One of the more challenging aspects of engaging in Collaborative Practice involves Interdisciplinary Team Practice.  Two lawyers working, not just with each other but with other professionals as co-equals in supporting parties in reaching their joint decisions.

The Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum is sponsoring an all day workshop on effective Interdisciplinary Team Practice on Thursday, November 17, 2016.

Click below to register for:
TEAM CHALLENGES IN COLLABORATIVE LAW: WORKING TOGETHER TO RESOLVE DISPUTES  which will be presented by

Nancy Cameron, QC   and   Yuval Berger, MSW

The American Bar Association will be presenting a CLE webinar on January 18, 2017 for all attorneys to gain a basic knowledge of Collaborative Practice from one of its pioneers and still a leading figure in the movement.

Pauline Tesler, author of the ABA’s book Collaborative Law, Achieving Effective Resolution in Divorce without Litigation, Third Edition and also Director of the Integrative Law Institute at Commonweal, will offer an overview of the principles as well as insight into their application in practice.

For more details and to register:
http://shop.americanbar.org/ebus/ABAEventsCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?productId=258085261&sortby=Date%20(DESC)&perpage=36

I ‘discovered’ Collaborative Practice in 1999.  Of course it was only ‘new’ to me.  Stu Webb had started the ball rolling in the late 1980s.

Most of what appealed to me about it was that it offered a way to work with people that did NOT involve the courts.  Instead it focused solely on helping them to reach decisions they could both live with.  Whether or not one of them was ‘right’ was irrelevant.  What some third party – a judge or a legislature – thought did not have to determine the outcome for them.

To me this was huge.  It was a large part of what Stu and others were calling the Paradigm Shift that a professional would undergo in doing Collaborative Practice.  This was a view of the work that was quite different from that of litigation practice.  Indeed it was often argued that the two were incompatible.  That doing both was at best really hard, potentially schizophrenic, and maybe even impossible.

By 2004 Nancy Cameron had released her book  Collaborative Practice: Deepening the Dialogue.  And she offered an image that caught on throughout the CP community in support of that “impossibility” notion –

“I have often thought of this dual role of conflict resolver and courtroom advocate as akin to being asked to ride two horses. … At some point to remain riding it will be necessary to commit to one horse or the other. The difference between the skills I bring as a collaborative practitioner and those I used settling within a litigation template is the difference between riding one horse rather than two.”

This was a great image for those of us who had actually walked away from doing litigation.  It didn’t seem to do much, though, to encourage anyone to take that step.

As the years have passed the percentage of the CP-trained attorneys who are still “doing both” has steadily if not exponentially grown.  I think maybe there have been two major reasons for that.  One has been the absence of any real screening of those who sign up for the training.  It hasn’t mattered who the attorney is or what his/her interest or intention is with regard to Collaborative Practice.  All are welcome; many are actively buttonholed in order to make the training financially viable.  It would be ‘nice’ if we could build CP by inviting the professionals who it is believed would be suited for the work.  Nice, but maybe impracticable.  Besides, the dam has pretty well burst in that regard.

The other reason that I see is that there has been too little done to respond to the genuine and important question “how can I make a living doing only Collaborative?”  In the last couple of years that has begun to change.  Woody Mosten and others have begun to offer workshop experiences in which real, practical options are offered for increasing ones percentage of non-litigation work and even stop taking on litigation work entirely.

So lately I have begun to wonder if maybe we could refresh of Nancy’s wonderful image.   Maybe, because it IS indeed possible to ride two horses, it’s an image that supported those who didn’t want to.  But maybe it didn’t quite capture the essential difference between litigation and Collaborative Practice and the practical, personal difficulties of doing both.  Of being both kinds of person.

So with much appreciation of Nancy and of the “two horses” image, I humbly offer the image that trying to do litigation AND Collaborative Practice is kind of like trying to ride a horse and a dolphin at the same time.

I think the intention is the same as Nancy’s – as I see it.  Which is simply to point out that even something you ‘can’ do isn’t necessarily something you want to do.  That doing Collaborative work, can make it very difficult – maybe even dispiriting – to jump back into the saddle of litigation.

I’ve chosen my mount.  My hope is that a growing number will choose theirs.  Which one it is, I believe, is less important than that you ride with purpose and commitment to those in whose service you mount up.

What do we think about as practitioners when we consider adding or maintaining a collaborative component to our overall law practice? Certainly there are the basic considerations of marketing and cost-effectiveness that make any practice component financially justifiable and for many, the analysis may end there. Beyond that, however, there is the lure of creating alternatives that support and empower a client through a difficult time. I’m writing here of a collaborative practice that permits the practitioner to reach deep into one’s self to access curiosity, generosity and empathy in order to create solutions that satisfy not only the deeper needs of the client, but as well, allows the practitioner to experience a spiritual satisfaction that goes far beyond bottom line considerations.

