Collaborative law encourages clients to generate solutions to their disputes, in a non-hostile environment, without the hassle of litigation, by promoting better communication.

By avoiding the courtroom, collaborative law also protects the clients’ privacy by evading open court hearings and publically filed motions. It also provides flexibility to both attorneys, as they are allowed to schedule meetings according to their needs, as opposed to the needs of the court. Collaborative law also costs one-third of the typical price of a divorce, according to the Massachusetts Divorce Practice Law Manual. ⁱ

A few controversies surround collaborative law, including the disqualification agreement, ethics, and similar alternatives.

Despite the potential limitations, the disqualification agreement helps to ensure that the lawyer is advocating for the client’s best interests, as opposed to what is most lucrative for the attorney. Without the agreement, lawyers are often too swift in resorting to formal litigation solutions.ⁱⁱ

In collaborative law, both parties’ interests are taken into consideration. To some critics, this crosses an ethical boundary. This argument is without merit as both the lawyer and client are allowed to determine the scope of the lawyer’s representation of a client beforehand.iii Model Rule 1.2 (c) states that, “A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.”^iv

Some argue that family mediation is a pre-existing alternative to collaborative law. Collaborative law provides each party with an attorney to act as an advocate and legal advisor, while in mediation, mediators act as neutral third-parties. Having an advocate helps the client during negotiations and helps ease the thoughts of a client who may feel intimidated or uncomfortable during mediation, therefore, making collaborative law more appealing than mediation, according to a collaborative law study conducted at the University of Windsor.^v

Collaborative law not only increases the rate of client satisfaction for a firm, it also protects the privacy of the client, making it an appealing choice to all types of clients.

ⁱIsaacs, supra note 7, at 836. See also Cox & Matlock, supra note 9, at 52 (explaining that fees for collaborative law vary from $5,000 to $30,000, depending on how many issues are involved).

ⁱⁱAnnable, supra note 4, at 160.

ⁱⁱⁱ1 HOFFMAN & TESLER, supra note 19, at § 41:11.

^ivModel Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 1.2 (2005).

^vJulie Macfarlane, Experiences of Collaborative Law: Preliminary Results from the Collaborative Lawyering Research Project, 2004 J. DISP. RESOL. 179, 213 (2004).

By Charles M. Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein is a collaborative divorce attorney practicing in Golden Valley, Minnesota. He has been a divorce lawyer since 1989.