Should Professional Athletes Use Collaborative Law?

Many athletes seem to think that they become almost bullet proof and that once they reach a certain level of athletic achievement, they can control virtually all aspects of their lives. They seem to believe that the money, notoriety and power that come with success on a big stage will enable them to avoid the problems that the general public experiences in everyday life. That is often true. Sometimes they can make problems go away with just a little money. On the other hand, occasionally, celebrities discover that they are caught in a quicksand that seems inexorably to suck them in with a tighter and tighter grip. Eventually, they face a fight to survive.

Traditionally, professional athletes relied on money, connections and/or a forgiving public to get through a crisis. Sometimes that doesn't work anymore, especially in personal and family matters, as several politicians and ministers have discovered in recent years. Depending on what transgressions may have occurred, athletes may face the end of a marriage, or other consequences. As great a loss as that may be, it can get worse. Celebrity athletes can also face embarrassment brought on by an ugly divorce, which can end up costing tens of millions of dollars, or more.

When a crisis arises, the first response, after the initial denial, is to try to keep everything under wraps so the disputes and allegations are not exposed to the public. If it looks like the issues won't go away, the parties should consider utilizing Collaborative Law as the means of resolving the matter in a way that protects the interests of both parties.

Why is Collaborative Law preferable in sensitive cases? Here are some reasons:

1. It's a private process. High profile people, athletes, entertainers or otherwise, need good publicity, but can really be hurt by a messy divorce or custody fight. Collaborative Law provides a safe, private environment where issues can be addressed and solutions can be created without disclosing details to the public. Privacy is one of the fundamental elements of Collaborative Law.

2. The process encourages creativity. In fashioning solutions for various issues with unusual characteristics, the parties are not bound by the standard solutions that courts use. Instead, for example, they can agree to financial terms which may adjust depending on the athlete's income or contract status. They can also allow the parties the freedom to create unique schedules for sharing the children, taking into account seasons, travel and other variables.

3. The parties stay in control. In litigation, if the parties can't agree, they give up their control over the outcome and let a judge make a decision which is binding. In Collaborative Law cases, the parties make all the decisions jointly, sometimes with assistance of neutral experts. The negotiating process changes dramatically in a Collaborative case because both parties, both attorneys and the other professionals in the case all have a vested interest in not giving up and letting a judge decide. They work hard to keep coming up with new and different approaches. Someone with substantial assets, or the spouse of that person, may not be very comfortable letting a stranger make personal and life-changing decisions about them. In Collaborative Law, both parties keep their power to decide the outcome and both parties participate fully in the decision-making process.

4. Both parties focus on the needs and interests of the parties. Collaborative Law encourages a more intelligent approach to problem solving. Instead of taking arbitrary positions, such as demanding a 50-50 or 60-40 split of the property, the Collaborative approach starts with both parties evaluating their own situations and deciding what their underlying needs, interests and goals are. It's a more comprehensive approach than how traditional litigation negotiations are done and the result is a plan that is geared toward the important issues for each party.

5. Experts are used as neutrals throughout the process. In Texas Collaborative Law cases, we usually bring in a therapist and a financial advisor to help with the parties. In a case with special aspects, such as a celebrity athlete being involved, other specialized neutral experts can easily be incorporated for specific needs, such as tax planning, children's issues, retirement planning, investment management, etc. In litigation, if those experts are used, each side normally hires their own expert and there's usually a battle of the experts at trial, at substantial expense to the parties.

Let's hope that the next time a professional athlete faces a divorce after some personal failure, that the athlete and his or her spouse are aware of Collaborative Law and choose to use it as the problem-solving process for ending their marriage. There have been too many high profile ugly celebrity divorces. It's time to take divorce "to the next level", to borrow a term popular with athletes and coaches, and to work Collaboratively.