Divorce for many clients can be a defining moment: it can be a time of taking stock, of reflecting upon one’s choices, of admitting to mistakes, of acknowledging historical patterns, of exploring new, previously unthought-of directions, of experiencing sometimes frightening emotional highs and lows. At its very best, the divorce process can present an opportunity for the client to have a deeply spiritual experience. I’m not talking here about a traditional religious experience but of one that expands the individual’s awareness of their own human spirit. To be part of that growth and to nurture its nascent roots within a collaborative paradigm is the privilege of the practitioner. By accessing one’s own generosity and compassion as support for the client, the practitioner as well has an opportunity for personal spiritual growth through the guidance of the client’s journey.

Clients come to the practitioner vulnerable and in distress. To say that they are not at their best is an understatement. They are being divorced from, or they are realizing that they will have less time with their children, or that the financial stability to which they’ve grown accustomed will be altered. Despite their stated willingness to enter into the collaborative process, there is a piece in them that is angry, resentful, afraid, tentative, defensive and reactive. They listen with acceptance to the theory of interests-based negotiation but at heart, they have a firmly seated personal position of fairness and justice. At the beginning, theirs is a surface acceptance of the collaborative paradigm and not a deeper understanding of the spiritual shifts that can be brought on by a collaborative negotiation. It is incumbent upon the practitioner to recognize this, and to understand that clients are often at the moment of signing the collaborative agreement unready to explore the potential of their evolving stories. They are not ready to give up the old trajectory of their lives and live in a new direction, and this presents a unique challenge to the collaborative practitioner that is not presented to the mediator or the litigator. It is at this point that the collaborative practitioner is invited into the client’s life and to be a part of the evolving story.  This then is the challenge for the practitioner: to teach, to coach, to truly collaborate with the client and with the team, to create a result that responds to the deep needs of all the participants.

This is not about boundaries. A spiritual collaborative practice doesn’t require that we literally live our client’s journey. Rather, it is about the practitioner’s ability to open one’s heart, still the space, quiet the mind and listen, to ask questions and seek deeper responses as interests – true interests – are developed. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “Fear is such a powerful emotion for humans that when we allow it to take us over, it drives compassion right out of our hearts.” The client’s world of divorce is based in fear – fear of loss, fear of the unknown, fear of sorrow. Therefore, clients will always push toward a resolution but the practitioner may guide the negotiation away from neat and tidy resolutions and toward a deeper understanding of the client’s journey. As litigators, we are all about nurturing the fear and developing our postures. The collaborative practitioner’s role here is to hold tight to compassion, and to guide the client past the fear and into a place of options.

Recently, I’ve begun to consider the impact of a collaborative practice as well as the impact of compromise of collaborative principles upon the emotional life of the practitioner. Is it possible that a collaborative practice can impact us at a spiritual level, at its height enriching and empowering us as practitioners as well as individuals while when compromised leaving us longing and dissatisfied?  I have come to believe that if we invest ourselves fully into the collaborative paradigm, we as practitioners can emerge with a deeper, more thoughtful understanding of human nature and thus, of ourselves.

By fully embracing the collaborative paradigm as practitioners, we have the opportunity to truly reach inside of ourselves and give to our clients the very best of our skills and the very best of our selves. Rather than provide them “with the answer” we instead strive to create an environment that allows the clients to determine the answer for themselves. Spiritually, this isn’t a new concept.  Consider Matthew 4:19 – “Give a person a fish, and you feed that person for a day. Teach people to fish, and you feed the people for a lifetime.” The creation of a truly collaborative environment, one based upon identification with interests and not with positions, has the potential to enrich all who participate, professional as well as client, as we build upon an interrelated experience of interests-based negotiation.

The generosity of the collaborative practitioner, then, is to create and maintain such an environment. The client seeks a path to a goal, and this leads to position-based negotiations. Instead, the collaborative environment as guided by the practitioner says with every step we have arrived because with every step, we are addressing your interests. Maintaining a focus on interests and on being present enhances the collaborative experience for all participants – including the practitioner. It allows the collaborative team to experience a richness in the negotiation that is missing from a position-based negotiation which demands compromise in order to move forward. It is fulfilling and satisfying to all. In working through the collaborative paradigm for a client’s divorce, the practitioner can recognize and confront deep personal fears, making us more aware as individuals of our own motivations. Our role, then, is to keep the collaborative paradigm open, present and functioning. That role can easily become part of our spiritual practice for daily lives as we focus on being present and being open in our day to day activities.

