Should I Use Collaborative Law in an Uncontested Divorce?

First, we need to understand what an "Uncontested Divorce" really is.  There are two common definitions which reflect different points of view.

 A party to the divorce may say that the spouses have agreed to have an uncontested divorce. That usually means that the parties both want, or at least will agree, to be divorced.  Very often, though, there is no agreement on the terms of the divorce.

For a lawyer, an uncontested divorce is one where the parties both agree to be divorced and they agree on all the terms of the divorce.  That means that they have agreed on custody, child support, visitation, property division, payment of debts, the possibility of spousal support or not,  tax issues and any other matters.  If any of those issues have not been agreed upon, it is not an uncontested divorce, according to the lawyers.

The Answer:

If your situation is the second example and everything already is agreed, you don't really need to use the Collaborative process.  If all terms have already been worked out, then you don't need to spend the money on a team of professionals to go over the agreement.  

On the other hand, if one or more of the issues remain in negotiation, then it may be worthwhile to use Collaborative Law.  If you both want to get divorced, but can't agree on some issues, that's a good situation for the use of Collaborative Law.

Alternative Situation:

If one person wants the divorce and the other doesn't, Collaborative Law may be a very good means to work things out.  Keep in mind that if one person wants a divorce and the other party doesn't, eventually a court will grant the divorce. Collaborative Law would be a good alternative because it is less destructive than litigation on family relationships and it can lead to mutually agreeable solutions.

How to Get Information about Fort Worth Collaborative Lawyers

Let's say you have heard a little about Collaborative Law and you want to find out more because you are about to start on a divorce.  If you live or work in Fort Worth, Texas, you may want to find a Collaborative lawyer in or near Fort Worth to talk with. 

Most people find family lawyers by getting a referral from a friend, relative, lawyer or other professional, or by searching on the Internet, or by both methods.

One of the questions you will need to answer is whether location is important to you.  Most people don't want someone far away from where they live or work, but location is not always a big consideration.  

In Collaborative cases, we have a series of joint meetings as we work through a case.  The meetings often alternate between the two attorneys' offices, but I have also had cases where most of the meetings have occurred in just one of the attorneys' office or in the neutral financial professional's office. We tend to use the location that is most convenient for our clients.  That means that location is not always a big factor, although it is something to consider.

So, how do you find a Collaborative attorney for your case?  Location is one issue. Recommendations are very important.  Information on qualifications and experience that is available online is important.  But ultimately, your chemistry with the attorney is probably the most important factor. 

You need to meet with the attorney in person and talk strategy, experience, communication, and any issues that are really important to you.   Information about the other factors may get you in the door of the attorney's office, but chemistry determines whether you stay.  Your attorney needs to really understand your objectives and needs.  Be leery of an attorney who starts to take over the case and tell you what you want and need.

Chemistry is also an important factor for both the attorney as well.  Like many other attorneys, I don't take on representation of just everyone who comes in.  That would be a disservice to the client.  The attorney needs to feel a connection, just like the client needs the connection, trust and confidence with the attorney's ability to handle the case in an appropriate way. 

If you are hiring an attorney, be sure you feel right about the choice and don't just settle for what others have told you to do.  You will be much better in the long run.

Why You Shouldn't Negotiate with Your Spouse

As a Collaborative case progresses, one or both of the parties often want to "save time" or "save money" by negotiating directly with their spouse, outside of the joint Collaborative meetings.  That's usually a bad idea from my experience.  Why?

Here are some common problems that arise when the parties go off on their own and directly negotiate some aspects of their case.

1.  One spouse often dominates.  That's usually the one who came up with the idea of meeting, talking and getting some quick decisions.  That spouse often tries to pressure the other spouse into agreeing on some issues, and that conflicts with the structure and safety that Collaborative Law offers.

2.  One spouse may have more information.  Usually, that's the spouse pushing to get quick decisions.  The other spouse may be at a disadvantage from lack of preparation and lack of information.