How to Prepare for a Collaborative Law Case

I recently read a post on a business news blog that discussed how to deal with the distractions presented by the Internet. The article described the common problem of starting out researching one topic and then drifting from topic to topic, but I digress. The writer had some interesting suggestions on how to stay focused on what you are looking for, and I thought the ideas, simple as they are, were equally applicable to Collaborative Law cases. So, with a nod to the Harvard Business Blog, here are some common sense things anyone and everyone should do to prepare for, and work through, the Collaborative process.
1. Sleep well: We all know that we operate better physically and emotionally when we are well rested. If you are having trouble sleeping, get some help so you can be alert when you need to be.
2. Eat well: A lot of people lose weight going through a divorce, but they often do it by not eating because they have lost their appetite. While that is often normal, you know that you cannot operate at top efficiency if you are hungry or if you are not eating properly.
3. Minimize stress and anger: One reason we bring in a neutral mental health professional is to help both parties deal with the stress and the variety of emotions they experience. We recognize that Collaborative Law is a difficult process and you should keep in mind that it usually doesn't always go smoothly or easily. Everyone starts out wanting to be nice, but people can get tired and frustrated as we go through the process.
4. Watch out for time wasters: We try to have an agenda for each joint meeting and we try to stick to it. Some of the worst problems that arise in Collaborative cases occur when the participants get off the agenda and start on topics that were not planned for in advance. Staying on the agenda means that everyone can be prepared for the discussions and actions that need to take place. It also means that the meetings can end on time.
5. Work smarter, not longer: There are good reasons why we normally schedule meetings to be 1.5 to 2 hours long. The parties sometimes ask to extend meetings so we can finish up the process sooner. We have occasionally worked longer than 2 hours in a session and my experience is that those meetings often become counterproductive because everyone becomes tired. Once people start to get tired, they either shut down or (more often) become argumentative and angry. We not only lose momentum, but we sometimes lose the progress we had been making. We are better off coming to meetings with an organized agenda that we are all prepared for.
We have to keep in mind that Collaborative Law is not a one-meeting, quick process. There will be a series of meetings and everyone will get tired during the process. The more prepared and relaxed we are going into the process, the easier the process should be for us. As you can see, there's no magic here, but you will benefit by trying these easy steps.

Stop Re-living Someone Else's Past!

Tracy Stewart is a CPA in College Station and a very active neutral financial expert in Collaborative cases. She is also a very good writer and produces an excellent blog, the Texas Divorce Finance Blog. She mixes common sense, good financial advice and very appropriate suggestions for Collaborative cases. She recently posted about a common problem that many people face. No matter how many times attorneys and other professionals tell clients not to listen to what their well-meaning family, friends and even strangers want to tell them about how to act in a divorce, the easiest course of action usually seems to be to ignore the professionals' advice and do what the amateurs suggested.

I do my best to make it clear that such a course of action is almost always a bad decision, but Tracy really makes the case in a way that can't be misunderstood. Here's her excellent post:

"Not infrequently, I hear people tell me about the divorce advice they are absorbing. This advice comes from people they trust and believe.

"My friend, who’s been through a divorce, told me I need to hire the meanest attorney I can find so I can crush my nasty husband/wife.

"My friend, who’s been through a divorce, told me to withdraw all the money from our savings account before my wife/husband does it first.

"Do not allow these people relive their divorces through your life and at your emotional and financial expense. If you must engage in such conversations with them, keep it restrained to a pat on the head/hand/shoulder and murmur, 'There, there. It must have been an awful ordeal for you'. But do not get take their advice. Their divorce is not your divorce and vice versa.

"Normally, they are not divorce professionals. (Even if they are, they are not objective.) They don’t have a thorough understanding of marital dissolution law, divorce finances and the relationship nuances of your crumbling relationship.

"Not infrequently, I see people go through senseless emotional turmoil, wasted time and ill spent money in their efforts to follow their friend’s sage advice. Of course, you can have girlfriends or buddies with whom to drown your sorrows or cry over coffee. But do not take their advice. Seek professional advice.

"Remember: You are not divorcing your friend’s ex-spouse."

Advice from friends and family is an abundant commodity during a divorce. Sometimes it's good, and it's given with the intention of helping you, but following the advice can conflict with the strategies that your professionals are using for your case. You should keep in mind that your shadow advisers are not in charge of the case, they don't have the legal or technical knowledge that your professionals have and they don't know how their suggestions fit in, or conflict with, your overall case strategy. It's fine to pass along to your attorney or other professional the golden nuggets of information you hear, but let the professional decide whether to implement the suggestions. Your focus must be on taking care of your case rather than validating someone else's leftover strategies from their divorce.

