Collaborative Law

• Those that have gone through the process all agree it is a far more dignified process to the traditional divorce process.
• You and your former partner retain “control” over your decisions (such control is lost once Judges are involved).
• By being in control, you can remove the uncertainty and unpredictability of court led outcomes.
• The process ensures fairness for both parties.
• With the emphasis being on effective communication, the process is designed to minimise the negative emotional impact on couples and their children and the wider family.
• Stronger communication and control gives parties the best chance of maintaining an amicable relationship throughout and beyond the end of the process.
• It is potentially more cost effective and the process can be shorter than formal proceedings such as financial and children act applications.
• There is no imposed court timetable, allowing parties the freedom to work their issues out at their own pace in order to decide on the best compromise available.
• Because the process is not court driven, it allows parties to be creative and think outside the box when coming up with solutions which best fit their circumstances.

The cornerstone of the Collaborative model is that the couple agree to resolve their issues whether that be divorce, finances or child related or a combination of all three without going to court.

Both parties and solicitors sign a contract called a “Participation Agreement” formalising their resolution in favour of this route and their commitment to be bound by it. This is quite powerful as it ensures that both parties stick with the process and find ways of making progress even during periods where they may disagree with one another.

A series of meetings follow (as many as are required) where the issues are discussed until an agreement on those issues are reached. With the exception of financial disclosure, everything discussed and presented in these meetings is privileged and confidential, which encourages everyone to speak openly and transparently in order to try to find solutions which work for both parties. Should the process break down, neither party is permitted to refer to these discussions in any future court proceedings. This often results in accelerated conclusions being reached.

Whilst both Collaborative Law and Mediation are based on the principle of “negotiated settlement”, unlike Mediation, where both parties are in meetings conducted by a neutral mediator who cannot offer legal advice, Collaborative Law involves each party instructing their own collaboratively trained lawyer who is present in each session and able to offer advice as and when required.

There is full transparency with advice and thought spoken openly within the meetings. The lawyers prepare for each meeting with each other and with their respective clients. All meetings are conducted 4 ways and there is usually a post 4 way debrief between client and lawyer and then lawyer and lawyer.

Consequently, by comparison to mediation, the collaborative process requires more of the lawyers time and can be more expensive, but the potential cost difference is offset by the fact that it will be the lawyers who draft and agree the final version of court papers, having been part of the process from the outset which will reduce the chance of delays or misunderstandings occurring.

One of the advantages of this process is that it is not driven by a court imposed timetable. This means it can be built around the parties’ individual timetable and priorities. As a rule of thumb it can take between 5-6 meetings depending on the complexity of the issues and whether other professionals are required to assist the case.

Costs will largely depend on the issues, whether other professionals are required to assist and ultimately how many meetings are required to resolve the matter. Costs and how the process will be paid for are usually primary considerations discussed from the outset and also between lawyer/lawyer and at the initial 4 way meeting. The costs are usually greater than mediation but are comparable to that of the more traditional divorce/financial proceedings route but can be far quicker and are conducted in a far less confrontational way.

Although generally considered a healthier route to take with more successful long term outcomes reached consensually, collaborative law is not right for everyone. In cases where there is a history or allegations of domestic abuse, or where one party seeks to use the process for tactical purposes or to pressure the other party to agree to their proposals.

Sometimes the threat of having to dis-instruct your chosen lawyer can also be a disincentive to entering the process though equally having a binding contract can also be a strong incentive to stick to the process and find a way to reach a resolution to a particular matter rather than abandoning the process at the first sign of an impasse.