CP Cal Logo
                     CP CAL NEWSLETTER
2011/4
December 2011

Dear Collaborative Colleague,

 

We are pleased to bring you Volume 2011/4 of the CP Cal Newsletter, the electronic newsletter of Collaborative Practice California.
Past issues of the CP Cal Newsletter are archived on the CP Cal website at www.cpcal.com. If you have comments or questions, please contact Susan Campbell or Margaret (Peg) Anderson, Managing Editors. Susan's email address is [email protected] and Peg's email address is [email protected]
 

The opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the individual author(s), and not necessarily the opinions of CP Cal as an organization.

Letter from the President 
by Randy Cheek, MFT

Dear Collaborative Colleagues,

 

I am amazed at how quickly the time has been flying by. I am into the eighth month of my term as president of CP Cal already and it feels like I have just accepted this responsibility.

 

The board has been busy since the Celebration in April. We have had a productive working retreat in August and a face-to-face meeting in November in addition to our monthly phone-bridge meetings and a variety of committee meetings.

 

At the annual retreat, the Board decided to change its fiscal year to the calendar year in order to match its tax year and to prepare two-year "rolling" budgets. This was completed at our face-to-face meeting in November. We also established a taskforce to work with Harry Tindall from Texas and a lobbyist to develop strategies for the passage of the UCLR/A. We also revitalized the Mental Health task force whose goal is to educate mental health providers throughout CA about the benefits of Collaborative Practice (see article below).  

 

Additionally at the retreat we explored the benefit of hiring Paula Jackson as our contract administrator to handle much of the organizational work required to operate a state-wide association. The board has since retained Paula Jackson to complete these diverse duties. For those of you who know her, we need not describe what an asset she is and how thrilled we are to have her as part of the team.

 

In addition to providing direction for the growth of CP Cal this past year, your board was working closely with the IACP and accepted the role of the Host Committee for the Forum in San Francisco this past October. We were fortunate to have an active committee composed of board members, delegates and practice group members. We were able to assist in organizing an international conference attended by over 650 participants. Our committees were active in fundraising for the IACP, setting up the dine-around, seeking volunteers and encouraging participation at the Forum. Our efforts were productive on all counts. CP Cal was well represented at the Forum with a turnout of 140 Californians attending. As the Host Committee chair, I want to thank all who participated to present CP Cal so well to our international colleagues.

 

As you read this newsletter if you have questions, comments or a burning desire to help with a committee, please contact Paula Jackson ([email protected]) or me ([email protected]).

 

I hope you have healthy and happy holidays.

 

Is the UCLA on California's Radar Screen?

By Frederick J. Glassman, Esq.

  

By way of background for those of you who have not followed the history of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA), it is well, alive and growing throughout the United States. After passage of the UCLA by the Uniform Law Commission (ULC), formerly known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, on July 15, 2009, recommendations for enhancement of the UCLA were entertained by the ULC. Thereafter, in mid-2010 the ULC amended the UCLA with three (3) revisions; namely, as follows:

  1. Drafted court rules that mirror the statute, thereby giving states the explicit discretion to adopt the amended Act, or adopt court rules, or a combination thereof;
  2. Provided states with the express option of limiting application of the Rules/Act to matters arising under the family laws of a state or expanding to application in all civil matters; and
  3. Made it possible for the court, in proceeding(s) already underway, to retain discretion to grant a stay of such proceeding (and related calendaring matters) in lieu of the stay being automatically granted as a matter of law.

Now the Act is formally referred to as the Uniform Collaborative Law Rules/Act (UCLR/A) and the full and complete version can be found at www.nccusl.org.

 

Although not mandatory, it is customary for the ULC to present its approved acts to the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates for endorsement. After submitting the UCLR/A (through Resolution 110B) to the House of Delegates on August 8, 2011, notwithstanding support from the Family Law Section and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Section of the ABA, the ABA House of Delegates failed to endorse the UCLR/A. Opposition came primarily from the Litigation Section of the ABA. According to the ULC, the ABA missed a golden opportunity to assert its leadership with respect to a new and evolving form of dispute resolution. The ULC recalled that back in the 1990s, the ABA House of Delegates also failed to endorse the then growing practice of mediation. According to the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP), the ABA continues to suffer from declining membership while the collaborative community is growing at an astounding pace (in excess of 4500 members, with 320 practice groups nationwide and 36 practice groups in California). Bottom line: neither the ULC nor the IACP is discouraged by the ABA action and will work, side by side, with those states seeking enactment of the UCLR/A.