The Uniform Collaborative Law Act

As the Family Law Prof Blog recently pointed out, one more major step has been taken to anchor Collaborative Law into our legal system. The Uniform Law Commission voted on July 15, 2009 to adopt the Uniform Collaborative Law Act. The U.L.C. is a national organization that studies selected legal issues, drafts proposed statutes, debates the proposals and then adopts or turns down the proposed acts. After a little fine tuning, the adopted act is sent to the American Bar Association which is asked to endorse it. If that happens, the act is latter submitted to the state legislatures for them to consider adopting it in each state.

In Texas, the proposed new uniform law will make very little difference. We were the first state to pass a statute that defined Collaborative Law and explained how it would work. A few other states have passed similar statutes. Coincidentally, Harry Tindall of Houston was one of the leaders in getting the Uniform Law Commission to approve the new act, just as he was the leader of the effort to get the original Texas statute passed by the legislature. We all owe a lot to Harry for his leadership and hard work.

The real importance of the the new uniform act is that there is now a common approach to the process which should be presented to all the states that don't yet have a Collaborative Law statute. This adds a little more legitimacy for the process and boosts the chances of other states formally acknowledging the process. Hopefully, another result will be more public awareness and more people taking advantage of the opportunity to take a more civilized and effective approach to settling disputes.

Updating the Three R's

I have just run across a very interesting and thought-provoking blog called the JustDivorceBlog, which is written by Marie Fahnert of Chicago. I highly recommend that you spend some time reading her posts. You will come away with a fresh perspective and some new ideas about life, which is actually very helpful for someone involved in a divorce. I actually think the blog would be interesting reading for anyone, so give it a chance. Anyway, here's a post she had recently that I really liked. It can provide great guidance for anyone in a stressful situation.

"Dalai Lama's (divorce) lesson:

"Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
When you lose, don’t lose the lesson.
Follow the three R’s:
- Respect for self.
- Respect for others.
- Responsibility for all your actions.

—14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
via On Her Way...........................................

"My Note: I can't stress enough how important the 'three R's' are reaching a successful outcome in your divorce. However, it is sometimes difficult to follow the rules during times of stress. When you find it difficult to follow the 'three R's' you might consider yoga, meditation or, if need be, a counselor. The rewards of following these rules will certainly be worth the effort. "

Although we often think that Collaborative divorce is nicer and more civilized, it is still very easy to fall back into old habits of blaming or attacking your spouse. Your feelings can get just as hurt in a Collaborative case as in a litigated divorce, if you let them. You do have the power to choose your response to aggravations and difficult times, but few people have the presence to stop themselves from engaging in an automatic reaction to a situation.

If you keep in mind what the Dalai Lama said, and show respect for yourself and for others, and take responsibility for your actions (don't blame others or circumstances), you will have a much easier time in your divorce. That will be appreciated even in a Collaborative divorce. And you will probably get a better result.

Have a Happy Father's Day!

One interesting aspect of the blogosphere is the opportunity to read about different laws in different states. A consistently well-written blog is the Ohio Family Law Blog written by Robert L. Mues. He has a timely post about the history of Father's Day and then describes how different counties in Ohio have different rules for fathers having possession of their children on Father's Day. I'm always interested in history, so here's what he wrote about the history of Father's Day:

"The third Sunday of June has become known as Father’s Day just as the second Sunday of May has become known as Mother’s Day. On that 'special' day in June, Fathers in the United States are feted with cards, gifts (often ties and wallets), meals especially prepared for them or 'dinner out' at their favorite restaurants, as well other special treats such as the preparation of a favorite dish or dessert prepared at home.

"From my readings at various websites, the origin of Father’s Day is not entirely clear. Some say it began with a church service to honor Fathers in Fairmont, West Virginia, on July 5, 1908. Others believe that Ms. Sonora Smart Dodd of Spokane, Washington, came up with the idea or plan to honor Fathers in 1909 while she listened to an earlier church service wherein Mothers were honored and praised. Ms. Dodd’s Father, a veteran of the Civil War and a 'single parent', had successfully raised six (6) children following the premature death of his Wife.