As we strive toward a spiritually-based practice, our failures – those seemingly inevitable cases which seek to rush to judgment to just get it done – can sap our energy and cause us to question not only our skills but collaborative practice as a whole. As practitioners, we experience frustration and loss when a collaborative matter moves inexorably from interests-based to position-based negotiation and we are unable to redirect the negotiation back into the collaborative paradigm. However as we as individuals continue grow in our collaborative experience, I believe that practitioners will become more trusting of themselves, of their intuition and of their power within the team and that maintaining focus within the paradigm will become second nature. As we experience success within the collaborative paradigm, we become more confident. The personalities and challenges of the individual client, whether our own or from the “other side”, present no conflict for us to address because we begin to hear them through a filter of compassion and generosity.

For me, the success of any collaborative negotiation builds my confidence that I am moving in the right direction for my own growth as a practitioner and as a human. Negotiations that fail to stay within the paradigm are lessons to be learned from. But the deeper questions of the negotiation stay with me always: am I being open, am I present? What is the filter through which I am hearing this individual? Am I judging the action, or am I hearing the experience? Am I judging the individual, or am I holding a space for this individual to grow? Am I contributing to the balance of equality among all the participants? Is it necessary that I speak here? These are lessons that go with me daily through my life, and form a springboard for my personal spiritual practice.

It was 2010 and a few of us who had just ‘retired’ from the Editorial Board of IACP’s Collaborative Review were debriefing and talking about what we might do next to support the growth of Collaborative Practice.  Talk led to ideas and more talk and before we knew it, Gloria and I were in agreement that an online magazine could be a valuable complement to The Review.

We saw it – as available to anyone to read; as being appealing to the general public as well as the Collaborative community; as publishing pieces that were the entire range from blog posts to serious academia; as providing a venue for a broad range of contributors; as unlimited in size; as including audio and video content as well as text……

We had big dreams and  it was Gloria who gave those dreams grounding.  She kept me focused on our goal of creating something for everyone, something that would share the benefits and joys and sometimes struggles of Collaborative Practice.  She was also tireless in her efforts to gather contributors and sponsors for the magazine.  She even found the time to contribute pieces herself.

And it was her work with the authors editing their submissions that created polished pieces for the public to get the best view possible of Collaborative Practice and its practitioners.

Now Gloria has seen fit to end her involvement with The World of Collaborative Practice magazine and focus her talent back onto her counseling and other professional work.  I’m very pleased that she has agreed to allow me to consider her Editor Emeritus.  I will miss her.  I will do my best to ‘fill in’.  But what she brought to our undertaking simply cannot be replaced.

It’s been a joy and a privilege to work with you, Gloria, to bring this ‘humble’ idea into form.  I feel so happy for those whom you move on to help with your work.  InJoy! carl Michael rossi.

Gloria K. Vanderhorst, Ph.D. , Editor Emeritus

Spouses choose to utilize the collaborative process to resolve divorce-related issues for many reasons, but one of the most common reasons is the need to co-parent once the divorce is finalized.  Unlike the tradition courtroom divorce process, which treats mothers and fathers as adversaries, collaborative divorce treats parents as a team who want to reach an agreement that keeps their children’s needs at the forefront.

I recently had the opportunity to appear on iHeart Radio’s Tampa Bay Tomorrow with “Clair.”  Clair is a father who went through the collaborative divorce process, and I represented Clair’s wife.  Clair’s collaborative attorney, Julia Best Chase, also appeared on the radio program.  Corey Dylan is the host of Tampa Bay Tomorrow.

Below are the parts of the transcript in which Clair discusses his collaborative divorce experience (edited for clarity).  You can hear the audio of the entire 30-minute interview at the following link:  http://familydiplomacy.com/blog/family-law-news/tampa-bay-tomorrow-radio-a-client-discusses-collaborative-divorce/

Corey: Clair, let’s talk to you.  Let’s find out a little bit more.  Can you tell us how did it even come up? A collaborative divorce?  Was this your idea?  Was this your former spouse’s idea?

Clair: Well, I think it was a mutual thing.  We wanted to do this in a dignified way.  For the sake of the kids, for the sake of our own self-worth.  So we talk it out a bit and thought collaborative was the best process.

Corey: But had you ever heard of collaborative divorce? How did it come up?

Clair: I think my ex did some research and brought collaborative up as an option.  And it worked out quite well for us.

Corey: So what appealed to you about the idea of a collaborative divorce? Did you think it was possible to get through this process and have everyone still on good terms?

Clair: It’s still tough, but considering the other alternatives, it was the best possible outcome for us.

Corey: Okay, so what was the process like for you?  Did you go together to meet an attorney or a team of attorneys?  What was the initial process like?

Clair:  I actually sat down alone with Julia and she presented this process as an option. There was a team, with a financial professional and a facilitator.  My wife soon hired Adam, and we came up with a good plan that met the kids’ needs.  And, since we finalized, so far so good.

***

 Corey: The perception is that men often get short-changed in any divorce.  Literally or figuratively, with custody primarily going to women, and maybe the bulk of their estate going to women.  Maybe is this a more fair process?  What would you say about that, Clair?  Did you feel it was more fair?

