Is Collaborative Law Cheaper than Litigation?

Is Collaborative Law cheaper?  Probably.

Is Collaborative Law cheap?  Not necessarily, but it's all relative.

The Players.  In Texas, each party hires their own attorney.  Then, the attorneys select a neutral mental health professional (MHP) and a neutral financial professional (FP) to work with both parties.  That sounds like a lot of expense, but keep in mind that the MHP and FP do a lot of independent work in the case at a cost of less than half the charge of just one of the attorneys.

The Process.  We will have a series of joint meetings to  discuss and review facts and issues in the case. (We follow a Roadmap that is a step by step process of setting goals, gathering information, generating options and coming to agreements.)  At the joint meetings, we usually have both attorneys and both other professionals, unless we are just talking about non-financial children's issues.  Then we would have the attorneys and MHP.

Efficiencies. The Collaborative process operates very efficiently regarding creating a parenting plan and gathering and organizing financial records.  We have "offline" meetings with just the MHP and the parties on parenting issues and just the FP and the parties to do the preliminary financial work.

In a litigated case, the attorney typically would be meeting with their client to gather information and formulate a plan on parenting issues.  The MHP is much less expensive and probably more qualified to help the parties than either attorney.

Similarly on the financial issues, in litigation, the attorney would be telling the client what information is needed, then would review whatever was produced and would prepare an Inventory and Appraisement. The FP is much better qualified and less expensive in gathering, organizing and evaluating the finances.  In addition, the FP helps both parties plan and prepare budgets for post-divorce, which is rarely done in litigation.

Comparison in litigation

Hearings.  Especially in hotly contested cases, there are multiple hearings at the courthouse.  That means time off work, preparation time and attorney's fees.  We usually average about three hours at court every time a case has a hearing because we end up waiting around to be heard and then there's the time in the hearing.  And there are the inevitable postponements and resets.

Discovery. In litigation, we usually do discovery, which is a formal process involving written requests for information and as a result, the gathering of voluminous, often irrelevant, documents and photos that have to be copied or put on a disk for the other side.  Parties usually spend thousands of dollars on discovery alone.  Then there are often fights, and more hearings, about whether all the documents requested were produced.

Inventory and Appraisement.  This is like an expanded version of the joint spreadsheet used in Collaborative cases, but with a lot more detail, and each side prepares their own.  That means more than twice the cost.

Depositions.  These are a means of discovery where a witness is under oath and is asked questions by one or both attorneys.  There can be a number of these.  Each client will pay for the attorney's fees and some court reporter cost.

Mediation.  Most cases will settle in mediation.  The problem is that mediation usually takes place after many months, often just before trial.  You will pay the mediator as well as your own attorney.

Trial.  If mediation fails, you will go to trial. In Tarrant County, it usually takes 9 months to a year or more to get to trial.  Trials are also very expensive.

Paperwork. In addition to theses steps, there will be a lot of paperwork, from letters back and forth to pleadings and orders and discovery documents. It all costs money.

Bottom Line:  While Collaborative cases may seem expensive if viewed with no context or comparison to litigation, they actually are usually a lot cheaper than contested litigated cases.  In the Collaborative process, there are no hearings, discovery, Inventory, depositions or trial.  There's usually no mediation and there's a lot less paperwork.

If you want to compare processes, look at all the costs!

The Cost of a Collaborative Case: Is It Cheap? Part 2

There's an old joke about divorce that sometimes goes like this:

Q:  Was your divorce cheap?
A:  No, but it was worth it!

That joke could now apply to Collaborative divorces.  They are not cheap, but, if people must go through a divorce, this process is a much better way to do it.  At the same time, there are some ways to save some money.  Generally, the parties are better behaved and managed and cases are better resolved.

1.     The process allows the parties and attorneys to avoid expensive activities.  In difficult litigated cases, a lot of actions are instigated to wear down the other side.  There are often multiple hearings for temporary orders, clarification orders, modifications, enforcement and other reasons.  It becomes a war of attrition as one side beats up on the other, all the while costing both parties much more money.  Another means of that is using demanding or threatening letters between the attorneys.

