Re: Five-year practice requirement? Logic?
- From: "zatzwoman" <clzatzman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:17:41 -0000
--- In CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Kim Surratt" <kim@...> wrote:
Almost a year ago I made a comment on this listserve on this very
topic -
reminding the members that "new" does not equal "young."
Why would we ever tell a professional right out of law school to go
learn
how to be an advocate so that you can come back to us and let us
break down
those walls and re-train you. Those with the most experience in my
group
have been the hardest to train and convert. They have a really hard
time
breaking out of the adversarial shell - and often go back to old habits.
What Kim has said here is the "argument" I've been advancing against
practice requirements in Collaborative groups since the beginning of
my involvement. Having just completed the teaching the first
collaborative law course in a Florida law school, I assure you that
forcing new attorneys to get out there and acquire 2 or 3 or 5 years
of litigation experience before giving them membership in your groups
will be a grave error and can really hurt this movement. My students
didn't always show the skills necessary for effective facilitative
negotiation, and we worked on it for a full semester!!! Finally, they
have already been deeply indoctrinated to the litigation mentality,
and at least one local practitioner in the Gainesville area has
confirmed my deepest fears: these same law students who genuinely
desire to practice family law with minimal detrimental effects are
learning to use litigation tactics through the clinics ... depositions
and other discovery tools are used to excess -- if we don't welcome,
and I mean with OPEN ARMS, all who wish to practice collaboratively,
we are keeping the older way alive and thriving. Those good-ole-boys
at the law school and in the old practice communities ... well, they
just aren't very open to this practice style -- until they make the
bench. Then their attitude toward ME is "Come on down and teach these
lawyers how to play nice." And this is what the judiciary has said to
me in several Florida circuits since before I taught the course at UF.
Now, it remains to be seen if I'll be offered another contract ... I
hope they do, since I know all the mistakes I made last semester.
Maybe it can be a better course with better results next time.
On another note, I love Norma's suggestions for Inns of Court for
collaborative support. Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions (like
Florida) you have to litigate a certain percentage of your cases to
become board certified -- and I will never litigate again. It made me
mentally ill ... honestly, it did. I cannot abide by exacerbating
conflict when it puts children at risk of severe, long-term problems.
And I will not do it. I won't. If we can honor experience without
requiring litigation minimums, I'm in. Otherwise, I will have to
object to calling in the "experts" based upon litigation experience.
We are destroying our society when we continue in litigation. I
understand that not everyone agrees with me on this point, and I
really do honor your position. I just know what I see, and it makes me
ill, literally.
Love and blessings,
the long missing in action,
Cindy Zatzman
"You would think my love was really something good, if I could change
the world." Eric Clapton
Other related posts:
- » Re: Five-year practice requirement? Logic? - zatzwoman
