have difficulty getting clients to commit to this
practice even where they have chosen to proceed collaboratively.
Are you aware of any similar focus groups that have taken place? If
so, how was it organized and can you direct us to any published
results? We do have the research from Dr. Julie Macfarlane.
Thank you for your assistance.
Marg Opatovsky
Niagara Region, Ontario
tel. 905-835-1163
fax. 905-835-2171
Rosemarie S. Roth, Esq.
8525 S.W. 92 Street
Suite B-5
Miami, Florida 33156
Telephone: 305-596-7303
Fax:305-596-1198
Email: rlsroth@xxxxxxx <mailto:rlsroth%40aol.com>
This email and any attachments are confidential and legally privileged.
is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you arenot
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review,email
dissemination,
distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this in error, please notify the sender by reply
and then delete the email completely from your system. This email andany
attachments have been scanned for viruses, but it is the responsibilityof
theS.
recipient to conduct their own security measures and no responsibility is
accepted by Rosemarie S. Roth P.A., for loss or damage arising from the
receipt or
use of this email. Further, no responsibility is accepted by Rosemarie
Roth, P.A., for personal email, or email not connected with the firm's or
client's business.