       Since Collaborative Law doesn't allow the parties to go to court, that avenue is eliminated.  In addition, there is a lot more direct communication and dealing with the issues in Collaborative cases, instead of posturing.  Plus, the other professionals are closely involved and helping.  For example, if there are visitation problems, the mental health professional will meet with the parties, if needed, to help them resolve the issues.  They can also be addressed directly in joint meetings and there is a great deal more direct communication, even between meetings, among the attorneys and other professionals.

2.     There's better decision-making in Collaborative cases. There are several reasons why the Collaborative process is generally better than litigation.

• The parties participate in all decisions.  In litigation, often the attorneys tend to make many of the decisions, standard guidelines are used or the issue is turned over to a judge to decide.  In Collaborative cases, the parties participate in discussions and no agreement is made unless everyone agrees.
• When needed, neutral experts are readily brought in and the mental health professional and financial professional are normally always involved, so the parties can easily turn to experts in Collaborative cases.
• There is a focus on the future, instead of assigning blame for past problems.  Looking ahead and not looking back saves time and avoids unproductive arguing over fault. It also allows the parties to move ahead without further damage to their relationship.

3.     Finally, there's a greater commitment to the terms of an agreement than there is to the terms of an order imposed by an outsider, such as a judge.  There's more buy-in when the parties participated in creating a plan, compromised with each other and committed to the final terms.  Even though parties should follow an order from a judge, they are going to feel better and usually be more willing to follow their own agreement which is probably slightly (but importantly) different from a judge's order.  That usually means there's more compliance and less fighting post divorce!

 As the old joke suggests, divorce is rarely cheap, but if it's done right, it can be worth it.  If you are facing this difficult time, you should look into using the Collaborative Law process.

The Cost of a Collaborative Case: Is It Cheap? Part I

Some people become interested in Collaborative Law because they are looking for a cheap way to get a divorce.  They assume one lawyer can handle the process and that there will be no fighting as they come to agreements.  Unfortunately, Collaborative Law doesn't work that. There are always two lawyers and the parties often disagree on matters, but we keep the parties focused on the issues and are usually able to come to acceptable agreements even on difficult issues. Fortunately, Collaborative Law can still be a very cost-effective way to handle divorce and other family law matters.

Most of the time, when Collaborative Law is used, the parties can save money in various ways, including the following:

1.     The attorneys don't use unproductive and wasteful discovery methods.  In litigation, attorneys almost automatically use fairly standard, broad discovery requests.  In Texas, we typically send out 25 written questions (Interrogatories) to be answered, 20 to 60 or more specific Requests for Production of documents and records and a standard Request for Disclosure of basic information, and then we do Depositions. Attorneys throw out a broad net to capture as much information as possible and then spend time reviewing the results and piecing the facts together.

       In contrast, in a Collaborative case, we usually have  a neutral Financial Professional (FP) and a neutral Mental Health Professional (MHP) gathering specific information about the finances and the children's issues, respectively.   We don't use written discovery or do depositions.  The parties are given specific lists of documents to provide that deal with the relevant issues specific to their case. The FP and MHP direct the gathering of information and that saves money for the parties because the FP and MHP charge less per hour than the attorneys do, who do the work in litigated cases. The FP puts together a spreadsheet that captures the relevant financial information.

2.     For property valuations, we normally use one neutral expert in Collaborative cases.  In litigation, it is common for each party to have their own expert for appraisals.  In addition to paying for two experts, the parties often pay for depositions and court testimony of the experts, costs that are avoided in Collaborative Law cases.

3.     In Collaborative cases, we don't have expensive court hearings.  In contested  litigated cases, there are often multiple hearings.  In addition to having to go to court several times, the parties face waits and delays whenever they go.  Unfortunately, the courts are overcrowded and overbooked.  That explains why it often takes a 3-hour trip to the courthouse for a simple hearing -- a lot of the time is wasted in waiting.

