A-Very-Collaborative-Happy-New-Year by csgirla



More Info
									                                                                                                                                         January 2, 2007
                                    THE COLLABORATIVE LAW                                                                                Volume 2, Issue 1
                                    INSTITUTE OF ILLINOIS

                                    QUARTERLY                                                                                            Renee T. Pavlik,
                                                                                                                                         CDFA, CFDP

                                    A Very Collaborative Happy New Year
                                The Membership Committee would like to THANK ALL
                                FELLOWS who completed their renewal application in its
Inside this issue:              New Fellows—Dr. Carol Findon,                                      Molly Valerio

Mission Statement           1   New Friends—Roseanne Boldt                                                                          cont’d. pg. 6
The Reading Corner —      2-3
Review by Gunnar
Gitlin of 2006 Collabo-
rative Divorce Books
                                This issue has several significant contributions including
Committee Updates         4-6
                                •                         Review of 2006 Collaborative Law books by Pauline Tesler (and her co-author) and
The Uniform Collabo-       7                              by Stu Webb (and his co-author);
rative Law Act Update
                                •                         Explanation of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act: As of October 2007, the draft-
Collaborative Practice     8                              ing committee is reviewing draft one of the model legislation;
Wisconsin Advanced
Training Report                 •                         Highlights from Selected Q&As including:
                                                             •   Lessons from Fortune 500 Meetings by Kevin Karlson JD PhD;
Q&A with Pauline          9-
Tesler:                   10                                 •   Comments by Pauline Tesler

                                    Mission Statement
                                    Mission St ateme nt

                                “To increase public acceptance of Collaborative Practice by encouraging and supporting excellence
                                among the Illinois Community of Collaborative Professionals through education, training and stan-

                                Through . . .
                                Networking - Develop relationships with other collaborative law professionals that lead to new
                                Support -                          Meet other professionals who understand your challenges and can share practical
                                Education -                        Expand your depth of knowledge in collaborative law techniques through ongoing
                                                                   training classes and seminars.
                                                                                            Volume 1, Issue 2     Page 2

                                       The Reading Corner . . .
                       In this section of the CLII’s Newsletter it is the intent to introduce books, works, and
                       platforms which will support the Collaborative Practice, generate dialogue in our
                       Practice Groups, and enhance best practices in the Illinois community of Collaborative
                       Professionals. Each Fellow is encouraged to submit reviews, commentaries and insights
                       on books and works which inspire, educate, support otherwise assist in the furtherance
                       of the CLII Mission.
                       This quarter is a comparison of books written by Pauline H. Tesler, M.A., J.D., and Peggy
                                Thompson, Ph.D. And Stuart Webb.
                        Gunnar J. Gitlin has reviewed and compared these books - Cliff Notes version.
                        (but don’t let this stop you from reading these books, you may have a different perspective)

Collaborative professionals have two excellent resources to refer clients at the beginning of a potential collaborative
divorce process. The Collaborative Way to Divorce: The Revolutionary Method that Results in Less Stress, Lower
Costs, and Happier Kids--Without Going to Court by Ron Ousky, Stuart Webb and Collaborative Divorce: The
Revolutionary New Way to Restructure Your Family, Resolve Legal Issues, and Move on with Your Life by Pauline
H. Tesler, M.A., J.D., and Peggy Thompson, Ph.D. When you compare these books on their face they are remarka-
bly similar. Each book refers to collaborative divorce as “revolutionary” with one book calling it a method and one
book calling it a way. The typeface of both books is red, black and white. Both books are co-authored. For the sake
of this review, the book co-authored by Stu Web will be referred to as Stuart Webb’s book (despite the fact that his
co-author may have done the lion’s share of the writing) and the book co-authored by Pauline Tesler and Peggy
Thompson will be referred to as Pauline’s book.

Once you begin to read the books, you begin to realize that the books have a different focus regarding collaborative
practice. While each book is co-authored, the difference with the books begins come into play when you realize that
Stuart’s book is co-authored by two lawyers while Pauline’s book is co-authored with Peggy Thompson, a psycholo-
gist. Perhaps the difference in the books can be explained when you consider that Stu Webb was the founder of col-
laborative divorce – “inventing” collaborative divorce in 1990. Pauline’s book stresses Pauline and Peggy’s empha-
sis in interdisciplinary collaborative practice, such as when it states, “Originating with the work of Peggy Thompson
and her colleagues, the collaborative divorce interdisciplinary team was first offered to clients in northern California
in the early 1990s.

