if this is so good, does it mean that the lawyers have all been getting it wrong all this time?

far from it. There are many excellent lawyers out there who are not collaborative trained but who limit their practice to other more traditional techniques. These techniques may well be the most appropriate in some cases. Good practice evolves, and collaborative is one more option which is proving to provide the very best approach for many families – especially those who like to maintain control over their own situation and who recognise the healing benefits to be gained from jointly reaching agreements.

Isn’t this just another way of lawyers making more money?

no – it is actually an alternative way of resolving disputes. Of course lawyers get paid for their professional expertise, but they charge no more, or less, for working collaboratively than they do for working in a more traditional way. What good lawyers do is help find the best solutions, most cost-effectively. Many are increasingly recognising that the collaborative approach does exactly that.

Is it cheaper?

often, but not necessarily. Every divorce is different and sometimes it is hard to compare what something might have cost if an adversarial approach, for example, had been adopted, instead of the collaborative approach. Many cases do demonstrate the cost-savings to be achieved by all sitting round a table together talking through solutions, rather than competing via adversarial solicitors for supposedly “the best deal”. Those who adopt the collaborative approach quickly recognise that the best deal is not necessarily the cheapest one, or the one in which they end up with most material things. Factor in the emotional as well as the financial cost, especially where children are involved, and the question of “cheapness” simply doesn’t apply.

Great idea – but who needs a lawyer to do it? Marriage is a legal commitment.

Divorce is a legal process, and it needs to be legally untangled. Lawyers have a role to play in this process, whatever technique a couple choose to use. One of the things that makes the collaborative approach so special and effective is that it does not involve only lawyers. It is an inclusive process in which financial advisers and even life counsellors are brought in to work, together with the family and the lawyers, to agree the best holistic solution. It not only needs a lawyer to be involved – it needs two very special lawyers, each wholeheartedly committed to reaching agreed solutions co-operatively.

another nonsense touchy-feely namby-pamby idea from the States – the nation that brought us the pet psychiatrist!

in fact, Canada, as much as the US, is in the vanguard of collaborative family law development. But that’s beside the point. Here in the UK, the practice has developed in its own way, to meet the British requirement. It is true – the process does eliminate the macho adversarial approach which may have typified divorce some twenty years ago. That’s a good thing. Don’t dismiss it as “touchy feely”. Instead, acknowledge that it is in response to the significant proportion of divorcing couples who want to see fairness, and who recognise that emotional welfare has its place alongside financial welfare when marriages break down.

can’t the richer of the protagonists just get a better lawyer?

it’s the wrong question. Couples who adopt the collaborative approach recognise that they both want the best advice to reach the best solution for all involved. By working together with two lawyers, and financial advisors and counsellors where appropriate, they are best positioned to find the best resolution. Approached in the right way, it is as close to everyone being a winner as it is possible to get when marriages break down.

what if I don’t like it once I get started?

hopefully you will go into the process with the full knowledge of what is involved. Don’t think it is an easy route – it will be hard, but the alternatives are hard too. Of course, if you find the process does not suit you, or is not delivering what you wanted, you can withdraw. You are in control. It will mean you will both have to find new lawyers though, because, as part of the process, your collaborative lawyer signs an undertaking not to use the courts.

Are you seriously saying warring couples are going to get together and talk it through?

No – if couples are “warring” they are unlikely to choose to adopt a collaborative approach. Collaborative is not right for all circumstances. It is couples who know they want a negotiated, jointly “owned” settlement which minimises the emotional cost of divorce, who choose collaborative family lawyers.

come on – how do you achieve a power balance? One of the two is going to dominate, surely?

It can be difficult, and involves real skill and patience on behalf of everyone involved, to get the balance right. But it would be wrong to think that there is something “soft” or weak about collaborative lawyers. They are skilled in providing balanced guidance for couples who, remember, are genuinely seeking a fair and equitable resolution.

don’t lawyers just make any situation worse?

It’s an easy jibe, and a common myth, but simply not true. Good lawyers help couples achieve their desire for fair solutions which take account of the emotional and financial needs of families who split.

you’re not trained to counsel – your skills and counselling skills just don’t go together.

actually, you may be surprised at the number of collaborative lawyers who are skilled in other disciplines, like mediation for example. But you are right – we are mostly not trained counsellors, or qualified financial advisors for that matter. That’s why you will find that each regional network of collaborative lawyers has in turn an extended network of counsellors, IFAs and others who it brings into the process at the appropriate time.

You pretend the client is in control but you are disingenuous – you are in control really.

simply not true. We are simply there to provide a structure, to offer guidance, and to advise on the legal issues relating to relationship breakdown. Because of our experience we are able to steer discussion if they get off track, but it is the client who sets the agenda and the client who remains in control of arriving at their own solutions.

How do you square your professional duty to meet your client’s best interest with the collaborative approach?

don’t get trapped in the outmoded perspective of the adversarial approach. In fact, there is simply no conflict. By choosing the collaborative approach the client has indicated that they want a holistic solution, in open discussion with their partners and his/her lawyer. By effecting that, we meet our professional duty to facilitate clients making their own decisions about what is best for them.