       In Collaborative Law cases, we don't go to court, except for a prove-up at the end.  Instead we have a series of meetings, usually 1 1/2 to 2 hours each, to work on a pre-set agenda of topics.  When we get together, we are working.  Also, much of the preliminary work is done in smaller chunks of time with individual professionals.

Conclusion
       When people divorce, there are usually complicated, very important issues at stake.  There are no easy solutions for some problems, which means the parties may struggle as they work through them.  With the Financial Professional and Mental Health Professional helping the attorneys, the parties can normally explore the issues and reach acceptable solutions in a safe environment.

       While hard issues usually take a great deal of effort and compromise, Collaborative Law gives the parties the opportunity to be cost-effective, even if the process is not "cheap" or easy.

Is Collaborative Law Worth the Cost?

For people facing divorce, a common question is whether Collaborative cases are "cheaper than litigation".  While there is no way to compare a specific Collaborative case to an abstract idea of a litigated case, we can say that Collaborative Law will avoid a lot of the expense involved in litigation.

Attorneys will often talk about how the Collaborative process can save money for clients.  In most cases and in most ways, I believe that is true.  However, many people take an unjustified conclusion from that discussion even though we can't say what the cost would be.  They start to believe that Collaborative Law is a cheap process.  That conclusion is unwarranted and unsupportable because it is so subjective.  What is cheap to one person may be outrageously expensive to another.

Since we can't really answer whether Collaborative cases are cheaper, here's a better question.

Is Collaborative Law worth the cost?

1.  Consider what's at stake.  Family relationships and decisions about how to raise your children -- you can't put a price tag on that.  Most people would make those issues their priority.  Having expert help in reaching creative and unique decisions to meet your circumstances would be welcome by most everyone.

With a long-term marriage and substantial assets or business interests, you want to be sure that your money is well-spent finding solutions.  Many people who have accumulated real estate, investments and business interests need expert guidance to unravel or divide up the assets.  It is unrealistic to think that what may have been accumulated over many years pursuant to an evolving investment plan can be quickly and cheaply divided in an appropriate, beneficial and agreeable manner.

2.  Think about being cost-effective in gathering information.  It's very easy in litigation to spend a lot of money going through standard discovery steps that generate attorneys' and experts' fees without getting much information that is really essential for the decision-making on the financial issues.  In litigation, each side often has his/her own set of experts and the process amounts to both sides setting up a battle of experts.  In most cases, it makes better sense to use a single neutral expert to guide the parties in gathering, organizing and understanding information. In addition, if appraisals need to be done, or tax advice is needed, a neutral expert can also be hired for each of those issues. It's still cheaper to use one expert for each need rather than having each side hire their own

3.  How important is it for you to make the decisions on your finances?  For people who have successfully managed their own affairs and created wealth through their hard work, knowledge and experience, it is difficult to give up control over their finances.  Would you rather make your own careful decisions on dividing things up or let a judge who doesn't know or care about your family make arbitrary decisions on how to divide the assets?

In most cases, in my view, Collaborative Law is worth the cost.  It is a flexible process that allows you to just focus on what is important and necessary, rather than having the parties follow standardized steps that often result in far more work than is justified.  In cases without children and without substantial assets, Collaborative Law may not be necessary, but even then, it is still a much more civilized way to go through the process, and that may be priceless!

What Does a Collaborative Case Cost?

A question that everyone asks, or wants to ask, when considering Collaborative Law is "what does it cost?".  That's a natural and legitimate question.

The simple, but not-too-useful answer is:  somewhere between cheap and the cost of protracted litigation.  On top of that, cheap is not defined (it's relative, after all) and the sky (or maybe the extent of one's bank accounts or credit cards) is the limit  for protracted litigation cost.

Unfortunately, the answer is that we don't know in advance what a divorce case will cost.  Attorneys and other professionals normally charge by the hour and we can't tell in the future how many hours will be required.

Why can't we be more specific?  Because each case is different.   Some issues are usually harder to deal with than others.