Pauline’s book very closely follows the interdisciplinary collaborative divorce model. It strongly advocates for the
use of two coaches in every collaborative case. In fact, Pauline’s book suggests that the entire collaborative divorce
process may be started with a meeting with the collaborative divorce coach. Interestingly, Pauline’s book suggests
that the coaches will recommend “one or more child specialists whom they consider appropriate choices.” Pauline’s
book makes a statement which may be considered somewhat controversial when it states, “... considering using a
coach of your own gender. Gender differences are often accentuated during a divorce, and you may find it helpful to
have gender balance in the coaching process.” I disagree.

Another place I disagree with Pauline’s books is when it states:
       Occasionally couples who have a high level of mutual cooperation decide to interview potential col-
       laborative lawyers jointly and to choose counsel for each spouse from a pool that both spouses feel
       comfortable with. (This is a novel concept for lawyers, who will need to ensure that both of you un-
       derstand and agree to this procedure in a way that meets ethical rules for lawyers, but it can be done.)

While this suggestion is well-meaning it differs from the advice and approach of most collaborative lawyers.
Interestingly, the same general comment is made in Stuart’s book regarding the possibility of interviewing
the collaborative professionals together.
                                                                                       January 2, 2007       Page 3

Pauline’s book refers to one of the benefits of collaborative divorce as “dancing together at grown children’s
weddings (p. 93). Surely, for some clients this may be a wonderful picture. However, it is my belief that this im-
age may work for some clients, others may find this somewhat utopian in nature, given the possible level of cur-
rent discord in the parties’ marriage.
Overall Pauline’s book uses many examples assuming a wife/homemaker and husband/wage-earner. Interest-
ingly, the book written by two men appears more gender neutral, overall. While collaborative practice involves
many cases involving this “traditional” setting, there are many collaborative divorces not involving this fact pat-
tern. In fact, Stuart’s book uses several fact patterns not making this assumption.

Compare the length of the two books: Stuart’s book is 188 pages while Pauline’s book is 244 pages. (However,
the last chapter of Pauline’s book is devoted to common questions and answers – which might have been in-
cluded in an appendix.) Otherwise, Pauline’s book is 202 pages. Lawyers will know some clients who are vora-
cious readers and may be willing to read a somewhat longer book. However, for the majority of clients undergo-
ing a divorce, the fact that Stu’s book is somewhat shorter is a reason this book may be recommended reading.

While Pauline’s book strongly adheres to the interdisciplinary model, Stu’s book recommends an interdiscipli-
nary team but makes far fewer assumptions that this team needs to be incorporated into every case. Thus, where
Pauline’s book assumes the core professionals are the two collaborative lawyers and two coaches, Stuart’s book
calls the coaches “vital members of the team” it does not make the assumption that coaches will be used in every
case. For this reason, collaborative professionals who use a core team in each case involving two coaches, may
prefer Pauline’s book. However, there are collaborative teams that have used one coach instead, of two coaches.
For example, Norma Trusch, of Texas in her comment about Pauline’s book suggested that the only way the
book could have been improved upon was not to make the assumption of a two coach model since Texas has
used for years the one coach model, which they have found to be successful in their state.

One of the strong points in Stu’s book is the short quiz regarding whether collaborative divorce is “right for you.”
This quit asks someone contemplating a divorce whether they strongly agree or disagree with a series of state-
ments – on a five point scale. The person then adds up the results of the answers to the ten questions asked. This
scale is interesting and I have had clients comment favorably on this addition to Stuart’s book.

A negative to Stu’s book in terms of being state specific is when he briefly addresses the possibility of filing a
joint petition for dissolution of marriage. While this is an interesting comment, it simply does not apply to Illi-
nois cases.

Overall, it is the authors impressions that Stu’s book seems to be more written from a single voice. While gener-
ally this is an a positive regarding Stu’s book, it may have something to do with the fact that Stu’s book is written
by two lawyers. A negative regarding Pauline’s book is that the authors believe that they could often identify the
portions written by Pauline and the portions written by Peggy.

Which book should be recommended to a client who is considering a collaborative divorce? There is no one size
fits all answer. If it is anticipated that the client may be overwhelmed with reading, etc., Stuart’s book is signifi-
cantly easier to read. It is shorter and written more with one voice. On the other hand, for a client who is willing
to read and is who is interested in a true collaborative divorce team, Pauline’s book is preferred. Preferred prac-
tice may be to provide Stu’s book to each new client considering a collaborative divorce. In fact, there is nothing
wrong with one person to a divorce reading one book while her or his spouse may read the other.

By Gunnar J. Gitlin, Gitlin Law Firm: www.gitlinlawfirm.com
                                                                             Volume 1, Issue 2   Page 5

Committee Updates . . . .Committees—
Chairs, Co-Chairs, Meeting Dates

   We would like to this opportunity to update CLII Fellows as to the opportunities
   the Marketing Committee is creating for the calendar year of 2007.