Clair:  It was.  My ex and I came up with our agreements.  And, actually, before I spoke with Julia, I spoke with two other attorneys.  And they did not offer or talk about collaborative divorce as an option.  They were not part of the collaborative divorce process.  And they wouldn’t even look me in the eye.

Corey: Really?

Clair: Oh, yeah.  Julia was the only attorney I interviewed who was very compassionate, and the whole process, including Adam, was compassionate.  And that’s important because divorce is tough.  But I’m glad we utilized the collaborative process, and I’ve recommended others use this process. I’ve recommended both of the attorneys here [Julia and Adam] because of the way they handled the situation.

***

Corey:  Clair, can you tell us what kind of individuals were involved in your divorce?  I think you mentioned earlier that there was a financial professional who helped you navigate the next phase of your life.

Clair:  Yes.  The financial professional [Marie-Eve Girard] helped divide everything equally and fairly.  Having that in mind, it eased things a lot, especially with the kids in mind.  The facilitator [Rachel Moskowitz] was great to talk to.  She gave us great advice.  Divorce is an emotional thing. 

Corey:  I’m sure it is difficult to make decisions when you are dealing with highly emotional issues.

Clair: Yeah.  And, you know, I’ve been in combat.  I’ve been shot at.  I’ve been stabbed.  And I can handle a lot.  But this was probably one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do in my life.  But, considering the options, it was much better than it could have been.  Like I said, I’ve recommended collaborative divorce to several other people.  

***

Adam: The interesting thing is that in trial divorce, generally people are truly going through a full-throated litigation where people are fighting in court.  When people get divorced, that is usually just the beginning.  There can be years and years of fighting afterwards.  In the collaborative process, generally the outcome is you reach an agreement in a way in which you are getting along with one another.  Clair, I see you nodding your head.

Clair: Yes.  We seem to be getting along a lot better now because we have somewhat of structure, a tailored parenting plan, that we go by…The kids look forward to going back and forth.  They’re getting to the point where it is not such a big deal.

See Kevin’s review of Mr. Shaub’s book here.

1. Joe, you are not new to me, and you are well known in the Seattle area, but for those who may not know you please tell us a little about yourself.

JOE: 

Kevin, first of all, thank you for doing this.  I love these questions! 

 I got my education and training down in California, getting my JD from the University of Southern California in ’74 and my Masters in Marriage and Family Therapy at California Family Study Center in ’91. 

 On a great road trip after my first year in law school, my buddy, Steven Faulstich and I rolled into Washington in my VW Bus and I fell head over heels in love with this place.  It took me about 25 years but, in ’95 when I finally decided to begin my solo practice, it was clear that deep roots had to be plunged into whatever community I was in, and I was really done with the monochromatic climate and familiarity of L.A.  I remember thinking, “Wow, I can live anywhere I want.”  I was coming off the end of a short-ish marriage and the time was ripe.  I arrived in Seattle that January, took the bar exam, got licensed as an LMFT as well and, other than marrying Bev in 2000, it was the best thing I’ve ever done for myself. 

 I maintained a family law and mediation practice for the first 15 years, creating a referral network from therapists for whom I conducted frequent law and ethics continuing ed seminars.  I’m not temperamentally suited to practice divorce litigation – I worried too much about outcome – I mean worried.  I also got very aggravated at opposing counsel who were unnecessarily aggressive (zealous) and it was really impacting my well-being and quality of life. 

 When, in 2010, I decided to finally and completely jettison my representational practice and devote myself exclusively to mediation and providing individual and couples therapy and devote my collaborative law involvement to coaching, a huge cloud lifted for me and the last six years have been the happiest and most fun I have ever had.

 I was introduced to collaborative practice by a great Pauline Tesler law review piece in the late 90’s and when Rachel Felbeck introduced the concept, finally, to Washington, I latched onto CL immediately – becoming one of the founding members of the original collaborative practice group here.

 Initially, I was a lawyer, but have switched completely into being a coach in the last few years. Changing one’s professional persona in a community was a very interesting challenge.  It took a while for people to get that I was “for real” as a coach after thinking of me as a lawyer, but I am way, w-a-y more comfortable in that role.

 What else?  I love to read (mostly non-fiction), play and listen to music, take walks with Bev on the many lovely trails that are only 15-30 minutes from our front door and, actually, work.

 I love what I do and particularly enjoy practicing emotionally focused couples therapy and coaching as part of a collaborative team.  I am extremely fond of just about every colleague in this community and it is honestly a treat to join with them in various constellations as we support people through their massive life transition.

2. You know I think your books are fabulous, and we have broken bread as we talked about where I think the strengths of the books lie, but I have to ask you, why now, where did they come from, and what took you so long to write these books? 

 JOE:

Like so many people who like to write, I thought for years, “I want to write a book about ______.”  I filled in that blank, naturally, with wanting to write a book about all the things I have been thinking and experiencing in my work life over the years.  How ridiculously harmful conventional legal divorce is and (more lately) how certain kinds of couples therapy actually work to bring painfully polarized intimate partners back together. 

 I was giving tons of continuing education workshops for both therapists and lawyers and I had so much stuff stored up in my head.  Then, in April, 2014, I was fishing by a pond in the woods and I heard a voice call from behind a tree, “Joe…Joe you must write your book.”  I looked up and a lovely black woman, with kind of glow emanating from her entire body stepped from behind a tree and repeated her admonition.  I asked her what I should call it and she said, “Call it – The Collaborative Way to Divorce – The Revolutionary Method that Results in Less Stress, Lower Costs and Happier Kids – Without Going to Court.” 

 I told her, “Great idea…but that one’s already been done and it really can’t be improved upon.”  She replied, “Okay, whatever.  Have you thought of maybe doing more of a fiction?  Maybe a story about a bunch of guys going after a giant white whale or something like that?” 

 Seeing she wasn’t quite the muse for me, I packed up my gear and came home and since I was having one of my periodic slack business months, I sat at the computer and created a Table of Contents of what I wanted to talk about and the rest of the book just flowed from that. 

 By the way, I’ve only been visited one more time by my muse.  She told me to write a screenplay about 19^th Century trapper who is mauled by a bear and left for dead – and then crawls back to civilization and gets his revenge. 

 I let her know it was a stupid idea and I never heard from her again.

3.       Part 1 of Divorce (or Not) a Guide focuses on what to do when the decision to divorce is made.  Part 2 is about Saving the Salvageable Relationship.  Excuse me, but isn’t the order of the books reversed?

JOE:

Extremely good point, Kevin. 

 When I wrote the one volume Divorce (or Not): A Guide, I had the Saving the Salvageable Relationship material in the first part.  Over the ensuing months, my discomfort with that placement grew.  As I say in the current Introductions to both Parts I and II, I think it is discordant and even a bit mean to invite someone, who has made the painful, irrevocable decision to end an intimate relationship, to sit and read about ways to heal that relationship.  My experience has been that when you’re done, you’re done.  Reading about the difficulty – and ultimate joy – in healing a wounded attachment bond isn’t what the divorcing need to hear about.  To really make this incompatibility of messages clear (and also to construct the message consistent with the project’s title – which I had become (excuse me) wedded to), I made Part I of Divorce (or Not) about “Divorce” and Part II about “or (Not).”

4.       Let’s talk audience.  Who should be reading these books?  And why?

JOE:

There are four audiences for these books:

1.  People in deeply wounded relationships in which neither person is done.  It is my hope that these people can gain some insight and, more importantly, motivation to seek out and work with a couple’s therapist.  That’s why the subtitle for “or (Not)” is “How to Choose and Use a Couples Therapist.”  I honestly believe that many couples who have experienced years of disconnection and loneliness or a relationship trauma (Sue Johnson’s excellent phrase) can heal that rupture.  Also, I think these people might benefit from a deeper understanding of what people are subjected to in conventional legal divorce.  It isn’t pretty and people need to know that as they consider whether to stay or go.
2.  People who have decided to divorce.  I’ve got this little soapbox I’ve been carrying round with me for many years now, which I can climb up onto at the slightest provocation and expound on how conventional legal divorce is tantamount to torture for the participants.  It’s not because the lawyers are evil or cruel people.  It is the system, which has evolved in its particular manner for a series of good reasons, but isn’t suited to the emotional trauma that accompanies almost any divorce.  I have found over the years that my workshop Family Law for the Mental Health Professional has been extremely well-received by people who do not understand the dynamics of conventional legal dispute resolution and why it is that way.  I want people going through this extremely challenging life transition to have as much information as possible because information reduces anxiety and divorce sets off a nuclear bomb of anxiety.
3.  Divorce Lawyers.  My hope is that there are certain ways I describe things or anecdotes I share in Part I: Divorce that divorce lawyers or mediators may find helpful additions to their language, thinking and communicating with their clients and one another.  I also hope that Part II: (or Not) may help divorce lawyers (a) gain a firmer grasp of the emotional blow that intimate conflict visits on people and (b) consider the feasibility of maybe getting help for themselves if their own relationships are undergoing what feels like terminal stress.
4.  Therapists: I particularly want therapists to read Part I so they can better guide their clients through their divorces.  After more than 25 years of CP’s establishment and growth, I remain amazed that any therapist who works with struggling couples does not have a clear understanding of what mediation and collaborative practice are and how they differ dramatically from the conventional approach to legal divorce.   Since I am very comfortable speaking in language that is recognizable and comfortable to both therapists and lawyers, it is my hope that these books may help a bit with the translation process.

5. We are getting quite a collection of books focused on collaborative practice.  What do you think your books add to this base of knowledge?  

JOE:

 Good point.  I hadn’t thought about that.  Never mind.

6.       I know a bit of a secret.  The first time I read Divorce (or Not) the two books were combined into one.  What made you change the book’s format and what was your goal in doing so? 

 JOE:

Since I kind of answered that question earlier, let me seriously answer Question No. 5.  I believe that everybody has a unique voice.   I’ve always been a bit of an academic and I love “law” as a reflection of our culture’s attempts to solve problems and figure out how we millions can live together as a society and not blow apart.  I never really liked “practicing” law but how law works is a constant fascination for me. 

 I also like to have fun and figure out different, helpful and sometimes playful ways to convey information.  Teaching is a very important activity for me and I love it.  I have always said that if you came to me and asked me to teach a class starting next month on anything – Elephant Hair or Footstools – I’d say “yes” and then figure out a way to make it interesting to me and then convey that to others. 

 That’s why I wrote these books.  Conflict, attachment relationships (their maintenance or repair or dissolution), legal history, good and bad couples therapy, the psychological divorce process – on and on, they all fascinate me and I wanted to convey this.

 Back about three years ago, I was working with an excellent and immensely kind therapist named Leonard Shaw.  I told him that I wanted to write this book about divorce and I was afraid that I’d have nothing of value to add to the many books which have already been written.  He told me that if I put myself out there, lots of people may find what I have to offer not very helpful or new, while lots of other people may find something in what I have to say helpful – even valuable and meaningful.  Those are the people I am writing for.  That seemed like a great way to think about it and why I decided to add my thoughts to the wealth of ideas already swirling around in our collaborative world.

7.       We are talking to a Collaborative / Dispute Resolution audience here.  Can you give us some ideas of how to use your books in our practices?   What about in our practice groups?

JOE:

Well, I’d say, read ‘em and see if they have anything in there you find valuable and share the helpful stuff with clients and if it makes sense in any particular case, suggest they get one of the books and read it.  Our colleague, Karen Bonnell, has written a Parenting Plan Workbook which is useful by definition.  My books aren’t so much that as providing a helpful, and I hope healing, way to think about approaching the enormous life challenges of intimate relationship repair or, failing that, divorce.

8.       You are both an attorney and a therapist.  What do you enjoy about each role?  Do you have a preference between the two professions?

 JOE:

As I mentioned earlier, I really never liked practicing law so much, as it was a challenge to my temperament, but I deeply value much of the training I received as a lawyer.  I am not a naturally analytical thinker, but the training I received in law has honed that skill for which I am most appreciative.  The sharpness of analytical thinking is much rarer among therapists and I find that a strength and gift from my years as a lawyer.  I was hopeful that my transition to collaborative legal practice would feel more congenial for me and, while it most certainly did, I still felt out of synch with the tasks and role of the attorney in the process. 

 However, as a therapist – particularly a couple’s therapist – I feel that I have come home.  I can honestly say that I have finally found an activity that I can sit back with a sense of marvel and think to myself, “I actually get paid for doing this? 

 How incredibly lucky I am.”   I include my work with couples as one of the things I do for fun in my life.  It is, for me, an ultimate “flow” experience.  I fundamentally like people and feel honored when someone opens up in my office and shares their yearnings, fears and accomplishments.  Emotionally Focused Couples Therapy is an approach which garners, easily, as much enthusiasm among therapists who practice it as collaborative practice does for the readers of The Collaborative Review. 

 Finally, since therapy can be a bit isolating – aside from involvement with consult groups – I very much enjoy the collegial environment we create in our collaborative teams.  That’s quite special, as well.

9.       Putting on your seer’s hat (or whatever they wear), give us five predictions of what you think will happen in the future for the fields you are involved with.

 JOE:

First, and most importantly, the Seahawks will win their second Super Bowl on February 5, 2017.  Mark my words!

 Second, the energy and insights of collaborative practice will continue to expand in the coming years to allow professionals to provide effective, supportive, unbundled services, making the divorcing process more accessible to people.

 Third, within 10 years, the philosophy and practice models underlying collaborative divorce will be mainstream and conventional litigation will ebb dramatically.

 Fourth, have I mentioned the Seahawks?

 Fifth, Donald Trump, when he loses in November, will personally apologize to all women and donate $50 million to Planned Parenthood

10.      How is your book doing so far?

 JOE:

 Well, I received a really gratifying review of the single volume edition recently in The Therapist, the magazine of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.  Some excerpts from the review are:

 “Divorce (or Not) is a true guidebook.  It is dense with history, background, and case examples, yet Shaub’s conversational style makes easy reading of this thick book.”

“As an attorney at law and a practicing LMFT, Shaub’s experience in both fields lends this self-published gem a high level of credibility.”

“As an LMFT specializing in couples therapy, I am trained in EFT and draw on it heavily in my work.  It is comforting to come across a book that addresses ways to support clients who have decided to uncouple in a way that is more consistent with the values of EFT.”

Bonus Question:

11.      I asked you what your favorite ice cream at the end of our lunch together and you replied “purple”.  Am I missing something or do we need to sit down for a 50 minute session?

 JOE:

I’m sorry. I misheard your question.  What I should have said was “yellow.”

 Thanks for your thoughtful questions and for a great lunch.
**********

Book authored by Joseph Shaub
Review by Kevin R. Scudder

This is a different (or not) read for clients and practitioners.  The Guide is presented in two parts:

Part I: Divorce, A Guide to Divorcing with Wisdom, Sanity & Integrity

Part II: How to Choose and Use a Couples Therapist

Separately or together, there is something in the Guide for everyone, client, lawyer, coach, child specialist and financial specialist.  The Guide is an important addition to the growing library of go-to material that helps us in our work with couples in crisis.

As a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and Attorney at Law, Shaub brings a unique viewpoint to the subject.  This unique approach raises the question of why have Part I be about divorce and Part II about the decision to divorce (or not).  At first glance the order of the books appear reversed.  When asked this question Shaub had a simple answer:

“ . . . . .I think it is discordant and even a bit mean to invite someone who has made the painful, irrevocable decision to end an intimate relationship to sit and read about ways to heal that relationship.  My experience has been that when you’re done, you’re done.  Reading about the difficulty – and ultimate joy – in healing a wounded attachment bond isn’t what the divorcing need to hear about . . . . . “

See Ten (or eleven) Questions for Joseph Shaub

So if you have a client come to you who is making the the decision to divorce (or not), hand them Part II, in which Shaub uses his training in EFT –
Emotionally Focused Therapy; Susan Johnson, Ph.D. on EFT:

– and in attachment theory –

Attachment Theory; Dr. Wendy Walsh:

–     to help the reader understand the nature of conflict, to maintain hope that divorce is not inevitable, and to normalize the conflict they are experiencing.

Shaub’s writing is a flowing combination of story telling, case studies, and historical context that engages the reader.  Take, for example, Shaub’s seven observations of couples in therapy which, in themselves, should make you want to get online to buy the book(s) (or not):

• What You Think You Are Talking About Isn’t What You Are Talking About
• Labels Belong on Products, Not Your Partner 
• You Certainly Are Different; You Probably Aren’t Incompatible 
• Men and Women Are Both From Earth; But There Are Differences 
• Anger Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up To Be . . . And It’s Not What You Think It Is Anyway 
• “Overcontrolling” People Are Just Trying To Keep Chaos At Bay 
• Defensiveness Is Natural, Automatic, And Destructive

If the decision of the client is to divorce, The Guide: Part I explains to the reader that they have a choice to divorce with wisdom, sanity & integrity (or not).  We never want the client to make the (or not) decision because everyone who is reading this review has had experience with the (or not) divorce experience.  It is not a pretty sight.

In Part I Shaub brings the reader to the 21^st Century, literally.  There is so much urban myth, so many Shadow Advisors, and thoughts of My Parents’ Divorce that affects how people view the legal system.  Shaub simply calls it out in his aptly named Chapter on Divorce in the 21^st Century, with subsections such as:

•                         Why Divorce is So Hard on People
•                         Dirty Laundry – Turning Love Into Hate
•                         Legal “Discovery” – Lots of Haystack, Not Much Needle
•                         The Settlement Conference – Modern Trial by Ordeal
•                         Fighting Over the Kids – Congratulations! You Have All Lost
•                         Trial – The Bitter End

Other chapters include The 7 Cardinal Rules of Legal Divorce (lawyers and judges get special attention here), The Psychology of Divorce, If You Can’t Avoid Divorce, Why Do It Right – Divorce and Children, Doing Divorce Right – Mediation, and Doing Divorce Right – Collaborative Law.

As you read Part I, from the practitioner’s view it may seem that Shaub is preaching to the choir.  Well, he is.  After 40 years as an attorney and 20 years as a LMFT, and experiencing the damage that litigation has done to individuals, their families, and children, he’s seen enough.

Visualize, however, the impact of the book on your client and how the information will help prepare your client for the divorce work that lies ahead, regardless of the process they choose.  Imagine how much better prepared and informed they will be.  Consider how being better prepared, and more resolved, will help the client go through the process they choose for their divorce.

Divorce (or not) is a good read, a fun read, and an educational read that belongs on your short list of books to pick up either on your own, or with your practice group.

Tired of the usual training? Looking for something different to offer to your own community of collaborative professionals? Come to Florida. Join Tampa’s collaborative community and attend Joryn’s inaugural all-day marketing collaborative workshop. Then spend the weekend at the beach, reading her densely informative book and enthusiastically planning your marketing strategy for the next year. Later, you can arrange to bring her to your own practice group to spread the word and refresh the fervor we all have for the practice of collaborative divorce.

Workshop Description: Do you dream of a day when prospective clients and other professionals seek you out specifically for your collaborative expertise? Do you imagine clients approaching you, saying “I want a collaborative divorce”? Can you envision “opposing” counsel asking you to represent their client’s spouse, collaboratively? What are you doing to make those dreams a reality? Do you communicate your passion with clarity? Have you honed a compelling pitch that invites questions? Are you credible in your community? When you blog, do people feel compelled to weigh in? Have you published a book yet? Are you often invited to communicate your message to a crowd, instead of to just one person at a time? How often and to whom do you present? Is your brand conspicuous? How visible is your profile? Are you invited to partner with, not just teams and practice groups, but also first responders and connectors who can help you change the way the world gets divorced? Equip yourself with the tools that you need to grow your collaborative practice; learn them from someone who knows so that you can answer these questions and more with a resounding “yes!”

This training is intended for collaborative professionals and their support staffs.

This is an all-day advanced training on August 26, 2016 at the Hillsborough County Law Center (Chester H. Ferguson Law Center   |   1610 N. Tampa St.   |   Tampa FL 33602   |   Phone: 813.221.7777):

Contact person is Stacey Hudon – Stacey@OpenPalmLaw.com

Cost: $325 per person (includes lunch and all materials, including the book, Open for Business, Marketing Your Collaborative Practice for Passion & Profit (a $150 value); however, it does not include lodging or additional meals).

*********

When I joined my firm three years ago, the managing attorney, Adam B. Cordover, preferred and advocated for out-of-court dispute resolution, including collaborative practice. We still had many litigated cases. Not every client, spouse, and other attorney is willing to agree to a more peacemaking approach, especially when they don’t know much about it.  But we had faith that we were on to something, and that if given the opportunity and knowledge, more people would choose collaborative law.

In 2015, we changed our name to Family Diplomacy: A Collaborative Law Firm, and began practicing exclusively in out-of-court dispute resolution, offering services such as collaborative divorce and family law, mediation, direct negotiations, and unbundled legal services.

A month after relaunching the firm, I attended my first collaborative training with Lone Star Trainers in St. Petersburg, Florida. I was looking forward to learning as much as possible about how the collaborative process is a better way to get divorced. I am on the front lines with clients and potential clients every day. I am the first person with whom they speak after oftentimes spending a few sleepless nights arguing, crying, and searching the internet for divorce attorneys. They don’t know where to turn, or whom to trust. They are worried about their children, their finances, and their futures. My job is to help them understand that it is worth the time and expense to speak with an attorney who can explain their options, and assist in dissolving their marriage peacefully and respectfully. It is not always an easy task. People oftentimes know nothing about collaborative practice when they contact us, but many are looking for something different.

Attending the introductory training provided me with additional skills and knowledge that I use to help the clients and potential clients understand that learning about collaborative practice is valuable and important. The training taught me that one of the most important aspects of collaborative practice is self-determination: allowing families to choose their own options to discuss when settling issues, rather than having lawyers and judges make decisions for them. Parents are given a voice, and their futures begin with their thoughts and ideas about what is best for their families.

Linda Solomon was the neutral mental health professional with Lone Star, and she did a fantastic job. While observing her, I understood the vital role of the collaborative neutrals. He or she helps to soothe the clients in the inevitable tense and emotional moments, aids in communication so that the clients feel that they are being heard and understood, and refocuses the clients on solutions rather than resentment, the future rather than the past.

The use of a financial neutral can potentially save clients thousands of dollars by getting a clear picture of the family’s finances as quickly and efficiently as possible, and providing them with advice and experience that most attorneys don’t have.

Before the training, I wondered if they might be dispensable in some cases, especially those in which the parties have low incomes. I now have little doubt that more billable hours would be spent without the neutral facilitator and neutral financial professional involved.

Since beginning my career with this firm, I have learned that the court system is not designed to make decisions for families. Most people have no experience with family law, and are not prepared for the long, expensive, and exhausting battle that a litigated family law case can become. The court appearances continue, the case drags on, the bills pile up, and the judges keep sending the parties back to mediation, and back to their attorneys to try and work it out themselves once again. The court may only know a fraction of what is actually happening within a family, and does not always have the time to listen to each individual, get to know a family, and make the best decision.

Collaborative practice treats individuals as a family unit that has made a decision to change in a respectful and peaceful manner, rather than as adversaries who are on opposite sides trying to “win.” Collaborative practice allows families the dignity of keeping their private issues out of the courtroom. We help families work together to find a solution that benefits everyone and does not leave one person as the loser. We will continue to work to help people improve their lives and care for their families during what may be the most difficult time of their lives. Our hope for the future is that while divorce is challenging, it can be civil, and it does not have to destroy families. We hope that families can look forward to brighter new beginnings.