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 to expand
Collaborative Practice to a range of civil practice areas. As you may know
this has been quite difficult - not, I think because CP wouldn't be an
excellent fit for many cases. In fact, the few 'full' collaborative cases
we have demonstrate this point. However, the marketplace realities of many
of these practice areas make it nearly impossible for an individual attorney
to get all the parties and attorneys signed on to the process. We have had
little traction as a movement, and difficulty merging into the existing CP
practice group and IACP structure, mostly I think because that structure is
much more mature than our gestating movement. We have big chicken and egg
problems - how to get attorneys trained, how to organize, how to build an
effective critical mass when we are operating in a definitely non-local
practice areas (with many attorneys frankly hostile to the idea).
I also respect that Collaborative Practice and Collaborative Law are terms
of art which by their definition require a signed agreement with
'disqualification' by both attorneys. My question is geared toward how we,
in the civil community, may move forward our desires to practice in a more
collaborative (little 'c') way and to effectively organize, work with the
majority family law Collaborative Practice community and have mutually
beneficial, reciprocal sharing relationships WHILE respecting the CL/CP's
needs as a more mature movement (with the need to 'brand' CL/CP).
Is this something that can be done? Can we accommodate all our interests?
Can we avoid harmful forms of competition between alternative processes, as
seemed to have happened in the mediation community? Can we, in the civil
community, embrace a diversity of processes including but not limited to
CP/CL and call those processes by some name that doesn't harm the interests
of the CL/CP movement? Can we ever use the term "collaborative" (lower
case, 'little c') to describe how we operate, if we clearly distinguish it
from "Collaborative" (upper case, preceding the word Law or Practice)??
I know that sometimes there have been sensitive discussions about things
like the use of the term "collaborative" Whether we should use the listserv
to talk about any other innovations other than CP/CL, including "cooperative
negotiation," unbundling, mediation with collaboratively trained attorneys
in the process or acting as advise counsel.
I've sensed some tensions over the years between our needs in the civil area
and some of the needs of the family law folk. Is there a way we can put our
interest=based negotiation caps on and see how to creatively resolve these
tensions so that civil 'little c' practices can grow? (We need to get out
of our rut.)
Thanks for your attention,
Jeanne Fahey
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
