Nora Bushfield - http://www.atlantalaw.net/. She lead a great training in
Sarasota a couple of years ago.
Best regards,
Adam
---
*Find Out How **Collaborative Family Law*
<http://familydiplomacy.com/practice-areas/#collaborativedivorce>* Can Help
You.*
Adam B. Cordover
*Attorney-at-Law*
FAMILY DIPLOMACY:
A COLLABORATIVE LAW FIRM
412 East Madison Street, Suite 824
Tampa, Florida 33602
813.443.0615 (telephone)
813.489.4567 (facsimile)
adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.FamilyDiplomacy.com <http://www.familydiplomacy.com/>
[image: acordover_logo] <http://www.familydiplomacy.com/>[image:
NGD-Member-Badge-300px] <http://nextgenerationdivorce.com/>
No attorney-client relationship exists until we have expressly agreed to
the representation in writing *and* payment towards the initial fee has
been received. The information in this email message and any attachments
is intended for the confidential use of the addressees only. The
information may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or attorney
work-product. In no way should recipients forward or otherwise disseminate
this email or its contents to any third party. If you are not an intended
addressee or an authorized agent, you have received this email in error,
and any further review, dissemination, distribution, copying, or forwarding
of this email is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error,
please (i) notify us immediately via email at adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or via
telephone at (813) 443-0615 and (ii) delete this message.
*From:* CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
*Sent:* Monday, February 8, 2016 11:32 AM
*To:* CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [CollabLaw] reference to a collaborative attorney in Atlanta area
I have a close friend who resides in Alpharetta, outside of Atlanta who has
decided to get divorced and both she and her husband want to engage in the
collaborative process. Is there a collaborative attorney that any of you
may want to refer?
Thank you.
Enid Miller Ponn, Esq.
Director, Center for Collaborative
Divorce & Mediation
[image: http://theccdm.com/images/ccdm_logo_bottom.png]
<http://theccdm.com/>
1525 North Park Drive, Suite 102
Weston, Florida 33326
T: (954) 349-6484
E: enid@xxxxxxxxxxx
F: (954) 349-6780
*This e-mail and any attachments are a private communication and contain
confidential information intended solely for use by the person and/or
entity to which it is addressed. This email and any attachments may be
subject to attorney-client privilege or other legally recognized
privileges. Any review, use, copying, distribution or disclosure by someone
other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited by law. If you are
not the intended recipient, or are not authorized to receive e-mail on
behalf of the intended recipient, or otherwise received this email in
error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail, permanently delete the
original and any copy of this e-mail from your system, and destroy any
printout thereof, including any attachments. Thank you for your
cooperation.*
*From:* CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2016 11:55 AM
*To:* CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* Re: [CollabLaw] Scope of representation in modification
Love!
At the end of the day I’m hearing you say it’s the purity of the process
and the fact that CP attorneys are not on a “rescue mission.” Keep CP
pristine distinguishing the process very clearly in a class of its own.
Serve up the opportunity for CP but if they reject it…so be it.
This also emphasizes the clear need to debrief everything at the conclusion
of the original case, including detailed debrief with our own client on how
they felt during the process. And whether they would feel comfortable
going to other team members, (i.e. MHP in this scenario), if there is later
conflict. We can’t overlook that step, and also crafting helpful protocol
in the Decree for when there is a “flare up".
In the scenario I gave, your idea about the suspension of litigation and
fixed number of meetings is worthy of further reflection.
Especially love the discussion on ego. How easy it is for us (at least for
me!) not to recognize ego when we disguise it as “wanting to help, ” and
wanting to keep parties away from THEM. (in our ego’s diagnosis of other
types of lawyers as somehow evil and our simultaneous attempt to put
ourselves in the hero/heroine camp).
Thank you for this feedback. It’s very helpful for my writing today and for
further refinement of my own practice and attitude!
On Feb 7, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Stu Webb StuWbb@xxxxxxx [CollabLaw] <
CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So true, Michael. The ego says "I am unreplaceable!!
-----Original Message-----
From: carl Michael rossi cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw] <
CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: CollabLaw <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sun, Feb 7, 2016 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Scope of representation in modification
Changes nothing.