 

Here is the tally thus far. Utah, Nevada and Texas have already adopted the UCLR/A (for family law in Texas and for all civil matters in Nevada and Utah). In 2011, Alabama, Hawaii, Massachusetts and District of Columbia have introduced pending legislation. New Jersey is expected to introduce legislation in 2012. Other states, including Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, are considering introducing legislation in the near future.

 

So, where does California stand on the radar screen at this stage? CPCal has taken the laboring oar for considering prospective legislation. Our task force will consult with state lobbyists for strategic planning. One of the considerations will be whether the recommended comprehensive statute should encompass all civil matters or be limited to family law matters (follow up to existing California Family Code 2013 and the local county rules in Contra Costa, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo and Sonoma). The timetable calls for obtaining input from the community of interested focus groups, including the protective organizations on domestic violence and various Bar associations throughout the state, in order to build a coalition of support from such stakeholders.

 

A partial list of such anticipated organizations can be found from the signatories in support of the Declaration of Public Health Crisis promulgated by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, California Chapter, as of August 1, 2010.

 

The present goal is aimed toward introducing legislation to adopt the UCLR/A by the end of 2012. 

Mental Health Outreach Task Force - Goal to Increase the Number of Collaborative Divorce Cases

by David Kuroda, LCSW and Debbie Bellings-Kee, JD, MFT

  

Despite the best efforts of the clients and the therapist, the wife decided the divorce needed to happen. The counseling didn't change her husband. Halfway through the session the therapist asked, "What kind of divorce do you want?" As the therapist explained the different process options for divorce, the couple chose Collaborative divorce. It became the very first Collaborative case for the practice group. The therapist recommended the attorneys, who in turn recommended that the couple retain a therapist for their child specialist. Therapists in our communities can do much to further the development of Collaborative Practice!

 

Over the years, attorneys have been bringing mental health professionals into their cases in many capacities where they see and experience the benefit. In a Collaborative Practice integrated model, attorneys and therapists work more closely than ever before. As parents learn how to move productively through separation and divorce, attorneys experience clients who are less stressed and angry. Many families and attorneys have come to appreciate the value of hiring coaches and child specialists early on in their divorces. These therapists enjoy working with attorneys. Collaborative Practice groups provide places for therapists to "break bread" and discuss cases with attorneys. In short, Collaborative Practice has enabled many therapists to experience the satisfaction of helping children and families while expanding their practice and raising their fees. At the same time, as therapists learn about the Collaborative process option, they refer the work to the Collaborative attorneys.

 

Therapists may hold the key to directing more divorcing couples away from the courts and the litigators. "Do you know a good divorce lawyer?" is the question many ask their therapist when beginning their divorces. Therapists want to be helpful to their clients; however, therapists rely on the same list they have had for years. We have no "Yelp" or "Angie's List" to find the best Collaborative attorneys or mediators. If therapists don't know about the Collaborative process, how can they refer clients to Collaborative attorneys? In Southern California, A Better Divorce and the State Bar, along with LACFLA and the LAC Bar, put on a program for mental health professionals earlier this year. More than 115 people attended, including the supervising judge of the LA Superior Court family law departments. An educational program such as this helps therapists learn about the benefits of the team and the Collaborative process.

 

In summary, CP Cal's Mental Health Outreach Task Force is committed to helping increase the number of Collaborative cases in each of these ways:  

  1. By educating mental health professionals about opportunities in Collaborative Practice, including having an exhibitor presence at professional conferences such as AFCC, CalCPA, CAMFT, and NASWCA;
  2. By providing therapists an opportunity to increase their involvement in the Collaborative movement in the state;
  3. By encouraging greater involvement in professional organizations; and
  4. By increasing everyone's satisfaction and income from this work. 

The Task Force "meets" in phone calls every other month (odd numbered months) on the second Monday at 10:00 a.m. The call-in number is 1-213-342-3050, access code 811555#. We also have in-person lunch meetings twice a year, one in Northern California and one in Southern California. 

 

We invite any California Collaborative professionals to join us, either as an ongoing committee member, or as a volunteer for one of the professional conferences or another particular task. All professional disciplines are welcome. Please contact one of the co-chairs of this Task Force, David Kuroda at [email protected] or Debbie Bellings-Kee at [email protected]

Public Education: How to Publicize Your Divorce Options Workshops

By Leslee Newman, Esq. and Len Weiler, Esq.

 

If you are presenting the Divorce Options Workshop in your area, you can publicize it through local media and newspapers. A set of radio public service spots (10 to 60 seconds long), and a press release are attached as samples for use by your individual practice groups. The basic theme of the public service spots and the press release is described in the following 20-second spot:

 

"You got married forever, but now you want a divorce. What do you do? Where do you go? Find out what you need to know at the Divorce Options workshops in ______. For information, contact CPCAL.org. That's CPCAL.org."

 

And don't forget to notify the webmasters of the CP Cal website about your particular Divorce Options presentation so that the information on the CP Cal website will be current. The webmasters are Stephanie Maloney ([email protected]) and Justin Reckers ([email protected]).

 

At a recent meeting of public service and news directors for Los Angeles metropolitan radio and television stations, the Divorce Options Workshop concept generated excitement. A radio interview about Collaborative divorce and the Divorce Options program has already been recorded at KFRG (CBS stations in the Inland Empire/Orange County area) as well as 30 and 60-second radio spots for repeated use on those stations.

 

10-Second Spot: You got married forever, but now you want a divorce. What do you do? Where do you go? Contact CPCAL.org for a Divorce Options workshop in your area.

15-Second Spot: You got married forever, but now you want a divorce. What do you do? Where do you go? Contact CPCAL.org for a Divorce Options workshop in L.A., Orange County or the Inland Empire. That's CPCal.org.

20-Second Spot: You got married forever, but now you want a divorce. What do you do? Where do you go? Find out what you need to know about divorce at the Divorce Options workshops in L.A., Orange County or the Inland Empire. For information, contact CPCAL.org. That's Divorce Options at CPCAL.org.

30-Second Spot:You got married forever, but now you want a divorce. What do you do? Where do you go? Find out what you need to know about divorce at the Divorce Options workshops in L.A., Orange County or the Inland Empire. You'll learn about peaceful ways to settle your divorce through mediation and Collaborative Practice as well as through court litigation. For dates and locations contact CPCAL.org. That's the Divorce Options Workshop at CPCAL.org.

60-Second Spot:You got married forever, but now you want a divorce. What do you do? Where do you go? Find out what you need to know about divorce at the Divorce Options Workshops in L.A., Orange County or the Inland Empire. The Divorce Options Workshop provides you with unbiased information to help you explore your options; deal with guilt, anger, and grief; and move forward with your life. You'll learn about peaceful ways to settle your divorce through mediation and Collaborative Practice as well as court litigation. You'll discover that divorce is a combination of legal, financial, and emotional issues, and how divorce professionals can guide you through the process.With this information, you and your spouse can carefully decide how you want to plan your divorce. You do have choices. For more information, contact CPCAL.org for dates and locations in your area. That's CPCAL.org.

 

Press Release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

            Subject: DIVORCE OPTIONS WORKSHOPS

            Contact:

            Date:

 

Marriage is supposed to last forever, but at least half the marriages in California end in divorce. Just as couples carefully plan their weddings, if divorce occurs, it should also be carefully planned.

 

There are many choices that spouses have to end their marriages and transition their family. As the effects of divorce impact the children and can affect the divorcing spouses far into the future, the choice of how to divorce should not be impulsive, but thoughtfully chosen.

 

Collaborative Practice California, the statewide resource for Collaborative Practice groups in California, has designed the Divorce Options Workshops as a community service to inform couples about all their divorce choices, including peaceful divorce through mediation, collaborative or cooperative divorce, and court litigation. The Divorce Options workshop provides unbiased information which helps divorcing spouses deal with issues of guilt, anger, and grief, and move forward with their transition from married to single life.

 

Each Divorce Options Workshop features legal, financial, and mental health professionals to describe the different, interconnecting issues of divorce because dissolving a marriage is a legal process involving the division of property and money, and the parenting of children. With information gained from the Divorce Options Workshop, couples can more intelligently and respectfully plan their divorce through the process that best suits them.

 

For information as to the locations and dates of the Divorce Options Workshops, please contact the website of California Practice California (cpcal.org) a not-for-profit organization, for specific dates and locations about the Workshop in your local area presented by local Collaborative professionals.

 

For more information about how to use the public service spots or the release, you can contact Leslee Newman ([email protected]).

 

CP Cal Celebration 7

By Suzan Barrie Aiken, Esq.

 

Celebration7Cover

 

Are you ready for an exhilarating and fresh Celebration, brimming with innovative programs to stretch and deepen your Collaborative skills? How about registration fees that go farther than rolling back pricing to Celebrations past, but rather swagger as the lowest registration fees ever offered in Celebration history? You spoke, and we listened!

 

CP Cal Celebration 7, COLLABORATIVE TRAINING INTENSIVE: Strengthening Skills for Excellence, unveils an entirely new format that will provide truly stimulating and challenging learning opportunities for intermediate and advanced practitioners as well as skill-building workshops of various levels that will provide concrete learning "take-aways" and materials that you can put to use immediately when you return to your office.

 

Celebration 7's training track model will intensely focus on those topics you have requested, like business development and marketing, to supply you with tools and resources to grow your practice in these challenging economic times. Is experiential learning your style? Celebration 7 devotes an entire track to a mock case that will provide intermediate/advanced participants with an experience of working on a challenging Collaborative divorce case as an integrated professional team. And pre-conference institutes ... wait until you see what Celebration 7 has to offer. In-depth learning for practice excellence is what Celebration 2012 is all about.

 

Sound intriguing? We hope so! Now it's up to you to mark your calendars and guard the dates passionately: April 27 - 29, 2012 at the fabulous Claremont Resort in Berkeley. We have negotiated a great deal on hotel rooms and parking.

 

We know that even with the lowest registration rates ever, in this economic climate, some of you may not be financially able to participate in Celebration 7. Here's some good news. The Matching Grant Program is back. The CP Cal Board has approved $2,500 in matching grant credits to be applied towards individual early bird registration fees for Celebration 7 on a first-come, first-served basis, with one criterion being the financial need of a participant who would not otherwise be able to attend. CP Cal's matching grant credit is equal to the grant provided by your local Collaborative Practice group (that is a member of CP Cal) to individual registrants up to a maximum of $150.

 

How can you help grow Collaborative Practice in California, in your practice group, and in your office? Participate in the Celebration! The Celebration is an exceptional way to meet other Collaborative practitioners and network, an integral part of growing your practice. Did you know that the Celebration is the single fundraising event for CP Cal? Your participation will fund CP Cal initiatives to educate the public and other professionals about Collaborative Practice. How is that for a win - win!

 

Your Celebration 7 Program Committee members are Amy Rodney, Ann Buscho, Debra Bellings-Kee, Emily Weaver, Fern Topas Salka, Hal Bartholomew, Jude Sterling, Karen Heller Berdy, Len Weiler, Leslee Newman and Randy Cheek. Your Celebration 7 Conference Coordinator is Paula Jackson. Your Celebration 7 Co-Chairs are Dawn Strachan and Suzan Barrie Aiken. Stay tuned for further announcements as our Celebration 7 program is unveiled, and please do save the date. We can't wait to see you in April. 

Spotlight on a Collaborative Star - Advancements in the Role of Neutral Child Specialist

By Bruce Fredenburg, LMFT and Leslee Newman, Esq.

 

One of the founding members of Collaborative Divorce Solutions Orange County has contributed significant advancements to improving the efficacy of the role of Neutral Child Specialist. Carol Hughes, Ph.D., LMFT, Eureka Award recipient 2011, has provided services as either a Coach or Child Specialist on more than 70 Collaborative Divorce or Mediation cases. During that time she has developed particularly creative strategies and techniques as a Neutral Child Specialist that would benefit our community of peacemakers. Her methods have been adopted by other Child Specialists in our practice group with excellent results.

 

Of particular interest is the way she uses pictures of the children. Dr. Hughes puts the picture of each child in a frame and decorates the frame with symbols of that child's unique interests and activities. She attaches a handle to the frame and then holds it in front of her face when she personifies the child by speaking in the first person (e.g., "Mom, Dad, I am feeling frightened when I hear you arguing over me"). The effect can be transformational in the way that it shifts the emotions of everyone in the room. When she wants to share sensitive information without directly quoting the child, she lowers the picture and places it into a display holder so the child's presence is always a factor, and then speaks from the perspective of the professional offering insights and gentle guidance to what they have previously declared most important, their child's welfare.

 

Her model has been greatly admired and adopted by the Collaborative professionals who have witnessed it both in our practice group, Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County, and a neighboring practice group, Collaborative Divorce Professionals of the Inland Empire. At the encouragement of her peers, Carol has recently decided to offer workshops to demonstrate her extraordinarily effective methods, so others in our Collaborative communities can add these to their Collaborative toolboxes.

 

Editors Note: If you know someone in your Collaborative community who deserves to be recognized for their unique contributions, please let us know and we will feature them in future newsletters.

 

NEWS FROM LOCAL PRACTICE GROUPS:

 

DATA GATHERING IN THE COLLABORATIVE COUNCIL OF THE REDWOOD EMPIRE

Margaret Anderson, Esq.; article to be published in IACP Collaborative Review in 2012

 

Prior Projects

Members of the Collaborative Council of the Redwood Empire have a long history of efforts to collect data on our Collaborative cases. Our predecessor organization, the Collaborative Law Committee of the Sonoma County Bar Association, began these efforts in 1999. The data for 1999 through 2004 included 102 cases.

 

CCRE was formed in early 2005, and a different method of data gathering began in June of that year. Those efforts continued until late 2006. Then the activity languished for several years, until new energy and new volunteers stepped forward in 2008.

 

Current Project

We now have a dedicated committee of primarily financial professionals, who have tracked our information from 2008 (with a "look back" to 2007), through the current date.

 

The primary goal of each of these committees has been to obtain accurate information for use in educational materials and in responding to questions from clients about the length of time and financial cost of Collaborative cases.

 

We have had discussions about which cases should be included in our database, as we often have clients and/or professional team members from counties other than Sonoma, which is where most of us are located. The question about including cases with varying "home" locations is important because of the disparity of professional fees in the four or five counties surrounding Sonoma. Our current consensus is that if at least one attorney in a Collaborative case is a CCRE member, then the case may be reported. It is left up to the CCRE member attorney as to whether a case will be included in our database if both clients and all the other professionals are located in a county other than Sonoma.

 

We have designed our program to have Collaborative professionals report a case when it is "opened"; the primary reason for this is to allow the data miners to follow up and catch it when it is "closed." We have left it to the subjective judgment of the reporting professional to define when a case "starts" - whether it is 1) the holding of the first meeting with both attorneys, both clients, and any allied professionals, 2) when the Participation Agreement is signed by all parties and professionals, 3) when the Stipulation and Order re Collaborative Practice is signed (and filed with the court), or 4) when the Authorization and Consent Form is signed allowing all of the professionals to speak openly with each other about the matter (which often happens before the first meeting).

 

Appendices A and B are the current "Data Mining" forms that we use upon the opening of a Collaborative case, and upon the closing of a Collaborative case. Appendix C is the most current Data Miners' report on the 65 closed cases on which we have material from 2007 through 2011 to date. Editors Note: if you would like to receive copies of these forms, please contact Susan Campbell at [email protected].

 

In the various iterations of our efforts, we have learned the importance of thinking carefully about the questions we ask on the data forms. When we have issued revised forms, we have learned that the changes can cause skewing of all earlier results, and thus inconsistent conclusions.

 

Although the current database includes just 65 completed cases, which we recognize as a small sample size, we believe the quality of the data is quite good. The most important notable results from our data are these:

 

At first glance, there appears to have been a significant drop in the number of cases over the last several years. However, it also appears that this is changing, as the reports for the first four months of 2011 show us getting back to the 2008-2009 levels.

 

We were also surprised at the length of time between "start" of a case and the signing of a Collaborative stipulation, and specifically that the cases with a longer delay were more successful in reaching a written agreement. However, we do not assume that this correlation equals causation.

 

Transitioned Cases Committee

Another part of the uniqueness of our data gathering approach is that CCRE has a newly created Transitioned Cases committee. The charge of that committee is to interview professionals who worked on cases that left the Collaborative process without a complete settlement agreement having been reached, and to obtain information about why this occurred. We have some concern about whether professionals will be disinclined to report data on cases that transition out of collaboration. For this reason, we have assured anonymity of information as to all data reports.

 

We had initially referred to these matters as "failed" cases; then we moved to "terminated" cases, and finally to "transitioned" cases. We believe that clients often take benefits with them even when a complete agreement is not reached in collaboration. This is shown in those transitioned cases where clients were able to work with litigation counsel to wrap up all of the remaining issues without direct court involvement. Most importantly, we want to learn from the transitioned cases, by exploring if, when and how we can help more of our clients reach complete agreements.

 

The Transitioned Cases committee also performs interviews of litigators and others who are not part of the Collaborative community, about their views of the Collaborative process and experience with coming in to represent those from transitioned cases. Our hopes are to provide education and build bridges with these colleagues, to address the fallout from these cases that reaches the public arena, and to make suggestions to our colleagues about these cases.  

 

Among the concerns we are hearing are that the law is not being sufficiently explained to clients, and also that our non-Collaborative colleagues are extremely concerned about the cost of the Collaborative process. This is especially true for the cost of full interdisciplinary teams, which may be partly a misunderstanding of the value of the team. It has also been suggested that perhaps we are not screening sufficiently to determine whether collaboration is an appropriate process, especially with the extent of emotional and psychological challenges that appear in clients of transitioned cases. An example of this can be as simple as when one party is so severely hurt or mistrustful that s/he is unable to participate in collaboration.

 

One of our colleagues suggested that we consider setting limits on the length of time, number of meetings, or maximum cost of professionals in each case, with the parties participating in setting these limits. Clients have complained to their litigation counsel that the Collaborative process seemed endless and that it became far too expensive. There were also clients who told their litigation counsel that they didn't feel taken care of by their Collaborative attorneys (insufficient education of the clients as to their expectations?). One of our favorite comments, however, was from a litigation attorney who indicated that the clients in a transitioned case in which she was involved were not at all unhappy with the Collaborative process after they had spent six times as much on the litigated portion of their case.

 

A formal report to the CCRE community is scheduled for the near future. It will describe the committee's process of 1) the collection of additional data on cases that left collaboration, 2) choosing one professional from each of these cases to be interviewed, and 3) interviewing of six attorneys who had become new counsel on fifteen of the transitioned cases. Besides the information reported above, we also heard that some Collaborative clients wanted to meet separately with their Collaborative counsel, but that didn't happen. There were also suggestions by clients that the Collaborative attorneys needed to call an end to the process.

 

Of particular interest was that none of the litigation attorneys expressed a negative feeling about the Collaborative process itself. They did hear that the clients didn't really understand the process, probably needing to see more structure and progress, and that some clients were really stuck and dug in to a position, although other clients were more educated and prepared than they would have been if they hadn't worked in collaboration. Some of the clients told their new counsel that the Collaborative professionals described litigation in extremely negative terms, without mention having been made that most litigation cases also settle without a trial.

 

Our final comment from this data gathering work is that the clients themselves are good sources of information about what we are doing right, and what we might consider changing. Thus, many of us in CCRE ask that our clients from both completed cases and transitioned cases complete a brief Client Survey. We have found that the vast majority of these clients are willing to provide the information to us. Appendix D is the survey form used by several of our CCRE members. Although there has not been any collation of the client survey information, these forms provide not only "learning opportunities," but also often provide positive and touching comments about our work that some of us have included on our websites as "testimonials," with the clients' permission. Editors Note: if you would like to receive copies of these forms, please contact Susan Campbell at [email protected].

 

 

DIVORCE OPTIONS AND MARKETING IDEAS FROM ORANGE COUNTY

Carol Hughes, Ph.D., LMFT

 

The Collaborative Divorce Education Institute (CDEI) of Orange County, an outgrowth of Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County, has been offering Divorce Options workshops for the past 12 months at various professional office venues throughout the county. Attendance has ranged from one to four attendees. Recently CDEI offered Divorce Options workshops in the Orange Coast Community College (OCCC) Community Education Program. OCCC's brochures are sent to 10,000 local households and ten people attended the workshop. Based on the OCCC success, another local community college, Irvine Valley Community College, has now expressed an interest in offering the Divorce Options Program for two Saturdays in the Spring of 2012. CDEI plans to continue its efforts to engage the local community colleges in offering the Divorce Options program. More to come!

 

Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County (CDSOC) recently hosted an evening wine and appetizer mixer for professionals (lawyers, financial professionals and mental health professionals) at a local restaurant. CDSOC's goal for the mixer was to educate our professional colleagues about Collaborative divorce and to encourage professionals to attend the 2012 February 3-day full team interdisciplinary training being offered by the Collaborative Divorce Education Institute. About 20 professionals expressed an interest in the training and in becoming members of CDSOC. In addition, one Family Law Commissioner stated an interest in becoming an associate member of CDSOC...success!! Our plan is that this mixer will become an annual event.

 

Under Leslee Newman's tutelage, CDSOC has created a series of videos about the Collaborative divorce process, entitled "How to Get a Divorce." These videos are available on YouTube. To date, we have had over 3000 hits for the series on YouTube and, in addition, the video series is being regularly aired on a local TV station. Thank you, Leslee!!

 

 

 

INTEGRATIVE MEDIATION: KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOR OR BLACK PRINCE? News from Marin County

Stephen H. Sulmeyer, J.D., Ph.D.

 

This is a challenging time for many, perhaps most, Collaborative practitioners in California. For many, new Collaborative cases have slowed to a trickle. Many practitioners have no Collaborative cases at all. Certainly the economy is partly to blame, and perhaps our reputation as well for being expensive or inefficient. Whatever the causes of our current state of malaise, the question cries out: what is to be done? Practice groups across the state are tackling this question in a variety of ways, as is CP Cal, and the innovations that result from these conversations will surely end up benefitting Collaborative Practice as a whole. However, a number of Collaborative practitioners in Marin County are trying something entirely out of the Collaborative box that could have a substantial impact on the situation.