             1) The website is being redesigned.
                 Our goal is to have CLII come in the top responses on search engines.

             2) Newsletter contributions from our membership!!!!!
                 We are looking to hear from our members!! What books are good or
                 perhaps— not. It would be great to have your view on books,
                 techniques or present a couple of questions for discussion!

             3) Marketing Seminar in Fall
                If you haven’t worked with Liz Ferris—Don’t miss this opportunity!!!!!

             4) IACP commitment to start advertising in 2007
                 How we can better gain the public’s attention

This is an opportunity to say THANK YOU to the past Board for getting our organization
involved at the ground level with IACP—International Academy of Collaborative
Professionals. THANK YOU!!!! In future issues we will have more details!!

Last but not least —-The Marketing Committee has a monthly conference call!!!!!
                   Monthly Meeting Day:         1st Tuesday of the Month
                   Time                         11:30
                   Place                        Conference Call

Welcome to one and all!!

We are always looking for members to help build our marketing campaign—
it is an organization that is built on its members and their hard work!!!!!
QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER                                                                 January 2, 2007     Page 5
                                                                                     Volume 2, Issue 1
Committee Updates . . .                                                cont’d.

Committees—Chairs, Co-Chairs, Meeting Dates and Times

       We have received new applications as well as renewal applications. These applications
       will be submitted for approval by the Membership Committee to the Board of Directors
       for their meeting on January 16th.
       We are also aware of other Fellows who are still in the “process” of submitting their
       new/renewal applications. We hope to receive, “process”, and submit them to the Board
       Directors for their meeting on January 16, as well.
       “Our goal” is to have an updated list available at the General Membership Meeting.
                                   Isabel Millard, Marcia Kraus and Linda O’Connell—Co-Chairs
Practice Groups:
       As with any new organization, names used at the beginning or the start of something new,
       are often modified with titles that “work for “ the organization as it grows. The former title
       of POD’s (Practice, Organization and Develop) has evolved to Practice Groups.
       The Practice Group leaders have many goals with the premise of maintaining continuity of
       information/ideas throughout the organization as it advances and grows. Debra Braselton
       is chairing this Committee.
       This committee consists of a current leader in each Practice Group.
       NorthWest Practice Group - Candace Pietschman
       West/SouthWest Practice Group - Debra Braselton (will be keeping us posted in the future)
       Loop Practice Group - King Perkins
       NorthShore Practice Group - Brigitte Bell

Training:     The Training & Education Committee - “TEC” (for short)
             from carl Michael rossi, Chair
  Ringing out the old.
      With barely ten weeks to work with, the new TECom tackled providing and promoting a
      second Basic Training in 2006 [the Board's desire was to return us to the intended "Fall"
      Schedule that had not been met the last couple of years]. By all measures, the training was
      a great success! Almost 50 new Collaborative colleagues from the city, the suburbs and as
      far as Rockford and Springfield took advantage of the fine, professional meeting facilities
      of the Marriott in Lisle [rooms were available at a discount]. There were more mental health
      and financial professionals than in years past as well as a more even distribution among the
      three professions. Reviews were overall very good. Oh, yes, and, though our focus of course
      was and is always on the quality of the training, we even were able net a profit of several
      thousand dollars! Which will support the CLII training goals for 2007.
                                                                                       January 2, 2007   Page 6

Committee Updates . . .                                                cont’d.

Committees—Chairs, Co-Chairs, Meeting Dates and Times

        We were greatly helped in pulling this off in so short a time by the use of the
        professional services of the meeting planners of ProPlanners, Inc. whose experience
        in facilities, services, and promotion were invaluable. Special thanks must be given
        as well to Theresa Kulat, Dick Kulerski, Isabel Millard, Anne Mudd, and Sandra
        Rosenbloom. Each of them took very seriously their commitment to doing, not just
        being, on the committee. Their attitudes of “how may I serve” and “what needs to be
        done” literally made this thing happen. Without their willingness to inconvenience
        themselves, to actually do work, and to work as a team always on the same page the
        work simply could not have been done despite the amount of time and effort that I
        and ProPlanners put into all this. I thank them profusely.
        If you are willing to join us in doing the work, contact me at cMr@CPChicago.net

 Ringing in the new.
       For 2007 the TECom has already submitted for the Board's approval an ambitious program of
       1) a Fall Basic Training - with more lead time, likely to be even larger and more successful;
 AND 2) two or three "Beyond the Basics" trainings - intended to meet the Continuing Collaborative
              Education requirement of renewing CLII Fellows.

