Dear Collaborative Practice colleagues:
I apologize, in advance, for the length of the following post . . .
For those of us who believe (as I do) that the advancement of
Collaborative Practice will be enhanced by enactment of the Uniform
Collaborative Law Act, recent developments in Utah were - at first blush
- a bit disconcerting. The Utah Legislature enacted, and the Governor
signed, a version of the UCLA that omits important sections of the Act,
such as those involving the withdrawal of Collaborative counsel if the
case winds up being litigated. Many of us were wondering what rationale
was for this decision, and, fortunately, the Utah Legislature makes
available on its public web site audio and video recordings of its
proceedings.
http://le.utah.gov/jsp/jdisplay/billaudio.jsp?sess=2010GS&bill=hb0284&He
aders=true
(Unfortunately, playing these files requires the use of a program called
RealPlayer, which not everyone has.)
To make life easier for us all, I have excerpted the relevant portion of
the debate in Utah and uploaded it to YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P88HoMaBZE&feature=player_embedded
In this brief excerpt (only 47 seconds) you will hear that the bill
sponsor is working with the judiciary to have certain portions of the
Act relating to evidence and procedure (including the withdrawal
provisions) approved as Court rules.
On a related note, the Uniform Law Commission is about to publish its
next (and probably final) version of the UCLA, which will contain
options for legislatures and/or courts to enact the provisions. Some
states may choose to follow Utah's lead in seeking judicial approval of
portions of the Act. FWIW, my personal opinion is that clarity about CP
would be enhanced by having all of the provisions in one legislative
enactment, rather that part rule, part statute. But if parsing out
portions and getting those portions approved by the Courts is what it
takes to secure enactment, that is obviously preferable to having no Act
at all. The new version of the UCLA will also have an option for states
to limit the applicability of the Act to family law (a point on which
there are many strongly held views within the CP community.) One of the
things that all of us can do - at least those of us in the U.S. who live
in states that have no CP legislation - is to work with our bar
associations, CP organizations, and the ULC Commissioners in our states
to get the UCLA into the legislative hopper as soon as possible and
press for enactment. The CL Committee of the ABA Section of Dispute
Resolution (which Larry Maxwell and I co-chair) is looking for
opportunities to work with IACP and others to get the UCLA enacted - and
if possible before February 2011, when the ABA House of Delegates may be
asked again to approve the Act. This could be an uphill battle, but
enactment by a number of states prior to February 2011 would mean that
there is a lot less at stake in whether the ABA approves the Act or not.
Best regards, David
David A. Hoffman, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator and Collaborative Lawyer
Boston Law Collaborative, LLC
99 Summer Street - Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-439-4700 x201
Fax: 617-439-0700
Email: DHoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:DHoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: www.BostonLawCollaborative.com
<http://www.BostonLawCollaborative.com>
John H. Watson, Jr. Lecturer on Law
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA 02138
Email: davhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:davhoffman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Web: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=761
<blocked::http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=761