EVERY situation "could be tempered if clear heads prevail".
Why does it have to be YOUR head? Again, that's simply self-aggrandizing.
There is nothing inherent in the 'mediation process" that prevents the
participants from losing their heads.
Seriously: "the “magic” that all peacemaker/collaborative attorneys have is
a sense of calm resolve"....? Have you MET every attorney who throws the
word 'Collaborative' on their website?? Every "trained mediator"????
More 'magical thinking'.
But if you really think that the attitude of THIS one ex-spouse's attorney
is the piece that will "make" it work, I say refer him/her to such an
attorney.
If you REALLY want/need to be involved. Consider this.....
See if the parties will agree to a litigation 'stoppage' while the parties
return to their respective CP attorneys to see if things can be worked out
together. Limit the new PA to a fixed number of meetings. I'd say two or
three at most; with a durational limit of probably no more than a month.
Remember, in your scenario, the kids are being screwed and used as a
bargaining chip while the professionals stroke their own egos as
'peacemakers'. Either the couple will work together, or they won't. Think
the presence of a mediator will help? Include one. [Though I've never
understood that inclusion if two (or more) competent CP professionals are
involved]
Wanna help them? Help them. But within the terms of the Participation
Agreement.
This begins to sound like something I commented on last week...... CP
attorneys being more creative in figuring out how to get around the
Disqualification Clause than they likely were in helping the couple to
fashion a parenting plan that actually focused on the children's needs and
the parents' responsibilities as opposed to merely reaching a horsetrading
settlement of 'custody and visitation'.
*In**Joy**!*
*cMr *
*Collaborative Practice Chicago*
*Divorce Without Warfare*
*carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.*
*Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor*
*773-442-2751 *
*cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
*www.CPChicago.net <http://www.cpchicago.net/>*
Executive Director, *Collaborative Practice Professionals of Illinois*
<http://cppillinois.com/>
Publisher, *The World of Collaborative Practice
<http://theworldofcollaborativepractice.com/>**: A Magazine Promoting
Collaborative Dispute Resolution for the Full Range of Possibilities.* An
international online magazine for professionals and the general public
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Kimberly Stamatelos
kimberlymediator@xxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw] <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Love, love , love this response and YES it’s an imaginary scenario.
Ok let’s muddy the waters……
What if you suspect that it could be tempered if clear heads prevail? Maybe
new spouse(s) are stirring the pot and they went through a contentious
divorce and are encouraging party to “keep their options open.”
Wondering if a mediation could temper things? The “magic” that all
peacemaker/collaborative attorneys have is a sense of calm resolve, a
problem solving approach and encouraging a “pause” before ramping up.
Sending these folks to “old paradigm” lawyers might just start unnecessary
drama and contentiousness.
Is there anything we can do in this scenario short of saying “sorry I’m
out?” If clients are seeing us as problem solvers don’t we owe them more?
Thanks for your engaging response!!
Kim
On Feb 7, 2016, at 9:33 AM, carl Michael rossi cpchicago@xxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw]
<CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Kim!
First off, just to be clear, this is NOT a case, is it? It's a created
scenario about which you are writing something, right? Curious about the
'topic' of your piece.....
The "disqualification" is not simply about what any future process is
called, it is about the nature of it. Is it "against" the ex-spouse? Is
it "oppositional"? If so, my answer is to say that I'm 'out'.
This sounds already like a decidedly "adversarial" mediation. Since this
couple has already 'decided' there it will NOT be a return to the CP
approach, I don't see any benefit for your client to having you in the
feigned 'mediation' process in-contemplation-of / under-threat-of
litigation. Nor do I see any particular reason in this case to believe
that mediation will provide the support and encouragement necessary for a
joint decision on the issues when it has already been decided that the, in
principle, MORE supportive environment of CP won't help them.
Since you mention the "other team members" from the CP dissolution.....
Part of the Participation Agreement [the ones that I've seen], and at least
my Engagement Letter, is that each member of the professional Team remains
available to the couple to help them resolve any difficulties that arise
following the dissolution [though not in an adversarial process]. I do not
have the impression that this couple has availed themselves of any
Parenting Specialist or MHP from that process when those problems arose.