3.  Having the private meetings skips steps in the Collaborative process and the parties lose the advantages of organized information gathering, analysis and brainstorming.  For the party with the agenda, that's not so bad.

4.  There's no referee.  The mental health professional (MHP) is not around to make sure each party treats the other party appropriately.  Things can easily get out of hand, with arguments ensuing.

5.  The parties can easily get caught up in small details and argue over them, rather than considering the bigger issues.  Small issues can lead to big arguments and hardening of positions for future negotiations.

6.  One spouse may feel pressured.  Each spouse already knows how to put pressure on their other spouse.  That can lead to hurt feelings, anger or fear, none of which helps future negotiations.

7.  The discussions can easily become heated.  That can end up moving the parties away from possible agreements.  It's easy to slip back into old patterns of argument when the MHP isn't around to keep the peace.

There's a fine line between necessary communication on minor issues and private negotiations between the parties.  Make sure you don't cross over the line.

Professionals Getting Divorced Respectfully

Professionals of all kinds often live a high reward-high risk business life.  They do stressful work, whether they are doctors, lawyers, accountants, pilots, engineers, athletes, business owners or other professionals.  It has often taken a long time and a lot of hard work to reach a level of success and sometimes the family suffers.  Relationships are hard to maintain in the best of circumstances, and professionals often are called on to make personal sacrifices to advance in their careers.

As a result of many factors, professionals may end up facing a divorce.  If that time comes, they usually prefer to work through the process as quietly as possible, for many obvious reasons.  Because of that, Collaborative Law has become an attractive option for professionals dealing with divorce and other family issues.  Here are some considerations that lead to that conclusion:

1.  Collaborative Law affords the parties privacy.  Instead of filing various pleadings and motions in court, having hearings and depositions, and doing voluminous discovery, the parties in Collaborative Law have a series of short, private meetings to work out agreements.  It is a less-adversarial process and it works quietly in confidential meetings.  The parties agree to stay out of court until they prove up the final agreement.

2.  Collaborative Law permits flexible scheduling.  Many professionals are quite busy and just aren't able to suddenly change schedules and run to the courthouse or show up for depositions.  In Collaborative Practice, the meetings can be scheduled to work around the availability of the parties and minimize the inconvenience for everyone.  That rarely happens in litigation.

3.  Neutral experts are used in limited roles in Collaborative cases.  We normally use a neutral mental health professional (MHP) to assist the parties communicate effectively and deal with the stress of the process.  The MHP often helps the parties resolve children's issues as well.  In addition, we use a neutral financial professional (FP) to gather and organize the financial information.  The FP also leads the discussions reviewing the financial summary and generating options for property division.  If we need to get appraisals of real estate or business values, we hire one neutral expert to establish the values.  All of that is in contrast to litigation where each side independently usually hires their own set of experts, doubling the cost and increasing the fighting.

4.  Both sides are helped to be realistic.  Using neutral experts and having experienced Collaborative lawyers all working together to help the parties come to agreement truly benefits the parties.  Instead of encouraging the parties to take extreme positions in negotiations, the team helps the parties focus on their underlying goals and needs.  They also help the parties be reasonable in their objectives by openly dealing with the facts and information that is shared throughout the process.

5.  Help is available for the difficult emotions often experienced in divorce.  Collaborative attorneys are better prepared to deal with emotional issues, but even more important is the MHP who attends all the joint meetings and who can also work one-on-one, not to provide therapy, but to help the parties deal with the emotions and challenges of making important personal decisions and changing relationships.

Collaborative Law won't work for everyone, but it can be very effective and not as difficult or destructive as litigation, in the proper case.  Professionals can get information about Collaborative Law by talking with attorneys, MHPs or FPs who are trained in the process.  Good luck!

What Happens if Someone Refuses to Provide Requested Information?

