Thanks, Cat for your question about the intersection between facilitative
mediation and collaboratively trained attorneys.
I have to credit Andrea Eichhorn locally for stimulating my thoughts about
this: Many cases (family and other) go straight to mediation because of the
perceived cost and other benefits. However, I have heard that power and
knowledge disparities can be problematic in straight mediations, but that
many mediators are loathe to involve attorneys because frankly attorneys
often f*** things up with their adversarial /positional orientation.
Also, another concern with the full collaborative model is that it is beyond
the economic reach of some parties with limited means.
The combination of facilitative mediation with attorneys who either
participate in some sessions (ala "Medi-collab," a term coined by Fred
Glassman, I believe) or mediation with outside consulting attorneys/conflict
coaches, could meet the needs of some subset of clients. Now, I cannot say
that I have perfected this process or know all the ramifications - I felt
some tensions when I did something similar. The outside collaboratively
trained attorney has some ambiguity in their dual roles as advocate and part
of the problem-solving team. This is probably a less clearcut area than
that mapped out by traditional collaborative practice. The mediator and
attorneys would have to do a lot of 'process management' and debriefs to
find the right combination between peacemaking/consensus building and
advocacy.
Attorneys could sign on to a 'limited representation' role in such a process
- effectively the same as the disqualification agreement in CL. Many
jurisdictions, like California, explicitly approve of such limited
representation.
The promise of this model is very exciting to me, partly because it empowers
clients within mediation, partly because it allows collaboratively trained
attorneys to fulfill a meaningful role even outside a full collaborative
model.
This also could provide an incentive for non-family attorneys to get
training in collaborative law and negotiation skills. My feeling now is
that many attorneys think, "Why should I pay for a CL training or join a CL
practice group when I won't ever get to use that skill or get actual cases?"
If the skills learned in these trainings, and the connections made with
collaborative attorneys and mediators, could be fruitfully used in some
other capacity, that might actually help us in the civil arena get people
into those trainings. (And eventually help make the full CL 'dual
disqualification' model more viable.)
In my mind, referrals could go both directions. Attorneys could refer to
mediation and remain as consulting attorneys. Mediators who find themselves
in a situation where independent advocates (with a problem-solving
orientation) would assist in coming to the best solution can have a referral
list of consulting attorneys. If we had something like practice groups
where these cross-referral relationships could form and be strengthened
(along with other disciplines, financial, child specialist, coach, etc.) ,
now wouldn't that be great?
What excites me about this model is that it opens up both peacemaking and
helpful advocacy to a currently underserved population.
But, these are just my preliminary thoughts. Anyone who agrees, or who
finds them fatally flawed, is welcome to weigh in.
I'd like to connect you with Jeff Bean, who may be a local contact for you
after this weekend. I've cc'd him on this e-mail.
- Jeanne
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Cat Zavis
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:02 PM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Digest Number 2191
Hello fellow Collaborative Professionals ~
My name is Cat J. Zavis and I am a Family Relationships Advocate -
practicing collaborative law (as a lawyer, parenting coach, child
specialist) and mediator. I also facilitate collaborative meetings.
I teach Nonviolent Communication and use my skills from that training
and experience in all the work I do.
Jeanne, I am interested in what you wrote about the dinner Thursday
night, April 3rd - to explore "connecting with the mediation
community about using a collaboratively trained counsel within a more
facilitative mediation process."
I am curious what, exactly, you mean by that. To the extent I think
I understand what you mean by that, when I act as a mediator, that is
what I do - use a more facilitative mediation process. I am unable
to attend the dinner Thursday night because I live in Bellingham, WA
and am not going to be in Seattle. Ironically, I am headed to Lake
Chelan Friday afternoon because I am speaking at a WA State Bar
Assoc. CLE on communication. I am giving a presentation to lawyers
on Nonviolent Communication.
However, I would be interested in talking with you and anyone else
who is interested in using a collaboratively trained counsel within a
more facilitative mediation process. If you would enjoy talking with
me, please either email me at catzavis@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:catzavis%40comcast.net> or call me at
360-820-9955.
I hope to hear from you.
with warmth ~
cat
Cat J. Zavis, Counselor at Law
Family Relationships Advocate
Communication Collaboration Mediation
100 E. Maple Street
Bellingham, WA 98225
360-820-9955
catzavis@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:catzavis%40comcast.net>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