        As soon as the Board is able to give us it's approval for our 2007 plan, we'll be soliciting
        proposals from high quality, experienced trainers for these CE programs. If you've seen
        professional Collaborative Practice trainers whom you found noteworthy, feel free to contact
        me and we'll look to ask them to submit proposals.

 Always the same.
       Our commitment on the TECom is to bring the best trainings available to support all of our
       desires to be the best we can be in this shift in our professional lives to Collaborative Practice.
       On behalf of the Committee, I thank you for the honor of serving you in this way.
       And I send you our wishes for much success and growth in your Practice in 2007 !!!

 If you or you and a friend want to join a committee, please call the Chairs.
 As our Collaborative Community grows, our organization will need more
 hands to make the work easier. Please do not hesitate to volunteer on projects
 or committees. We welcome all!!!
                                                                               January 2, 2007   Page 7

                              Things to Know . . .
                       Uniform Collaborative Law Act
Reprinted from         CollabLaw@yahoogroups.com   Monday, December 18, 2006

Uniform Collaborative Law Act

The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws [NCCUSL] has authorized
and appointed a drafting committee to write a Uniform Collaborative Law Act. Peter Munson,
Sherman, Texas, is Chair of the Drafting Committee. I am also a member of the committee.
 Law Professor Andrew Schepard of Hofstra University will serve as Reporter. The first meeting
is scheduled for next spring. Location not yet determined.

NCCUSL will solicit observers to participate in the drafting project. Doubtlessly IACP will be
invited to participate. Observers travel at their own expense, usually reimbursed by their
sponsoring organization. Typically these projects require 2-3 years to complete. The drafts are
read line by line at the annual meeting of NCCUSL and then sent to the American Bar Association
for endorsement. Drafting meetings usually occur every spring and fall until completed. The
meetings last 2 1/2 days. Observers play a critical part in the drafting process as the observers
bring the needed expertise to the drafting table. Observers are full participants in the work but do
not vote. However, all decisions are usually by consensus.

Respectfully submitted, Harry L Tindall, Uniform Law Commissioner, Texas

The ABA Family Law Section representative is Carlton Stansbury, past chair of the Wisconsin
Collaborative Family Law Council of Wisconsin and IACP member. He is an excellent
collaborative practitioner and insightful voice on the Committee in addition to Harry.
Sue Hansen
Hansen & Hildebrand, S.C.
126 N. Jefferson St. #401
Milwaukee, WI 53202

An Uniformed Collaborative Law Act will greatly help in advancing the model and its
Acceptance. We should consider sending someone from Illinois to the drafting convention.
Update: Click here to see the first draft of the Uniform Collaborative Law Act.
Sandra Crawford
                                                                                         January 2, 2007     Page 8

  “CLII had members at . . . . .”

Collaborative Family Law of Wisconsin 1 day Training Program - November 2006
The Collaborative Family Law of Wisconsin (CFLW) presented their day long training program in November
2006. This article will summarize some of the significant items from this program applicable to CLii.
CFLW has their own survey available to Fellows only of their organization. CLii might consider creating an
distributing our own survey. We might also consider obtaining copies of the surveys currently going to the
IACP and supplementing this with our own client survey. The IACP will be making individual state results
available for analysis purposes each quarter going forward. A question is what would be any differences be-
tween the national survey and any individual client survey. The individual client survey from CFLW Wisconsin
is a client survey to be completed by the client.
Another point of note is the breadth of CFLW as a state wide organization. There are 127 lawyers and 70+ men-
tal health professionals. When we attended the winter 2006 meeting, their “bragging rights” was that they are on
the only statewide organization that was truly interdisciplinary from its origin. There was has been some discus-
sion about working collaboratively with Wisconsin because when it is time for Wisconsin to host the IACP in
several years, Wisconsin will have an interest in working closely with our chapter since perhaps Chicago may be
a better venue than Wisconsin for attracting professionals who are not state-side.
At the Wisconsin, CFLW provided literature providing their approach to collaborative divorce. Their approach
is “coach always.”
The Wisconsin morning session was devoted to team building and Myers Briggs. They had very entertaining
vignettes from movies showing team-work in action. Clearly, countless hours were spent compiling their video
montage of the best of many movies.
CFLW offered to post training sessions for our programs on their web site. They also asked if in the future we
could post their training on our website. Doing may be part of the overall web site design process with the goal
being making it easier and less expensive to make updates to the web site.
On April 18to April 20, 2007, in Milwaukee, CFLW is conducting a three day mediation program by Zena
Zumeta. Zena Zumeta has presented mediation programs in Chicago but these are the 40 hour type programs.
This program should qualify for fellowship in CLii. The cost will be $495.