"Although the movement to honor Fathers began over one hundred (100) years ago, it took many years for this country to make this occasion an official holiday. While citizens supported the concept of Mother’s Day with pride and enthusiasm, the idea of Father’s Day was at first met with laughter and satire. While President Woodrow Wilson 'approved' the concept of an annual Father’s Day in 1916, it was not until 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge declared the day to be a national event. Thereafter, Father’s Day was celebrated but was not made a federal holiday until 1966 when President Lyndon B. Johnson issued a proclamation declaring it to be so. Later, in 1972, President Richard Nixon established Father’s Day as a permanent holiday to be celebrated on the third Sunday of June of each year."

Some readers may be a little familiar with that history, but it's not widely known. From a Collaborative Law perspective, what is really useful from the post is the description of the variations in how Father's Day is handled in different counties. Texas has a uniform state standard possession schedule which covers Father's Day, Mother's Day and most other major holidays. While the Texas standard possession schedule often works out well for both parties, it should be noted that our schedule is not followed by other states and doesn't have to be followed in Collaborative Law cases in Texas.

What Texas and other states do in possession orders, child support and even property division can be considered by the parties in a Collaborative case, but the Texas parties should always remember that Collaborative Law gives them the freedom to make their own rules to meet their own needs and circumstances. Be informed and be creative!

Preconditions to Using Collaborative Law

Let me be clear that I have a bias favoring the use of Collaborative Law in settling family law disputes. When there is a hesitation by the other side in a case, I get concerned.

On occasion, as I have talked with Collaborative lawyers about starting a new case as a Collaborative divorce, the other attorney has suggested that s/he wasn't sure the case would be a good one for Collaborative Law, but we could try it if my client would first: give up custody of the kids, move out of the house or give the spouse a sum of money. Since each of those was the biggest issue in each respective case, my clients didn't see the value in conceding that issue and then using Collaborative for whatever was left. In those cases, I couldn't talk the other attorney into dropping the precondition and the other attorney didn't seem to see anything wrong with that approach.

Custody, use of the house and getting access to money are common issues that are dealt with over and over in Collaborative Law. They can be tough issues in any kind of approach. Judges and juries often have trouble making decisions on those topics and they can be tough issues even in the Collaborative Law approach. Nevertheless, I wouldn't hesitate to use Collaborative to work out agreements on those issues. For all the reasons why we are committed to Collaborative, it is usually a superior way to resolve these legal issues.

From my perspective, the real reason why some attorneys insist on preconditions to using Collaborative Law is that they just aren't fully comfortable with the process and aren't convinced it can work with difficult issues. In other words, it's a lack of commitment to the process. Sometimes, attorneys are so integrated into positional bargaining that they can't let go of the security of grabbing a position and holding on. When we are "brought up" doing positional negotiating, interest-based negotiations may seem a little scary. Attorneys may feel out of control when they don't have clear cut positions they can claim and hold in negotiations.

So, what's a person to do?

If you go to see a Collaborative lawyer and that lawyer starts telling you that the case really isn't appropriate for Collaborative Law, I suggest that you challenge the attorney to explain why. And I suggest that you get another opinion from another Collaborative lawyer.

Unfortunately, some attorneys claim to be a trained Collaborative lawyer when they really aren't or when they don't really practice Collaborative Law, and those attorneys use the ads or web site sections to bring in potential clients whom they then tell that Collaborative Law is not appropriate for their case. Any time you are told that Collaborative Law won't work in your case, you should get a second opinion from another Collaborative lawyer.

Sometimes, after discussing the proposal to use Collaborative Law with the attorney, it's the client who wants to impose a precondition before agreeing to use Collaborative Law. In that instance, it's clear that the attorney just hasn't explained the process very well or the client perceives that the attorney isn't real comfortable with the process. If the attorney isn't sold on Collaborative Law, the client probably won't be either. Again, a second opinion would be advisable.

The bottom line is that agreeing to use Collaborative Law only if a precondition is met is unacceptable. If you want to use the process, keep searching until you find a truly committed and experienced Collaborative lawyer who will help you.