This is a common question, but an uncommon problem.  It is a logical question if one is coming from the world of family law litigation.  Why?  Because people are deceitful and hide or destroy evidence all the time.  Sometimes they get caught.  Sometimes they don't.  That's litigation.

In Collaborative Law, cases are supposed to operate differently.  People are expected to voluntarily cooperate in sharing information without going through all the formalities of litigation discovery.  To many attorneys, used to working with clients in litigation, it is hard to understand how or why a voluntary system would work.

The simple answer is that it is up to the attorneys and other professionals to screen out the bad apples, the clients who are inherently dishonest or who clearly aren't comfortable opening up everything.  Many of the bad apples aren't interested at all in trying to be cooperative and sharing information, so many problems are avoided.

Still, there are some problems that come out, even from honest, well-intentioned people.  Maybe the information is embarrassing or showing certain information will likely lead to bigger fights, or maybe they are getting caught in some lies and react the way many people have tried in the past -- stonewalling.

If that happened, the options for dealing with it would be:  (This is assuming that the information exists, is available to at least one person and the information is deemed, by one or more of the professionals,  relevant to an important issue.)  Here are some possible courses of action:

• Try to find the information through another source.
• The party's attorney would talk with the client to try to gain cooperation.
• The mental health professional or the financial professional would talk with the party.

Possible termination.  If none of those steps works, the professionals and the other party have the right to terminate the process or to continue the process without the information.  If the process is terminated, both sides will need to hire new attorneys to complete the legal action.  The threat of that additional expense might be enough to gain cooperation.  If the case moves to litigation, it's likely that the information can be ordered to be produced, but there's still no guarantee of compliance.  Of course, a judge can make the uncooperative party pay for it at the decision time.

Many people considering Collaborative Law wonder about how to force the other side to disclose necessary information.  In reality, it's mostly a theoretical question.  In over 10 years of doing Collaborative cases, I can't remember a single case where requested  information was withheld. That may be because the people choosing Collaborative are already willing to follow the rules and be cooperative.  In addition, the professionals are careful at the outset to not start up a case where someone likely won't abide by the rules and practices of Collaborative Law.

Bottom Line:  Don't worry about whether information will be provided.  It hasn't been a problem so far.

What to Expect at the 1st Joint Meeting (and Why)

Collaborative Law is different enough from litigation that we insist on having a first joint meeting to put in a foundation so that everyone can be comfortable in the process.  This will be a brief introduction to the process.

1. Introductions.   We start off the first meeting by introducing ourselves to each other.  We usually have a team that includes two attorneys, a mental health professional (MHP) and a financial professional (FP).   Since we will all work together in an informal atmosphere, it is helpful for everyone to get to know who they will be working with.  We like to keep things informal and normally go by first names.  In contrast to litigation, attorneys and all parties speak directly to each other, which usually improves communication.

The first meeting is usually one of the few meetings when the whole team is together.  Most of the time, the parties work with just one professional at a time.  In some situations, if it helps the parties be more comfortable, we have the MHP present when the parties are working with the FP in gathering and organizing the financial records.  The MHP normally works alone with parties doing the preliminary work on kid issues.

2.  Reviewing the Participation Agreement.  Everyone should receive and read an advance copy of the Participation Agreement.  (A generic copy is available on my web site.)  The attorneys normally give out copies in advance and often review the agreement with their client.  We really emphasize the Agreement because it is carefully drafted to educate the participants and to clarify what will be happening, or what could happen, in the Collaborative  process.  We want to avoid misunderstandings and to encourage realistic expectations.

3.  Road Map to Resolution.  This document, also available on my web site, outlines  the steps of the Collaborative process.  We follow a logical, standard pattern that leads to an agreement that both parties are comfortable with.  The steps start with discussing the goals of both parties, researching the facts of the case, determining the issues, coming up with options and then evaluating the options and reaching agreements. Experience has shown  there are better results when we follow the process and don't skip steps and jump ahead.

