Skip to main content

The Huxtable's Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part II

The Huxtables and Collaborative Law:

Cliff is a doctor and Clare is a lawyer. They have five children. They both share in parenting and managing the finances. Cliff's office is located in the home. Some of the children live at home but the number is constantly changing because Clare and Cliff keep their doors open to their children.

Clare recently informed Cliff that she has met another lawyer who she feels has more in common with and she wants a divorce. Cliff is shocked but after dealing with the initial shock, he realizes that he does not want the process to be acrimonious or to affect their relationship with the children. He has seen how other doctors have had their families and practices torn apart by drawn out litigation and does not want his children or patients to suffer.

Both Clare and Cliff consult with attorneys and are informed of the possibility of proceeding through mediation, collaborative law or litigation. Although, Cliff is wary of litigation, he is afraid of mitigation because Clare is a lawyer and he feels she would have an advantage. He agrees to hire a lawyer trained in Collaborative Law and requests that Clare does the same.

Cliff's lawyer presents a proposed Collaborative Law agreement in which both Cliff's attorney and Clare's attorney agree not to represent the parties if they change their mind and decide to litigate. Clare sees the value in having two attorneys who are vested in the settlement and would be motivated to avoid litigation.

Clare, Cliff and their attorneys meet ten times over the next twelve months. At times the process seems to be dragging and Cliff becomes very frustrated with the significant difference in values presented by his expert and Clare's expert for both his medical practice and Clare's interest in her law firm. He feels like they are spending too much money on experts and lawyers and are no closer to a settlement.

Clare has become very defensive in the Collaborative Law meetings because Cliff has begun requesting more and more restrictions on the parenting plan with the children, which has become overly complicated in her opinion. She feels that Cliff is trying to punish her for having an affair and not focused on what is best for their children.

Both Clare and Cliff explore litigation with new attorneys but because of the cost already invested with their Collaborative Law attorneys, they agree to give it another try and after two more meetings they are able to reach a Separation Agreement, which is presented to the Court with a Joint Petition for Divorce.

Cliff remains very bitter after the process because of the very high cost spent by both parties on their counsel and the length of time the process took.

COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Because of Cliff's fears and Clare's legal expertise it is unlikely this process could have gone much better. It is probable that Mediation, if successful, would have been a much quicker and cheaper process. But it is also possible that Mediation would have failed because of the imbalance of power between Cliff and Clare when it comes to their legal knowledge (although financially they are probably on fairly equal footing). Depending on the mediator and their style, Cliff's anger over Clare's affair could also have hampered this process.

Because of the business interests and the difficulty of assigning values to their business when they represent both assets and income, they could have been better served by having one agreed upon business valuator. This could have been done by the Collaborative Law attorneys or through mediation. Separate business valuations can often drive up the cost of a case, whether in Collaborative Law or Litigation.


Don't forget to vote for what the Kramdens should do: leave a comment here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the purpose of the Divorce Nisi waiting period?

In Massachusetts the statutory waiting period after a Judgment of Divorce and before the divorce becomes final (or absolute) is called the Nisi period. After a divorce case settles or goes to trial, a Judgment of Divorce Nisi will issue and it will become Absolute after a further ninety (90) days.

This waiting period serves the purpose of allowing parties to change their mind before the divorce becomes final. If the Judgment of Divorce Nisi has issued but not become final yet, and you and your spouse decide you don't want to get divorced, then you can file a Motion to Dismiss and the Judgment will be undone. Although many of my clients who are getting divorced think the idea of getting back together with their ex sounds crazy, I have had cases where this happened.

In addition to offering a grace period to change your mind, the Nisi period has three other legal effects:

1. The most obvious effect of the waiting period is that you cannot remarry during the Nisi period, because…

Does a Criminal Record affect Child Custody?

If one of the parents in a custody case has a criminal record, the types of crimes on their record could have an effect on their chances of obtaining custody. In custody cases the issue is always going to come down to whether or not the best interests of the child might be affected.

In the most extreme case, in which one parent has been convicted of first degree murder of the other parent, the law specifically prohibits visitation with the children until they are of a suitable age to assent.

Similarly, but to a less serious degree, in making custody and visitation determinations the court will consider crimes that would cause one to question the fitness of a parent. These types of crimes would obviously include any violent crime convictions which could call into question whether the children would be in danger around a parent who has shown themselves to resort to violence when faced with conflict. In addition, drug and alcohol abuse offenses would call into question a parent'…

The Questions that Lawyers and Mediators aren't asking but should: Let's talk about Pronouns

I recently had the opportunity to train with two of the most prominent mediators in Massachusetts: John Fiske and Diane Neumann. Each time they run a training, John and Diane share what they think is the most important question for a client to answer to have an effective mediation. John says that he thought the most important question is "What do I want?" But then he will tell you, with a knowing smile, that Diane disagreed with him and she would say that the most important question for a client to answer is "Who am I?"

I agree with Diane. The best lawyers and mediators ask their clients not just about what they want, but also deep questions about the clients' identity, goals, and values in order to help the clients resolve conflict in the most effective way possible. Despite knowing this, we often fail to ask clients the simplest questions when we first meet them or have them fill out an intake. We fail to give them an opportunity to answer the question “Who …