On the proposed Uniform Collaborative Law Act

There is much discussion these days in the CP community about the proposed Uniform Collaborative Law Act. Much of bit having to do with its inclusion of some "exceptions" to the Disqualification provision of the Participation Agreement. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts to the dialogue.

This video might set the right tone for my thoughts: http://www.dailygood.org/more.php?n=3749 I viewed it and sighed a relieved smile.

Anyway, I don't like the exceptions any more than anyone who has spoken out against them. [yep, I can be a bit of a purist, okay a dogmatist ;-) ]

I also don't like the explanations for their "necessity" offered by others. [for me, they ring too much of the very early years when the claim, by the lawyers, was that "the clients are 'disadvantaged' if they have to change attorneys".....]

What both perspectives have in common is that they are abstract and speculative and, pretty much, focused only on failure.

The piece that seems to me to be getting overlooked in the dialogue is the importance of focusing on SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDING the Collaborative case.

Rather than concerning ourselves with what should happen IF the process fails - I do tend to consider physical violence a strong indicator that the process at least isn't working well - my suggestion is that we keep out intention on using the UCLA to support and encourage SUCCESS in the process.

For example, I'm myself troubled by the fact that there is no requirement whatsoever that a "collaborative lawyer" take any kind of training at all, not even read a book. '“Collaborative lawyer” means a lawyer who represents a party in collaborative law.' I.E., if you say you are one, and sign a Participation Agreement, you are one. There is also no mention of MHPs or FPs. There is much left out of the UCLA that I consider somewhere between important and vital for the success of a Collaborative matter, especially in family matters.

However, the point for me is not to craft legislation that will foster success of the process for any particular couple, I don't believe that's possible.

What I do believe is possible is for each of US to make sure that we continue to develop the skills necessary to support a couple in a process that is much more "difficult" than litigation. To support colleagues in doing likewise. To continue to speak out that CP isn't "done", that collaboration doesn't happen, simply because a Participation Agreement is signed. To focus on how we can support the low income clinics/agencies toward case by case success so that they don't have to invoke the disqualification exception. To be mindful of the stress and history of each individual couple and ideally make use of Mental Health professionals in the process so that physical violence is avoided and the question of "emergencies" is rendered moot.

I see these as worthy challenges for us all and for CP as a whole. I see us each as up to the challenge. I believe that because I know that for each of us, and for each client, it is true that "You've got a friend". http://www.dailygood.org/more.php?n=3749