Unfortunate. But that they have chosen not to do so would itself for me
result in my declining to involve myself in this dispute.
My guess would be that the spouse demanding change to the agreement was not
genuinely satisfied with the outcome, but 'settled' for it. [why I don't
like 'settlements'] My impression is that s/he likely will therefore not
trust you and would make that known to his/her attorney. As I've suggested
here before, as that person's litigation attorney, the first thing I would
do is to seek an order of the court to have YOU removed from the matter
based upon the Participation Agreement.
Do YOU really want to get involved in an adversarial matter? Even though
it's called 'mediation'? One in which one battle might be whether you
should even be allowed to stay in it? One in which every suggestion you
might have that is not the goal/desire/position of the other party/attorney
is likely to be met with "we'll see what a judge says" or "that's not what
'the law' requires'?
Lawyers love the refrain "but the client wants me"; it's a powerful
emotional draw. But to this I always say, "so what?" Attorneys turn down
or even abandon clients all the time. Often for no reason other than we
don't like them or they can no longer pay us. Yet we hesitate to tell a
client who 'wants me' that I simply can't help you because of the agreement
you and I made. Much less willing are we to say that I can't help you
because I don't choose to involve myself unless the parties understand that
they MUST work together and agree that they WILL make every effort to do so
recognizing thar the other person's needs are every bit as important and
valid as their own and that both must subjugate their own needs to the
needs of their children..... oh, wait, that would be a Collaborative
Practice approach.......
Finally, and I don't mean any slight or offense, but rather just in
general, what particular 'magic' do you think that you have, or that your
presence would bring that will 'make' the mediation successful?
*In**Joy**!*
*cMr *
*Collaborative Practice Chicago*
*Divorce Without Warfare*
*carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.*
*Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor*
*773-442-2751 <773-442-2751> *
*cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>*
*www.CPChicago.net <http://www.cpchicago.net/>*
Executive Director, *Collaborative Practice Professionals of Illinois*
<http://cppillinois.com/>
Publisher, *The World of Collaborative Practice
<http://theworldofcollaborativepractice.com/>**: A Magazine Promoting
Collaborative Dispute Resolution for the Full Range of Possibilities.* An
international online magazine for professionals and the general public
On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Kimberly Stamatelos
kimberlymediator@xxxxxxxxx [CollabLaw] <CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
*[Attachment(s) from Kimberly Stamatelos included below]*
Scenario: Client comes to you for modification action due to parenting time
problems. Perhaps there is even withholding of parenting time altogether.
You represented client in initial collaborative divorce. Modification
action will not be collaborative but client wants you to represent them to
try to get it settled in mediation or through negotiation. If that doesn’t
work they have made it clear they will pursue litigation including contempt
if necessary.
Can you represent client or are you precluded because of possible
litigation in the future, even though your role is non-litigation?
What if there is a dispute resolution clause in the original Decree
requiring a collaborative meeting or mediation before filing court action?
Does that change your answer?
Does it impact your answer if opposing counsel is litigation counsel and
not collaborative counsel? What if other party’s former collaborative
counsel is willing to provide same scope of representation for their client?
Since collaborative document is not signed, what if you agree to informal
discovery? Does that impact your answer?
If answer is “yes” you can represent through mediation stage, can you use
other team members from original collaborative divorce to assist through
the mediation process?
Simply put, if the modification is not a collaborative case and litigation
option is open, are you (and other former team members) just automatically
“out” even if peacemaking efforts will be exhausted first?
Any other comments about modification welcome as I write about this topic.
Feel free to address any subpart of this topic that is interesting to you.
If you want to reach me offline to discuss further please email
kimberlymediator@xxxxxxxxx
Thank you my brilliant colleagues!
Kim
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The documents accompanying this email transmission
contain confidential information belonging to the sender which is legally
privileged. The information is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking
of any action in reliance on or regarding the contents of this emailed
information is strictly prohibited.
Attachment:
binzRaFOp__3L.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped
Attachment:
binZovPjaJHZG.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped
Attachment:
binqOYSVVcNs1.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped
