eclipse logo         How to learn more

Here we present you with information about divorce in general and collaborative divorce in particular.  It is arranged by topic.  Click on any topic and be taken immediately to that information.
Brief historical note about divorce in general.
        For some people, looking at divorce and the legal system through the eyes of history helps make sense of it.   And making sense of it leads to better decisions and better results.

    In a tongue in cheek sort of way, we can blame the current mess with the courts and divorce to the fact that King Henry VIII’s first wife was the Pope's niece.   Henry's word, as King of England, was law and generally, what Henry wanted, Henry got.   Unfortunately, one of the things he really wanted was a son to follow him.  Unfortunately, his wife, Catherine of Aragon, did not provide him with one.  This was the 16th century and Henry thought that the lack of a son was Catherine's fault – which is why he decided he needed a new wife.   Even back then, folks knew that you didn't have to be married to have a child.  However, the King had to be married to the child's mother if the son was to be a Prince.     Prior to Henry's little problem, marriage was not considered much of a public matter.  Marriage was political, to be sure, especially if the people who were married were also those who ruled the land. Marriage itself was largely a cultural and religious matter, left largely to the parties, their families and the Church.     Henry's decision to jettison Catherine changed all that.   In order to have a male heir to follow him, Henry had to have the blessing of the Pope for his divorce from Catherine. SInce Catherine was the pope's niece, the pope would not grant permission for the divorce.    These were the days of the Protestant Reformation, and Henry solved the problem by creating his own Church - and naming himself as its head.   He didn't lose much sleep over granting his own divorce and he probably didn't realize he was setting a precedent that would last hundreds of years.   He made divorce primarily a matter of ‘law’, not culture or religion or the business of the spouses themselves.   And since our legal history comes down to us, through the English ‘common law’, that is the basis of the court system in America today.  The precedent set by Henry VIII’s divorce shows up in divorce court every day in San Francisco,  Boston and Medicine Hat.
        Our court system is a direct descendent of the courts of England at the time our country was founded.  Most of Canada shares the same tradition.  Under this English ‘common law’ (distinguished from the ‘civil law’ model of France, Spain and continental Europe) the judge was the agent of the king – and the judge's job was to apply the king's rules to the situation of the parties.  Once the parties put their private dispute before the king's judge, the dispute became public and would be resolved by the king's rules, whether the parties liked it or not.   The authority of the king, expressed in the law, took precedence over the intent or desire of either party, or even the parties together.
What does this mean to you?  
·    The courts, for hundreds of years, have been designed to serve society first and the individual litigants second.   This is why the courts are open and public.  You need to know this in making the decision whether to rely on the courts to resolve any issues with your spouse. 
·    It also means that when spouses go to court and put the terms under which their marriage will end and the rest of their lives will begin – and the lives of their children as well - in the hands of a judge, they lose a large measure of control as to what will happen.   Litigation serves society as whole today, just as it served the interests of the king back then, much better than it serves either the individual interest of either spouse.
What is Collaborative Law?
        "Collaborative Law" is a name given to an attitude toward resolving legal disputes and the policies and practices that put that attitude into action.  You won't find "collaborative law" in the statutes or administrative regulations of your state, you will find it in the professionalism and integrity of those who practice law.
What is "Collaborative Law Attitude?"
        An 'attitude" is a predisposition on how to see things.  The basic attitude marking collaborative law is of solving the problem, not fighting the fight.  People tend to find things where they look for them.  Some people look upon the civil justice system as where to go to fight.  They will find the fight they are looking for.  Some people look upon the civil justice system as a place to resolve a dispute they have with another.  Collaborative law is what they're looking for.
History of Collaborative Divorce
        The Advocates Network is the result of a movement that began over a decade ago.  It was started by attorneys - often independently in different parts of the country - who were unhappy with the way things were changing in the legal profession.  Wherever they happened to be practicing, there were similarities in the professional lives of these attorneys.  They practiced in areas of the law where they dealt with clients on a personal, day to day basis.  And they considered law to be an honorable calling to professional service above all else.
        For these attorneys, the adversarial system of litigation in the courts didi not serve clients going through divorce very well at all.  The adversarial system made an unfortunate situation worse.  It seemed to turn people whose lives were growing apart first into adversaries and then into enemies.  These lawyers knew that litigation was a very inefficient way to solve a problem.  Each side seemed compelled to contest and fight over every little thing.  Resolving the smallest issue consumed hours of time and many pages of legal documents.  The system was draining the emotional and financial life out of the clients that the lawyers wanted to help.
        Worst of all, adversarial divorce litigation made their parents' divorce even more stressful on the children.
        The attorneys felt trapped in the system.  The frustration made professional careers that should have been satisfying into days filled with disappointment and frustration.
        While many good lawyers struggled with these trends in their profession, in 1990 a family lawyer in Minneapolis, Stu Webb, finally did something about it.  He put his livelihood and career on the line and announced publicly that he would no longer litigate divorces in the courts.  He would dedicate himself to a way that better served clients as human being going through a painful change in their life.  He realized that there was no problem between divorcing spouses that couldn't be resolved by the fair and honorable application of the law to the situation at hand if the spouses and their lawyers would only agree to do so.  The message Stu began to spread took hold and from it the collaborative family law movement developed.
        One of the things Stu and other recognized is that marriage, like a coin, has two sides - but that we usually only see one side at a time.  One side of the marriage coin is the "side of the heart", the emotional and personal side.  Here, marriage is all about the loving, private relationship between two human beings.  The other side is the public and legal side of marriage.  Depending on the specific rules of the state where the spouses live, they may have legal rights in each other's property, they may be responsible for each other's bills, they may owe each other a duty of support and other such things the law will publicly enforce.  Should divorce occur, the adversarial litigation system in the courts only concerns itself with the public side - who got what property, who paid what bills, how much money would one spouse be forced to pay for the support of the children living with the other parent.
        The personal side of the marriage coin, the side where real people felt real pain - is ignored by the courts.  Lawyers in the collaborative law movement knew ignoring the personal side of the 'divorce coin' was wrong - but the courts gave them no tools to deal with it.  To help clients as people, collaborative lawyers build into their proceedings the ability to help the whole client.  The lawyers would provide help and guidance in the resolution of the public and legal parts of the divorce, and - where needed or helpful - they would invite family therapists and other clinicians to help clients as 'coaches' with the personal changes.
       
Principals of Collaborative Divorce
1.  Reconciliation is the best outcome.
        Reconciliation means neither the 'zero sum' of victories and defeats nor is it 'just getting it over'.  Reconciliation is the acceptance of the terms of a changing life circumstance, terms that the parties collaborated in creating. 
        Where children are involved the way the parties treat each other and the relationship of the parties at the conclusion of the case is as important as the terms of resolution.  Children need reconciliation.
        The only acceptable outcome of a Collaborative Law procedure is the reconciliation of the issues, with the terms of that reconciliation being accepted by the parties as their own before being rendered in the Judgment of Divorce.
        This differs from adversarial litigation, where the parties try to get the judge to order terms that are the best for them without considering whether or not these terms are good or bad for the spouse or the children.
2.  Reconciliation requires balance.  For every right there is a corresponding responsibility. In collaboration the spouses and their attorneys look for the best solution for both, not the best for one at the expense of the other.  This differs from litigation.  Litigation is a fight to dominate the other regardless of cost.

3.  Collaborative Law attorneys can and should be trusted, by both clients, by each other and by the other professionals involved.
    Collaborative Law attorneys are each advocates and guides who help their respective client to the common point of reconciliation.  They bridge the gap between the parties, each protecting his or her own client while working under the Collaborative Law agreement to honorably and effectively resolve the dispute between them.

4.  State and federal law - both  Statutory and Administrative- and local rules are not waived.
    Collaborative Law is not something that works outside established law but within the law by the agreement of the parties.  It is an alternative to litigation that does not surrender legal rights but merges them with the practices and procedures more suited to the human elements of the dissolution of marriage

5.  Civility is important, integrity is essential.
    There will be temptations to be other than courteous, civil and diplomatic .  The parties are under the pain and pressure of a major change in personal and family circumstance and are  dividing the limited assets important to their security.  While it may be difficult to control what we feel, we must control what we say and the way we say it. 

A point about lawyers, or Do you really want a star?
        The love-hate relationship between the public and the legal profession is easy to see (Does Jay Leno ever tell jokes about dentists?) but hard to analyze in an objective and clear way.   This is one way to understand differences between members of the legal profession.
        There is an apt comparison between lawyers who define themselves as ‘litigators’ and star professional athletes.  Both ply their trade in a public arena – either a public courtroom or a public playing field.   While their fame comes from ‘doing their thing’ within the context of the game or the trial, to them, it's not about the team, it's about them.   (If they had to choice between being the game's Most Valuable Player or their team's winning – no matter what they say publicly – they would choose being MVP.)   Athletes can only be stars on the field and litigators can only be stars in court.  This is why many clients of ‘star’ litigators report that the case seems more important to their lawyer than they are.   Star litigators need the game and the courtroom – they can't stand not being famous.  (There is an old saying in sports – that tying a game is like kissing your sister.  The same is true for star litigators – and ‘tying’ a case is when the parties settle out of court.)
        Another similarity, both are paid by the team (clients) but are loyal to the game itself.   Because it means so much to how they see themselves, the game itself – rather than the outcome for their client – is what is really important to them.   Star athletes or lawyers need a ‘league’ to hold the games where they get to be in the spotlight.   They also need what they do to be important to the public.  In sports, the building of artificial importance for a game is called ‘Hype’.   Lawyers do it too.
        Collaborative lawyers have a very different world view.   They don't need to be a ‘star’.   Since they don't need to be a star, they don't need to play a game with your future to be in the spotlight of some public courtroom.   Their entire focus is to avoid an expensive and often useless fight rather than encourage one and then try and win it. 
        This leads to a dangerous temptation for those facing divorce.  The temptation – especially strong because your life is so up in the air – is to answer the normal need for a strong protector by hiring a ‘star’ litigator and thus get sucked into an expensive and dangerous game that doesn't need to be played. 
   
Why this is important to you.
  • The decision to have a lawyer assist and represent you in your divorce is a major decision
  • The more anxiety you have about your future, the more you are still struggling with the inevitable and normal emotional reaction to divorce, the greater will be the temptation to seek the assistance of a ‘star’ lawyer who directly or by implication promises to make you life better by ‘winning’ for you.    In 9 of 10 cases this is at best a myth and at worst a lie.
  • If you decide on the assistance of a lawyer, choosing the right lawyer for you is very important.   It's one thing to know this, and it's another thing to understand how lawyers differ from each other, what those differences mean to you and how to tell them apart.
  • There is a difference in focus between lawyers who believe in the collaborative process and those who believe in adversarial litigation.
  • If, when you first interview a lawyer who might represent you, the lawyer does most of the talking, telling you what he or she is going to do for you or tells you about the wonderful things they have done for other clients, you are talking to someone who sees him or herself as a ‘star’.  Expect them to act like a star throughout your case.
  • If you chose collaboration – a ‘star’ lawyer won't serve you very well.   In collaboration, the lawyer's role is to advise and guide you – and to ‘stay out of the spotlight’.    Star lawyers either don't get this, can't do this or both.
  • On the other hand, if you chose litigation – or if you can't avoid litigation – a star will, at the least, put on a good show.    But keep in mind, especially if you are stuck in litigation and your spouse has a ‘star’ lawyer and you don't, that what you care about is the outcome, not the game or case itself.   Often, collaborative lawyers who are must litigate for their clients are very good at using the other lawyer's ‘star’ tendencies to their client's advantage.   Keep in mind that while the ‘star’ lawyer may put on a show in the courtroom, the judge makes the decision. 
About Collaborative Lawyers
        Up to about twenty years ago, in most states, a couple needed an attorney to adopt a child.  There were fewer legal specialists then and adoption cases came along infrequently.   This was the best work an attorney could hope for.   Adoption made the couple very happy and gave a child a home.  Everyone left the process better than when they came to it.   Most lawyers were happy to occasionally have a day when they could put their education and experience to something that was beneficial to everyone.   While divorce is certainly not a happy time, most collaborative family lawyers find similar satisfaction – using all their professional skills and abilities to help create the best outcome possible.
About Advocates Network
        The Advocates Network is the result of a movement that began over a decade ago.  It was started by attorneys - often independently in different parts of the country - who were unhappy with the way things were changing in the legal profession.  Wherever they happened to be practicing, there were similarities in the professional lives of these attorneys.  They practiced in areas of the law where they dealt with clients on a personal, day to day basis.  And they considered law to be an honorable calling to professional service above all else.
        Working with another profession, as an integral part of the client service team is a radical change many lawyers are not ready to make.  The Advocates Network developed as a multidisciplinary professional organization to help lawyers and other personal service professionals work together to the greatest benefit of the client.  

