This year has proven to be one of the most contentious for both political parties, as well as independents. More money has been spent, more rallies have been held, more vicious attacks have been made than any other election in recent history.

The reason, a Democratically-controlled Congress that could not put forward a unified program and a President who could not work with the dysfunctional Congress. The result is an election based on rhetoric with both sides stressing their ability not to cooperate and an economy that has left many people frustrated, without jobs, and with their future retirement plans in distress.

One wonders what would have occurred if all sides truly worked to resolve their differences and create new legislation with the sole intention of improving the lifestyle of all, whether Democrat, Republican, Independent, libertarian, or just don’t give a damn. If the main objective was not to “win” by getting re-elected, or getting control of either house of Congress, but instead a desire to do what was best for the “family,” the American people. However, that is “politics” which is defined, according to Webster, as “the art or science concerned with winning or holding control over government.”

The dissolution of a marriage is not an exercise in politics, but many lawyers and clients act like it is. Their goal is to win, or continue to control as many aspects of the new family life dynamics as possible. However, there are no winners in family law, no one gets elected for another go-around and neither side can ultimately control all that occurs after the divorce, no matter how much they argue or how much money is spent trying to convince a judge otherwise...

That is the reason why so many lawyers and individuals are embracing the idea of collaborative law when dealing with domestic issues. When a divorce occurs, particularly if there are children involved, the family unit never ceases to exist, it just changes. Parents remain parents and their children remain their children for the rest of their lives.

The objective of collaborative law and cooperative law is to elect to work together and attempt to understand what each individual needs to go forward while still maintaining civility for the new, now separated, family unit. Does this mean that each party must adopt a totally altruistic attitude no it does not. What it does mean is that each has an initial predisposition and commitment to work together to achieve an agreement that is satisfactory: not a battle to “win” and gain the most control.

Collaborative law is a vote for sanity as opposed to the often insanity of the litigation process.

In these economically stressful times, most people either have been the subject of a foreclosure action or have heard or read about the “average” person facing a foreclosure action. These are people who never expected that their lives would be so altered that they would be facing a bank, or other mortgage holder, taking their home and ending their ownership.

A divorce, whether a collaborative divorce or litigated divorce, is similar in many ways. It is the foreclosure of a relationship. There are many different reasons why two people decide to get married, but whatever the reason, they do not have an expectation that it will end by circumstances outside of their control. Sure, you could argue that either the husband or the wife could make concessions or take actions to prevent a divorce, but the reality is that neither party can force the other to take the actions that they perceive are necessary to save the marriage.

The question then becomes how to limit the damage of a foreclosure. When it comes to a house, in some cases the owners just walk away and let the bank take over the house. This solution has a negative effect on a person’s credit and could subject the owner to a lawsuit to collect any deficiency. Or, the homeowner could just stop paying and wait for the bank to foreclose and allow a judge to issue a judgment. Another option would be to go to the mortgage holder and negotiate with them to leave voluntarily in exchange for limiting the damage to their credit and avoiding a lawsuit. Negotiating with a bank is not always successful, but when it is, both the bank and the homeowner benefit. If there is no agreement, the foreclosure action goes before a judge.

Similarly, when it comes to a divorce the parties have several options on how to “foreclose” their marriage. One party can just “walk out” of the marriage, an option that works if that party wants to give up any assets accumulated and, if there were children, any relationship with minor children. Another option is to go to court to get what they perceive as fair. Since the reason for getting a divorce was their inability to obtain what they wanted within the relationship, they now give their attorneys the right to speak for them and a judge the right to make the decisions. The problem with that option is the decision-making is taken away from the individual involved and left to a judge -- who has his or her own prejudices and views on what is fair and right -- and to the ability of a lawyer to argue that the client has the just and reasonable position.

A third alternative is that the parties can work together to try to resolve their differences. They will use lawyers to protect their interests and insure that each understands the laws regarding the divorce and their options, but ultimately the goal is for them to decide what is most important to each of them and negotiate toward that end. Like the attempt to negotiate with the bank when a home is being foreclosed, it does not always work. The demands and needs of each party, the husband or the wife, may be so great or different that a third party, a judge, is necessary to take control.

Facing the loss of a person’s home can be very traumatic. Facing the loss of a person’s relationship, a marriage, can be even more traumatic. In both instances the most sensible solution is to try to work out a solution that allows everyone to move forward with the least amount of emotional or financial damage. In the case of a home foreclosure the first option should be negotiation; in the case of a divorce, the first option should be negotiation using the collaborative divorce process.

Whether an attorney practices family law, civil law, or probate law, understanding the methodology used in collaborative law and cooperative law can sometimes lead to a successful resolution where none seemed probable, or shorten the time period to reach a resolution.