 

We call it Integrative Mediation. Integrative Mediation (or IM for short) is a mediation model rather than a Collaborative model. It consists of conjoint co-mediation between a lawyer and a mental health professional ("MHP"), so far exclusively in family law cases. Actually, this model has been around for decades, but, surprisingly, is rarely used today. Nowadays when a MHP is brought into a mediation, his or her role is usually limited to mediating the parenting plan, while the "legal" and "financial" aspects are left to the lawyer. In IM, the lawyer-mediator and the MHP-mediator co-mediate the entire case together (hence the term conjoint), jointly attending to the legal, financial, and emotional needs of the parties. Financial neutrals and child specialists are brought in, as in Collaborative, on an as-needed basis. The parties may or may not be represented by counsel in the mediation.

 

Why might IM be an appropriate response to the slowdown in our Collaborative workload? First and foremost because it is a way to deliver the benefits of interdisciplinary practice to clients at a fraction of the price of a full Collaborative team. In terms of cost, there are only two professionals' meters running at any one time (except for those times when a financial neutral or child specialist is brought in). With fewer players, there is less need for team meetings, there are fewer team dynamics to straighten out, and fewer scheduling difficulties to attend to, all of which translates into lower cost for the clients. There is also greater efficiency in that the lawyer-mediator and MHP-mediator are neutrals who do not represent either party, and are therefore able to avoid some of the pitfalls that arise when negotiations are undertaken by party representatives (including coaches in the two-coach model).

 

But perhaps the greatest cost-savings benefit arises from that aspect of IM that makes it so effective: the integrated way in which the lawyer-mediator and MHP-mediator work together. While each professional is primarily responsible for his or her own area of expertise, in practice the lines are somewhat blurred. Each mediator is intimately familiar with the area of subject matter expertise of the other, both have substantial mediation training, and the two support each other like pilot and co-pilot, alternating the lead-taking as appropriate, and are in harmony regarding the common approach to be taken.

 

This common approach, at least in Marin, arises from our observation that emotional issues are almost invariably present in virtually all aspects of a given case (which is why we insist on conjoint co-mediation). While this isn't exactly news to most Collaborative practitioners, we have found that a great deal of inefficiency (and therefore higher cost) arises from the parties' conflation of their emotional issues with their legal and financial issues--and the failure of dispute resolution professionals to recognize this. Most of the really difficult cases--Collaborative, single-mediator, IM, or otherwise--tend to be the ones where such conflation is present, meaning that the parties are either too consumed by their hurt/pain/rage to negotiate rationally, and/or they are inclined to take ostensibly "legal" positions in order to right what are really emotional wrongs. We have found that the best way to deal with this problem is to separate the legal and emotional cases, and deal with each on its own terms--and both professionals need to participate in and support this approach.

 

While this sort of approach is equally applicable in Collaborative cases, there is a smoothness and a seamlessness in its application that seems to be more readily obtainable in IM cases. There may be several reasons for this. First, the lawyer-mediator and MHP-mediator are neutrals, rather than party representatives, and this can provide a certain credibility and perception of objectivity that party representatives may not be able to match. Second, the mediators' familiarity with the other's area of specialization, which we believe is greater as a general proposition in IM than in Collaborative cases, increases the seamlessness of the process. Third, there is an equality between MHP and lawyer that may be lacking in Collaborative cases, and this equality can have a major impact on the parties and the process. In IM, the two mediators function absolutely as equals, free from vestigial biases between the professions that might tend to undervalue or inhibit the contributions of MHPs (whether in the view of the parties or the lawyers). The co-equal status of the lawyer-mediator and MHP-mediator makes a powerful statement to the parties about the co-equal value that the process and the mediators place on the emotional and legal aspects of the case. Gender balance among the mediators may further assist in the perception of equality, as well as impact the parties' sense of safety.

 

The efficiency generated by IM's integrative team approach not only reduces costs, but also tends to result in the clients feeling truly heard, seen, and supported, because the human or emotional/psychological aspects of their divorce--arguably the part many care about most--is being fully taken into consideration at every point in the case. This in turn results in more truly informed decisions by the clients, greater client satisfaction with the process and the results, and a deeper, more comprehensive level of settlement and resolution, as well as more durable, lasting agreements. A truly integrative approach can also plant the seeds of emotional closure and enhanced psychological adjustment post-divorce, as well as the establishment of a better co-parenting relationship going forward on the part of the clients. Again, all of this can be done in Collaborative cases too. But it seems that it may be more easily achievable in IM for the reasons stated.

