One of the benfits of collaborative divorce is that the team approach allows for more layers of protection.  A spouse is not relying only on his/her lawyer to protect them.  The other lawyer is looking out for financial issues that could affect both parties.  Most importantly, the financial neutral is there to make sure that the family as a whole is properly protected.

A new study commissioned by Wakefield on behalf of the New York Association Of Collaborative Professionals found that 1 in 5 Americans know someone who got so caught up in “winning” a divorce that their family, work or social life suffered. A link to the press release about the study is here.

The Collaborative Practice model for divorce can keep a couple focused on a more positive outcome, and avoid the stress and anxiety of a courtroom battle. Stephens Margolin P.C. is committed to the growth of collaborative divorce as an option for Oregon families.

This development may speed the adoption of the collaborative divorce model in Oregon, as our experience has been that the process more frequently selected by higher asset couples.

As a Portland Oregon based divorce law firm, the attorneys at Stephens Margolin P.C. have seen the impact of the housing crisis and the declining stock market on clients. In recent litigation, we have seen courts ordering one spouse to pay the other to keep a house that is underwater. Parties contemplating divorce are well served to consult with lawyers trained in both traditional litigation and collaborative divorce to ensure that all resolution options are available.

The program allows us to send an email to clients so that they can input their asset, debt and expense information and then email the data back to us.  We also ask the other spouse in the case to do the same.  If we are using a financial specialist as part of the collaborative team, the financial specialist will meet with both spouses in order to help them with entering the information.

The software creates easy to understand graphs and tables that detail the family’s current financial situation, the way that the division of assets will look, and how the asset division and support agreement will look many years down the road.  By using this information, we can help to provide a lasting agreement resulting in financial self-sufficiency for both spouses and for the family far after the divorce is completed.

The agenda for the presentation is as follows:

I. Overview of Collaborative Law

 A. Definition of Collaborative Law

B. History of Practice

C. Benefits vs. Litigation

D. Comparison With Mediation

II. Initiating a Collaborative Case

A. Initial Consultation/Client Education

B. Client Retainer Agreement

C. Collaborative Agreement

D. Pleadings

 III. Working a Collaborative Case

A. Information Gathering – Attorney Teleconference

B. Four-Way Meetings

C. Settlement

IV. Collaborative Techniques and Skills

A. Interest Based Negotiations

B. Neutral Experts

C. Tone, Language and Client Control

D. Overcoming Impasse

 V. Getting a Practice Started 

A. Organizing a Local Group

B. Working With Other Professionals

C. Help From Judiciary

The post reprints an article from the London Times online edition.  The full text of the article is copied below.

Madonna and Guy Ritchie could be the first high-profile couple to divorce collaborative-style.

The new, fast-track and non-confrontational way of reaching arrangements over money and children on divorce has just won senior judicial backing – in the week that the couple’s split became public knowledge.

Collaborative law does not sound buzzy. But it is the in-method of reaching divorce agreements, with the benefits of speed, huge cost savings and, above all, minimum acrimony.

Last week a couple of hundred lawyers gathered to celebrate the fifth year since American-style collaborative law was introduced in the UK. In 2003, four London lawyers were among a handful who had qualified in the new method; now there are more than 1,250 and more than 300 in London. This year has also seen the appointment of London’s first “collaborative” silk: Tim Amos, QC.

What is it? It aims to help couples reach agreement out of court, avoiding the risk of the public mud-slinging and battles epitomised in the split between Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

Settlements are reached in four-way, face-to-face talks between the parties and their lawyers. There is an incentive to agree: if the talks fail, then new lawyers have to be instructed for court proceedings – at extra cost.

The couple draws up a consent order which is then agreed by the court. This process used to take three to four months. But last week , Mr Justice Coleridge, a senior family judge, announced a fast-track procedure whereby such orders could now be approved within a couple of days.

He said that If every aspect of the case had been agreed, and the hearing before a judge for approving the order would not take longer than ten minutes, all that was needed was a day’s notice to the court and a chance for the judge to read the papers overnight.

The fast-track initiative, which has the backing of Sir Mark Potter, president of the Family Division, comes about after an un-named couple had asked for urgent approval of their settlement because one was about to move to the United States with the children.

At first, Mr Justice Coleridge said that he thought the application rather cheeky. But he added: “However, I am, as is well-known, a pussycat, and agreed to hear the application for approval as the first in the list on the following day.”

The key benefits of the new “good divorce” method are that it is non-adversarial; solutions can be tailormade and flexible; clients have control of the pace; experts (accountants, financial advisers, therapists or counsellors) can be brought in and work with the couples; and privacy is preserved.

He did sound one note of caution, however. Lawyers needed to be “acutely sensitive” to the process failing so that “costs are not run up first by one process and then, after the trial has hit the buffers, by the old-fashioned scheme”.

Isobel Robson, partner and head of family at Andrew Jackson, the Yorkshire law firm, said there was a big take-up in the new method.

“I believe that collaborative law is the most exciting development in family law in my 24 years of practice. Clients love it; they regard the process as direct, clear and amicable whilst avoiding the expenses and latent aggression of the court process.”

Cost savings were considerable too, she said. “I have dealt with collaborative cases with assets in the millions and costs of under £10,000 – perhaps only 10 per cent or less of the costs for contest cases with the same assets.”

The take-up among lawyers is still patchy, however, with some hugely successful pockets in the regions where lawyers have embraced the new method, but a slower take-up in other areas, including London.

“The clients embrace the concept that the whole focus of their case is on settling – rather than fighting,” she said.

Suzanne Kingston, head of family at Dawsons LLP, said that for Madonna and Guy Ritchie, the privacy would be a big incentive. The settlement could be reached “in one of the offices of the solicitors rather than in court”.

So it’s down to Fiona Shackleton (for Madonna) and (Lady) Helen Ward, for Ritchie. The couple are said to want a deal by Christmas. Using this route, they could well do it.