The basic tenant of both collaborative law and cooperative law is to create an environment where the clients want to resolve the action as quickly and economically as possible. Naturally, each client wants to resolve all issues on the terms they believe "fair" to them, and which seem totally unfair to the other side.

In the typical case the lawyers begin by addressing all the issues at one time and gather all the information through depositions or requests for production. At that time they may start discussing settlement, but by this time each party thinks the other is unreasonable, has requested unnecessary documents, taken long depositions asking questions that either are irrelevant or antagonistic, and created unnecessary fees and costs or caused the other to lose valuable time at work.

In both the collaborative and coopereative process, the parties meet initially, decide how they will proceed, and work to resolve those issues that are not in dispute or can be resolved between the parties on a temporary basis. For example, in a family law case the parties may agree on listing the house for sale and agree on an agent to evaluate the market price, or they may agree on an initial time-sharing schedule for the children. In a civil case, they may agree as to which documents are necessary, whether an accountant is needed and choose one between them, or what to do with inventory that is in dispute. Likewise, in a probate case, the parties may agree on which expenditures are necessary for the benefit of the deceased and proceed to pay those in order to eliminate any third party actions.

Even the smallest agreement about the least significant issue can demonstrate to each party that it is possible to work together to resolve their conflicts.

Another tactic used in both collaborative and cooperative law is addressing the concerns of the other party. This does not mean that an attorney no longer advocates his client's position. It does mean that you try to understand the other party's concerns and try to resolve those concerns within the general framework of a result that your client believes is reasonable, maybe not the best, but at least reasonable.

Many litigation lawyers use some techniques of collaborative and cooperative law in their practice intuitively. However, there are many techniques that may be applicable to a situation, or a modification of the procedures already in use, and it can only benefit that attorney to become familiar with the methodologies of collaborative and cooperative law and then decide which technique to reject or accept, depending on the situation.

The more information, techniques, and methodologies that you are aware of, the greater the opportunity to pick and choose those that are best for you.

If, as a family law attorney, you look toward the future, there is no question that the judiciary, the Florida bar, and the Florida legislature has recognized that family law issues are often best resolved between the parties, rather than by a judge.  That is why the legislature is working on statutes that create  guidelines for a process that advances these goals, whether it be collaborative family law, or cooperative family law.

Most family law attorneys recognize that one of the most satisfying aspects of their practice is their  success in resolving a family law case with a minimum of litigation. This does not mean that they do not represent their client and their client’s rights as a first priority, nor does it mean that they do not obtain all the information to make sure that their client is aware of the finances, both present and future, of all parties. It also does not mean that an attorney does not obtain satisfaction by going to trial when this is the only way to protect their client’s interest. It means that the attorney and clients have an initial commitment to work with the other attorney and their clients to resolve conflicts and discovery issues between the parties without going to court, or with a minimum of court intervention.

Most family law attorneys already work with each other and their clients to reach agreement, whether through negotiation or mediation. The designation of a case as collaborative or cooperative is determined by the attorney and the client depending on each case, but the goal in both is to resolve disputes without a judge imposing a decision. 

As a family law attorney it is important to recognize that this is the direction of family law throughout the country, as well as in Florida. The family law attorney should be at least familiar with each and make the public aware that  they have the knowledge to consider either collaborative law or cooperative law, or both, as well as litigation, as alternatives depending on the facts of each case and the personalities of the parties involved.   

For clients, the benefit is that their case will often be resolved without the expense of litigation, and more important, reaching a decision that they recognize as best for them and any children involved, rather than a court imposed decision. 

For attorneys, the benefit is that their clients are usually very satisfied with the representation, the stress of a trial is avoided, and the attorney is able to assist more clients than if they had to deal with a heavy trial calendar. 

The Collaborative Lawyers website is designed to both promote those attorneys who strive to resolve disputes without going to court, and to provide information to the public about the process. It is also a resource for attorneys to get information about collaborative law and cooperative law and share their knowledge. 

We invite you to e-mail Lawyeracr@aol.com for more information, or call Arlene Richman, Esq. at 954-927-5337.  

Couples spend months planning on their marriage and wedding. They choose a place to celebrate their marriage, a "hall." They decide what food they wish to serve. They decide who they wish to invite, and most critical, where they will be seated.

Generally speaking, couples do not plan for a divorce. It just seems to happen. The relationship gets worse, one of the parties finds another partner, one of the parties is bored, or one of the parties no longer wishes to remain in an emotional or abusive relationship.

So, can you and should you plan for your divorce? The answer is, since I am
a lawyer, yes and no. No, you do not go into a marriage planning a divorce. But yes, when you begin to see that the relationship is not working for you, or has serious problems, you should start thinking about what it means to get a divorce.