Respectfully Submitted:

Gunnar J. Gitlin
                                                                                      January 2, 2007    Page 9

   Q & A . . . . with Pauline Tessler
Reprinted from
CollabLaw@yahoogroups.com, Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 13:18:27
Subject: [CollabLaw] Friday Tips & Problems

My experience this week led to these insights:
a. When homework is agreed-on, discuss and include "due date." Put in meeting notes.
b. When scheduling next 4-way, also schedule time for counsel to confer in advance.

Situation that lead to insights:
This case is almost done. Other lawyer (OL)& client were to meet before 4-way to discuss several settlement
points. They didn't. (She & I didn't talk either!) I send proposed alimony schedule the day before the meeting.
At 4-way, OL said unable to respond to alimony as just got it. OL & client had 2 long caucuses during 4-way,
apparently to discuss OL objection to amount & duration of alimony that her client appeared to be OK with.
Much of the rest of session was argument between counsel about purpose & justification of alimony in our state,
a topic that had been addressed in prior meetings.

Questions for the group:
1.Any other thoughts on how to prevent the problems described?
2.What are you doing about the tension between the solution that fits
the family & what the law is (AKA what the judge would do)?

Honey Hastings
Wilton NH
honeyhastings@: <mailto:honeyhastings%40earthlink.net> earthlink.net

On 12/29/06, Dr. Kevin Karlson <kevinkarlsonjdphd@swbell.net> wrote:

A few lessons learned and best practices from my foray into Fortune 500 business meetings:

1. Never introduce a new topic for the first time in a group meeting--one to one offline first to let the initial
        emotional reactions get processed
2. Few people react the same way to discussions of a topic and to the written summary of the same topic in a
        meeting note or document; don't expect a verbal agreement in a meeting to be the final word-
        most people need to see it in "black and white" to really "get it" (lawyers included).
3. Having the two lawyers on the same page before the meeting starts is critical to avoiding a retreat to the
        "litigation mindset". This could mean agreeing ahead of time to having a staged debate about the
        opposing views on a critical issue, when the parties are not equally capable of debating without
        arguing or just giving in.
 4. Follow up meeting notes prepared by one of the lawyers (who is assigned the task for each meeting), outlining
        the current agreements, unsettled issues, agenda for the next meeting, and discussion highlights as well
        As homework and deadlines are an important aid to keeping the momentum rolling and limiting the
        "Xerox" conversations (having the same discussions over and over and over). People will still forget,
        but you will have a document to refer to as the final word on "what we agreed to".

Happy New Year to all                   Kevin Karlson JD PhD           Vision Purpose Values
                                        Consulting/Coaching             Phone: 972.839.2394
                                        Email: Kevinkarlsonjdphd@swbell.net
                                                                               January 2, 2007   Page 10

 Q & A . . . . with Pauline Tessler                             cont’d.

From: CollabLaw@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CollabLaw@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Pauline Tesler
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006
To: CollabLaw@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CollabLaw] Tips & Problems--Lessons learned from successful business meetings

Your comments are right on point. Pre-meetings and agreed agendas,
with nothing added except by agreement of all participants, help ensure a
structured and guided conversation rather than polarized "us/them"

The choreographed presentation of points of view is a very useful and
adaptable concept. The lawyers need to have a high degree of harmony and
trust to do this well (your practice group is where this kind of trust
relationship develops)--when high trust levels are present, the lawyers can
agree to switch sides for the choreographed discussion, which is sometimes
useful--or my favorite, a collegial (and well prepared) mutual presentation
of applicable legal concepts in a way that illuminates the broad discretion
(i.e. unpredictability) of judicial decision-making, and that shows the
congruent understanding of both lawyers as to the extremes of possible
judicial outcomes that couples with similar facts and points of view might
experience if they presented their issue to the local judge for decision.
This is a constructive way to fulfill the legal duty to explain the relevant
law prior to reaching agreement, while also supporting collaborative
interest-based rather than positional legal-matrix decision-making. It works
best if done pretty far down the road. I usually like to do it at the point
that information-gathering and sharing are complete and needs and
priorities have been discussed, but before settlement frameworks are floated
and discussed.

                                                                         January 2, 2007 Page 11

    If you have any questions or concerns on a collaborative case you are working on,
    and would like to get feedback for others in the field, please log on to the CLII
    Fellows List-serve and seek the assistance of your professional colleagues.

       If you would like to share any questions or concerns about the organization,
       please email or call the CLII Administrative Assistant, Lois Del Valle
       at (312) 882-8000.

To top