 

So, you may be wondering, if IM is so wonderful, why wouldn't all Collaborative practitioners welcome it as a knight in shining armor, come to rescue us by supplementing our practices during lean times? There may be several reasons. First, objections have been raised as to including IM among our practice group's "menu of services" because IM is a mediation rather than a Collaborative approach (e.g., the parties are generally self-represented, and when they are accompanied by lawyers the lawyers are not subject to disqualification in the event of litigation). There is a concern that the public's understanding of what Collaborative Practice is might be diluted or confused if Collaborative Practice groups were to include IM in what they offer. Given the amount of work and resources that have been expended to educate the public about Collaborative Practice, this is a very real and legitimate concern. We addressed this concern in Marin by forming our own IM practice group, Integrative Mediators of Marin, that exists in parallel with our Collaborative Practice group, and is populated by essentially the very same individuals.

 

Second, there is the question of fees. Many of us in Marin feel strongly that our philosophy of equality between the mediators, and between the legal and emotional aspects of our cases, mandates equal pay for equal value, meaning each mediator will be paid the same. For the MHP to be paid less than the attorney, which seems to be universally the case in the Collaborative world, sends a message that arguably undermines the principle of equality we want to practice as well as preach. Although for antitrust reasons there can be no predetermined agreement on what IM mediators will charge, we encourage practitioners to take this philosophy into consideration when setting their fees. Many attorneys object, arguing that MHPs don't have the overhead that they do. While that may be true, we respond by pointing out that MHPs could have attorney-style overhead if they received attorney-style fees, and that in any event even when overhead is taken into account, attorneys are still paid considerably more than MHPs. In addition, while there may be historical reasons that would explain the disparity in the fees charged by the two professions, in the IM context the MHP is acting in a very different role than that of the typical clinician, so the usual comparisons and justifications tend to break down. What we have done in Marin to address the overhead issue is this: assuming the mediation takes place in the lawyer's conference room, and makes use of the lawyer's office staff and equipment, the two mediators reach agreement on a certain dollar amount that will be attributed to overhead, and the two professionals take this amount off the top from what they receive in fees, and pay it to the lawyer or his or her firm.

 

Leaving aside whatever other objections to IM may exist, there remains the bigger question of whether IM can really make a difference to Collaborative practitioners by bringing in more business during these difficult economic times. Based on Marin's experience it's too soon to say, but the signs are encouraging. Although we have only just formed our practice group, we have already generated a number of cases, along with a great deal of enthusiasm on the part of our members. IM's viability over the long-term, as well as the forms which its relationship to Collaborative Practice will take, will ultimately depend on how vigorously interdisciplinary practitioners embrace the model, as well as how robust our marketing efforts are (e.g., such as including IM in our Divorce Options workshops). Whether other Collaborative Practice groups choose to include IM as one of the models they offer, or whether individual Collaborative practitioners choose to create free-standing IM practice groups, we believe that IM is an effective, complementary dispute resolution process that interdisciplinary practitioners can and should embrace with enthusiasm.

 

In This Issue
Letter From the President
Is the UCLA on California's Radar Screen?
Mental Health Outreach Task Force
Public Education: How to Publicize Your Divorce Options Workshops
CP Cal Celebration 7
Spotlight on a Collaborative Star--Advancements in the Role of Neutral Child Specialist
New from Local Practice Groups: Redwood Empire, Orange County, Marin
CP Cal Website Redesign in Process
CP Cal Website Redesign in Process

By Justin Reckers, CFP, CDFA, AIF

 

The CP Cal website is being redesigned to more effectively meet the strategic goal of informing the public about the Collaborative process and finding a Collaborative professional. We also want to highlight the Divorce Options workshops that are being held throughout the state and make it easy for consumers to find a workshop in their area.

 

The second priority is to have a robust site for Collaborative professionals with a professionals-only area that will contain a number of tools to help us all in building our practices.

 

The new site will include easier navigation with clear menus and sub-menus that will allow everyone to quickly find the information they are seeking. Updating the site will also allow the webmaster to easily make changes as new content is provided. We expect to unveil the new and improved website within a few months and look forward to your feedback.

 
ABOUT CP CAL
Collaborative Practice California is a statewide organization of Collaborative Practice groups.  We are an interdisciplinary volunteer organization. For details on how you can become involved in CP Cal, see your local Delegate.
 
Social Media

Find us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

View our profile on LinkedIn
Join Our Mailing List