Your case may involve one or more of the following issues and we rarely spend equal time on every issue.
      Post-divorce support
      Career training or retraining
      Health limitations
      Allocating investments between the parties
      Retirement planning
      Child care
      Ownership and management of a small business
      College expenses
      Unique visitation circumstances 
      Tax planning
      One parent moving away
      Mental health issues
      Keeping both parents involved with very active children
      A professional practice of one or both spouses
      Dealing with teenagers
      Dividing, sharing or allocating a family business

There are varying degrees of difficulty between issues and between cases.  We can't predict ahead of time how much time we will need to devote to each issue.  What will be clear is that your team of professionals will allocate their efforts in gathering information, identifying issues and creating solutions in the most efficient manner to deal with what's most important to you. 

You can get some specific information on what to expect in a Collaborative case by talking with a Collaborative attorney.  Be sure to explain what's important to you and what outcomes you would like to see.  That could give you useful information to help decide how to handle your case.

Is Collaborative Law Cheaper than Litigation?

This is one of the most common questions I hear. Some people have gotten the idea that Collaborative Law is cheaper than litigation. In fact, some attorneys tell people that it is a cheaper process. Unfortunately, we can't really determine that.

No Way to Compare

In some ways, I would like to think that Collaborative Law would be less expensive, but no one can really answer the question because there's no way to compare the processes. If you think about it, you can see that there can be no direct comparisons:

• Each case is different from every other case, so you can't make meaningful comparisons between two different cases. While there could be two cases where the parents each need to work out arrangements for their three children, there will always be differences that affect the amount of time and effort the parties and attorneys must expend. Maybe the father wants primary custody in one case and the mother wants primary custody in the other case. Different work schedules or special needs of the children or parents would impact the cost of a case.

• There's also no way to take one case and figure out its cost in Collaborative Law and then re-calculate it as a litigated case. There are always unplanned events during a case as the parties move toward resolution. Things would happen differently under each approach, so the parties might have to do more or less work in one system as compared to the other system. In other words, there could be multiple hearings or numerous discovery fights in a litigated case, and there could be extra meetings in a Collaborative case if new problems develop.

However, there are two questions which can be answered.

1. Is Collaborative Law cheap? I would say that it usually is not, but of course "cheap" is relative. Collaborative would be cheap if there weren't many meetings. In some case, it happens that way. Most of the really easy cases, from my experience, don't go into the Collaborative process. Instead, the parties work out all or most issues informally and then the attorneys help them finish up an agreement.

Since the easy cases settle out quickly (and cheaply), that leaves the more difficult cases to be resolved. By the nature of the cases, we usually have a full team of professionals and have multiple meetings. We can achieve good results, but it will not be cheap.

2. Is the Collaborative Law result worth the cost? From my perspective, yes. Here's why:

• Consider what's at risk. Collaborative Law allows the parties to deal with personal issues in privacy. They get to be the ones to make their own decisions, instead of letting a stranger decide the details of their personal lives. Collaborative parties can work out unique, customized solutions to their problems, instead of following standard guidelines that may not make sense for them. They also work in a less-stressful environment and communicate and participate in a manner that helps preserve, and sometimes improve, their family relationships.
  

• Consider the result attained. The parties are always focused on meeting their own goals and special needs. The process is efficient in dealing with the most important matters and making sure that both parties have input and the benefit of neutral experts as needed. In the end, the Collaborative parties create their own solutions targeting their most important goals, needs and interests. A plan is put in place only if both parties agree to the terms.
  

• Consider the effects of maintaining good family relationships. There's a greater likelihood that the parties can continue to work things out without court intervention if they continue to either use the Collaborative team or use the skills they learned in the process. While it's common for parties in the litigation system to frequently go back to court several times until the youngest child turns 18 (and sometimes later), Collaborative parties tend to be more willing to talk civilly and compromise. In this case, you can truly say that talk is cheap -- cheaper than hiring lawyers and going to court.

To summarize, I can't compare systems and say that Collaborative Law is cheaper than litigation, I don't claim that Collaborative Law is cheap, but I would conclude that it is worth the cost.