Beware the Pitfalls of Collaborative Divorce
Collaborative Divorce has become the buzzword for couples who want to end their marriage but do not want to have to appear in court to testify. The words "collaborative law" refer to a dispute resolution process in which the parties agree in writing to settle their legal dispute without going to court or even threatening to go to court.
Both attorneys must withdraw from representing their respective clients if either party goes to court to ask a judge to resolve their dispute. Each party must then represent themselves at court or hire a new attorney. Collaborative lawyers tout the process as an all (in court being forced to participate in traumatic and costly litigation) or nothing (the collaborative process) choice. The all-or-nothing approach is misleading, as I will explain later in this article, and promoting the idea that it is less costly than hiring a lawyer and negotiating a fair settlement is untrue in the cases I have seen after the collaborative process failed.
People have consulted me after having terminated a relationship with their collaborative lawyer or after completing the process, signing a Marital Settlement Agreement, and realizing that it is grossly unfair because they were misinformed or intimidated into signing it. In those cases, professional fees exceeded forty thousand ($40,000.00) dollars. I do not consider those cost savings.
Think about what this means and how it affects the parties and the lawyers. First, once they have signed the written contract "participation agreement," had several meetings, and have paid professional fees, the parties hesitate to get a judge involved because they must start from the beginning.
Generally, at least three professionals are at a meeting with the parties. Each party has a lawyer, and there is a mental health professional, called a "collaborative coach." Should it become necessary, which usually is necessary, a financial person is also involved in a four-way meeting, charging their hourly fees simultaneously.
As a collaborative lawyer, my experience with the process is that it begins by requiring each party to take turns reading aloud the entire participation agreement. The process can take an entire meeting.
Next, the parties list everything they will talk about with the three professionals using a whiteboard to memorialize the topics to be covered. An agenda is discussed and drafted before each meeting by the professionals, and notes are generated at the end of each meeting describing what happened. The parties can spend an entire meeting discussing who gets the toaster and the iron and ironing board and other household goods which are the kinds of subjects a judge would not even consider. Remember that the parties are meeting with at least three professionals charging their hourly rates.
When you begin discussing the finances, a financial expert is called to advise you who is present, along with the three other professionals. And suppose you are a person who is not experienced with finances or who has difficulty speaking up for yourself. In that case, you might feel a bit intimidated or even hopeless, a feeling that has been described to me by survivors of the process seeking my representation.
In collaborative, you are supposed to decide what you think is fair. Your collaborative lawyer is not your advocate. They are there to advise. Remember, this process is supposed to be amicable. You are in charge, and both parties are supposed to be honest and disclose everything even though there is no penalty if they are not open and honest. And the costs keep mounting.
I have seen some bad results from both collaborative divorces that did not result in an agreement and one that did result in a grossly unfair agreement. After spending upwards of $40,000, in each of these cases, the parties that could not reach an agreement had to start anew. Their cases were not complicated or unusual.
In the case where an agreement was reached, a woman whose spouse owned a multi-million-dollar business was advised by both the financial expert and her lawyer that there was no value to the business because the income was all based upon the sales generated by the husband. She gave up her entitlement to several million dollars. She signed a marriage settlement agreement. The professional fees that were charged were $44,000.
Mediation previously was considered the way to travel this un-litigious path. But family mediators have no power to force anyone to agree to anything. And they are trained to be unbiased listeners providing both parties with information regarding how the division of property (equitable division) works but not looking to make anyone feel they are taking sides – even if they think a party is lying.
I was the collaborative lawyer on a case for an older woman who had been bullied her entire marriage by her spouse. Another collaborative lawyer criticized me because I would not just sit there and encourage her to speak up when she had privately disclosed to me that she was too intimidated by her spouse to speak freely.
I have had more than 100 hours (about 4 days) of mediation training and mediated for the Allegheny County child custody program and the United States Postage Service. I have also conducted private mediation, many of which failed to settle because one party was intimidated by the other and could not decide or speak up or because one party had more knowledge of the finances than the other. Neither party is permitted to have a third party in the room.
I also trained in collaborative law but usually do not recommend it to my clients unless the contract is modified to permit the collaborative lawyer to continue representing a party if resolution through the collaborative process cannot be achieved. Allowing the collaborative lawyer to continue to represent the client if the case must go through the court takes away the incentive for either the party or the party's lawyer to encourage them to settle for less than what is fair.
If you do not want to litigate, my advice is for both parties to get two experienced family lawyers (not general practitioners) with integrity who will be your advocates and advise you on what is fair and what is not. You want attorneys who are not afraid to speak up on your behalf. A reasonable and fair attorney will be able to refer your spouse to another excellent and fair attorney. It also helps if at least one attorney has the financial expertise to show and explain various alternatives to both parties and the other attorney.
When I present financial reports backed by evidence and easy to understand schedules, the opposing counsel is willing to accept the values. In many instances, once the parties agree to the values of the assets and liabilities in the marital estate, a remote meeting with the judge (called a conciliation) prompts the parties to settle. No trial becomes necessary. Most cases settle. Therefore, it behooves you to have an advocate on your side and not someone who expects you alone to decide what is fair.
Division of marital assets and liabilities can be complex, but everyone has peace of mind when fair values are determined and considered.