4.  Rules of  Conduct.  These are reminders of common sense rules of how to act in meetings.  We want everyone to be comfortable and feel safe, while effectively  moving to a mutually agreeable settlement.  The Rules are good reminders in the heat of the moment when discussions sometimes get difficult.

5.  Goals.  One of the most important steps in the first meeting is often harder than it might seem on the surface.  We want the parties to each come up with their broad goals relating what's important to them and how they would like the case resolved.  We insist that the parties go beyond wanting a "fair" settlement and a"good relationship" or "as much time as possible" with the kids.

Some useful goals that we sometimes get are:  Having an adequate level of support until a party finishes school; Having financial security at retirement; Minimizing debt coming out of the divorce; Being involved with the child on a daily or weekly basis; or Having enough cash for a down payment on a house.  These are broad, but somewhat specific and they give us targets to work for.

6.  Dealing with Immediate Issues.  Sometimes we need to help the parties deal with interim issues of paying bills, sharing time with the kids and who stays in the house, among other things.  We can have brief discussions of such issues to help the parties until the next joint meeting.

7.  Schedule Future Meetings.  We usually schedule one or two joint meetings, as well as individual meetings with the mental health professional and the financial professional.

What's Not Included:  Don't expect to jump in and start negotiating at the first meeting.

Caveat:  Different Collaborative professionals will have slight variations on how they like to conduct a first meeting.  Always talk with your own professionals to find out what they will be doing.

5 Reasons to Use Collaborative Law for a Divorce after a Long-Term Marriage

Divorces for Baby Boomers and others who have been in long-term marriages can be complicated and emotionally difficult.  Unfortunately, the court system doesn't provide a very gentle or nuanced response to divorce situations.  Most often, courts take a one-size-fits-all approach.  They apply standard guidelines for child support and visitation and will divide assets on a roughly 50-50 basis, unless there are special reasons that might justify a  55-45 or 60-40 split, or something in that neighborhood.  Although the purse strings have loosened somewhat over the past few years, alimony is still not much of a factor.

One of the best ways to get an appropriate, customized, creative agreement is to utilize Collaborative Law.  Here are some reasons why it's a good approach for ending long-term marriages.


1.  The Collaborative process allows the parties to respectfully manage their emotions.    Both parties usually work with a neutral mental health professional (MHP) who can help the parties acknowledge anger, fear, anxiety or whatever other emotion shows up.  The MHP can also share constructive ways to deal with their emotions, and also help the other party accept the emotions without overreacting.


2.  A Collaborative divorce can proceed with reasonable speed to accommodate the needs of both parties. The process does not rely on arbitrary timetables that must be followed.  The parties, with professional guidance, work out their own schedule and plan for resolving the issues.  Collaborative Law allows both parties to be comfortable with the scheduling.  Sometimes the parties must take some financial steps, such as planning or finding employment, that  will take some time, and it is easy to find the time for that in Collaborative Law.


3.  Expert financial guidance is easily available.  We usually start off with a neutral financial professional (FP) who manages the gathering and organizing of the financial records. That is much more efficient than relying on attorneys and their staffs to supervise the financial information. If we need specialized financial help, a neutral, joint expert can be hired to deal with the issue.

4.  Privacy is protected.  Virtually all work is done in private, confidential meetings.  We don't have hearings at the courthouse and don't do formal discovery or depositions.  We reach private agreements as we progress, instead of having multiple public hearings.

5.  Cost is reasonable.  Collaborative Law is not cheap, but there are some cost savings.  We utilize single, neutral experts whenever needed, in addition to the MHP and FP.  When there is a business or real estate to be appraised, we use one agreed-upon expert instead of dueling experts.  Much of the preliminary work is done with the FP and MHP, without the attorneys being present, which saves a great deal of money.  Even when we have the full team present with the parties, meetings generally run more efficiently because of the experts guiding the discussions. 

Ending a long-term marriage is complicated and deserves a careful, competent and unrushed process. Collaborative Law is usually the best approach for everyone involved.