There are two aspects to a divorce. One, financial, the other emotional. Today I will deal with the emotional. Understand that once you are divorced you will no longer be in the relationship that is causing you pain or discomfort. It makes no sense to dwell upon the past, because the past is over. The most you can do is learn from the past.

For example, if during the marriage you let your spouse take control and make decisions, it is time to start making your own decisions. Often a small step, just for you, prepares you for the separation. You might want to take a course, learn a new activity, or exercise more. The duration is not important, what is important is that you engage in something for yourself, which you believe is positive for you, even if it is only for 30 minutes each day, or every other day.

In this way, hopefully, when the time comes to actually go through the divorce process, you will be more confident of yourself and your ability to handle the stress that  comes from separating from a partner that you have been with for several years, whether or not that partnership was what you expected or wanted.

For more information about preparing for divorce, how to get a divorce, and how to minimize emotional aspects of a divorce, see the articles on the collaborative law website, and contact one of the lawyers listed on the collaborative family lawyers website.

Tiger Woods is the most well known golfer alive today and is married to Elin Woods. They have one child and Tiger is worth several million dollars. He has admitted that he deserved to have his car window smashed in by Elin with a golf club because he has repeatedly had sex with many females, other than Elin. Tiger wants to do everything he can to save his marriage, and at present, it seems that he and Elin may resolve their differences and not proceed to divorce. This is the best solution. But, lets suppose that Elin decides that she wants a divorce. How should they proceed.

Certainly it is not through litigation.

First, neither Tiger or Elin should file aggressive motions and petitions against the other. It will only hurt them emotionally and financially since Tiger has several million dollars of endorsements in play with which to pay Elin alimony and child support.

Next, Neither of them will want all their financial information open to the public. They have a child and they dont want anyone to have information which can be detrimental to them or their child.

Finally, at this point, both of them seem to want to maintain a good relationship with each other no matter the outcome of a divorce, or at least to keep their private lives as private as possible.

SOOOO, what is the best solution -- Collaborative Divorce.

• (1) Tiger and Elin can agree, from the outset, that they will request the trial judge to seal all financial records of the parties subject to review by both parties, or their representatives and opened after the divorce only through a court order.

• (2) Tiger and Elin can agree on one accountant or other financial analyst so that the danger of their finances going public is minimized.

• (3) Tiger and Elin can work together to determine a time sharing plan for the child and if necessary, using a therapist or other individual of their choosing to help them determine the plan.

• (4) Finally, if they start the process and Elin decides that Tiger has really changed by working with her to resolve their divorce issues, Elin may decide to postpone the divorce and at that point no papers have been filed and the risk of publicity concerning their lives is minimized.

Clearly, when dealing with high profile and/or high income families going through a divorce, the best solution is that which gives them the most protection from the public eye: A Collaborative Divorce.

Divorce and Valentines Day do not seem to be compatible. Yet, let’s think of this: how many men give their wives roses, and shortly afterward file for a divorce alleging that their wife never did anything to help them in their business, that the business has suddenly taken a turn for the worse, that the wife earned less money than she was capable of earning so she does not really need alimony, and that they took care of the children and household as much, or nearly as much, as the wife and therefore they should have at least equal time-sharing (thus lowering their child support).

And how many women, shortly after giving their husband a card saying how wonderful a husband they have been and accepting the flowers with a big smile, then file for divorce alleging that  because of their efforts in making dinner for their husband’s clients, (maybe once a month, with the dinner being catered), or helping with the husband’s business (i.e. going to the bank to make a deposit), that they should be entitled to an equal division of the business, that the business actually earns much more than reflected on the tax return, that they can never achieve the lifestyle provided and need permanent alimony even though they were only married for 8 years and earn almost as much as their value of the husband’s imputed income. Additionally, the wife now alleges that the husband was never there for the children and therefore, that the husband should have time sharing of less than 40% of overnights per month (over 40% significantly reduces the child support payable by the husband to the wife.)

This may sound ridiculous, but it happens, or a variant of this scenario. People do not like to have confrontations during traditional holidays, and usually tend to follow traditions. For example, there are very few divorce filings over the Christmas holiday season, but then comes January.

So, what does this mean for collaborative law. People are not going to change and suddenly approach their spouse on Valentines Day to say they want a divorce. On the other hand, after the flowers and the cards, the wife or husband can approach the other and say that it is not working out and rather than file documents blasting the other party, agree to work with each other and their attorneys to create a collaborative agreement that almost satisfies both and without the antagonistic statements and allegations contained in many petitions and counter-petitions for divorce.

Bottom line: Cupid is not always sincere on Valentines Day.