About Eclipse® Collaborative Practice System
        At the heart of every collaborative divorce is the 4-way agreement between both spouses and both attorneys to avoid using the adversarial system of litigation in resolving issues that must be resolved when a marriage is dissolved.  While turning away from the adversarial litigation is very beneficial to spouses - and especially their children - there must also be something better to turn to.  That is what the Eclipse® Collaborative Practice System is all about.  The Eclipse® Collaborative Practice System is the 'tool kit' used by collaborative lawyers and other professionals to make the process go smoothly and efficiently.
    The Eclipse® Collaborative Practice System uses the Internet and unique software developed solely for this purpose - in a completely secure and private way - as a tool and allows the lawyers and other professionals who may become involved in any given case to provide the most benefit at the least cost to people whose lives are changing in divorce.  But the best tool is no benefit in the hands of the wrong professional. That is why the Eclipse® Collaborative Practice System is only available through members of the Advocates Network.

Collaborative Family Practice and the ethical rules of the legal profession.
(Note:  The Code of Professional Conduct / Ethical Rules are different from state to state.  Many states follow the model rules developed by the American Bar Association, but some do not.  Lawyers in every state are regulated by the Supreme Court of that state or an agency directly under the control of the Supreme Court.  This discussion is general in nature.)

        Important point.   Confidentiality applies to both clients and perspective clients.  This means that what you say to an attorney in the process of determining if you will be comfortable in working with them is confidential, even if you don't hire that attorney.   This is why many attorneys want to meet potential clients in person before discussing their case.

        In many states the rules of professional conduct were created to protect the client, protect the integrity of the legal profession and to protect the fairness of the litigation process.  If you are a potential client, understanding the these rules in the context of collaborative family law will help you understand the process and how collaboration is different from litigation.

        One of the things that happens when people aggressively litigate divorce – and this is true of the lawyers who present themselves to clients as aggressive litigators – is that they seek every competitive advantage they can find.   The rules of the litigation process are intended to provide a level playing field for the parties.  There is a strong temptation to twist and bend the rules, intentionally violating them at worst and following the letter but not the spirit at best.   Collaborative lawyers don't claim to be the tough kid on the block – and they have too much respect for themselves, their clients and the court system – even when they help their client resolve whatever issues they face without resorting to adversarial litigation – to suggest bending or breaking the rules that make the process fair and honorable.    The commitment to both the letter and spirit of ethical conduct is why a collaborative family law client can trust his or her attorney.  It is also why they can trust the collaborative lawyer assisting their spouse.

        Specific Ethical Principles  (These are general discussions – you should seek specific answers to questions you have.)
  • Confidentiality generally lawyers are not to reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client consents.   Of course, lawyers are entitled and expected to reveal such information as necessary to carry out the representation of the client.   In some states the lawyer has the duty to disclose confidential information to prevent fraud, in some states not.  In addition, lawyers have to duty to prevent perjury and disclose it before the case is over, if they learn it has occurred.
    • Collaborative family law is a much more open process.   The collaborative process is based in large part on voluntary full disclosure of both legally and collaboratively relevant information.   While a collaborative client could instruct their attorney not to disclose a specific bit of information, it the lawyer believed that this information was important and its disclosure required under the collaborative agreement, such an instruction would likely create an impasse or require the lawyer to withdraw.   Whether such a withdrawal would end the collaborative process would depend on the protocols of the practice group as expressed in the collaborative agreement.  
    • Under the adversarial litigation process, relevant information is not voluntarily disclosed.  It is either hidden or saved to spring on the unsuspecting spouse in court.  This is almost always done because the information is either incomplete or is subject to interpretation or rebuttal.  It is hidden in an attempt to present the other spouse from presenting their side to the story to the court.   When each side tries to keep as much information as possible hidden for as long as possible they each require their spouse to use the legal means equally available to each of them – called ‘discovery’ – to compel the disclosure of information.  This is one of the reasons litigation is so expensive.
    • Even when the parties don't point fingers and call each other names, adversarial litigation is something of an ‘information war’ with each side trying to build up as much favorable information in usable form (the definition of ‘evidence’) on their side while keeping the other spouse from gathering evidence of their own.
 
Other sites with information that you may find useful:
SUCCESSFUL DIVORCE AND SINGLE PARENTING:  A Step-by-Step Guide to Transform Your Experience from Suffering to Success.  From nationally known parenting expert, best-selling author and award-winning speaker    www.MickeyMichaels.com

If you would like to be part of the process, feel free to respond on the email button below and give us your suggestions as to what you would like this page to tell you.
logo