Anecdotally, in Maryland we have had many recent inquiries about CL
from attorneys engaged in civil-business-commercial practice. Just
this morning,Jac Knust, one of our collaborative colleagues did a
presentation to the business council section of the State Bar on the
application of CL in the civil arena. There was actually one
inquiry at the end of the presentation! Small steps, but it is
happening here in Maryland. We have already had several professionals
sign up for a "Basic 2-Day in Civil and Business Collaborative Law"
that we are having in September. We are hoping that our efforts will
lead to greater interest!
--- In CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jeanne Fahey" <jmfahey@...> wrote:
to expand
Hello Collab law list:
I pose this question for those who will be so generous as to share your
thoughts and concerns:
For several years, I and many others across the country have tried
Collaborative Practice to a range of civil practice areas. As youmay know
this has been quite difficult - not, I think because CP wouldn't be ancases
excellent fit for many cases. In fact, the few 'full' collaborative
we have demonstrate this point. However, the marketplace realitiesof many
of these practice areas make it nearly impossible for an individualattorney
to get all the parties and attorneys signed on to the process. Wehave had
little traction as a movement, and difficulty merging into theexisting CP
practice group and IACP structure, mostly I think because thatstructure is
much more mature than our gestating movement. We have big chickenand egg
problems - how to get attorneys trained, how to organize, how tobuild an
effective critical mass when we are operating in a definitely non-localterms
practice areas (with many attorneys frankly hostile to the idea).
I also respect that Collaborative Practice and Collaborative Law are
of art which by their definition require a signed agreement withhow we,
'disqualification' by both attorneys. My question is geared toward
in the civil community, may move forward our desires to practice ina more
collaborative (little 'c') way and to effectively organize, workwith the
majority family law Collaborative Practice community and have mutuallyCL/CP's
beneficial, reciprocal sharing relationships WHILE respecting the
needs as a more mature movement (with the need to 'brand' CL/CP).interests?
Is this something that can be done? Can we accommodate all our
Can we avoid harmful forms of competition between alternativeprocesses, as
seemed to have happened in the mediation community? Can we, in thecivil
community, embrace a diversity of processes including but not limited tointerests
CP/CL and call those processes by some name that doesn't harm the
of the CL/CP movement? Can we ever use the term "collaborative" (lowerdistinguish it
case, 'little c') to describe how we operate, if we clearly
from "Collaborative" (upper case, preceding the word Law or Practice)??listserv
I know that sometimes there have been sensitive discussions about things
like the use of the term "collaborative" Whether we should use the
to talk about any other innovations other than CP/CL, including"cooperative
negotiation," unbundling, mediation with collaboratively trainedattorneys
in the process or acting as advise counsel.civil area
I've sensed some tensions over the years between our needs in the
and some of the needs of the family law folk. Is there a way we canput our
interest=based negotiation caps on and see how to creatively resolvethese
tensions so that civil 'little c' practices can grow? (We need toget out
of our rut.)
Thanks for your attention,
Jeanne Fahey
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
