Year 2

As my second full year as a solo practitioner draws to a close I have to say I'm happier than ever that I took the step of branching out on my own. I worked for more than a dozen years as an associate at two of Washington's leading family law firms and learned a lot at each one. It's great now to have the opportunity to put that hard-won expertise to work in my own firm.

There is, of course, the satisfaction of being your own boss and of depositing all of your billing receipts, even if you have to pay your own overhead, rather than taking the fraction of them a firm pays to associates.

More important, having my own firm means I can practice the type of family law I believe in. We have to have our courts, but most people are better off avoiding that ultimate step and finding ways to reach a fair settlement short of going before a judge. My philosophy is to provide the client with an honest assessment of what is achievable and then advocating for that result through the collaborative process or whatever other form of dispute resolution -- including court -- is necessary.

But what has made my experience especially satisfying is being able to set up my practice in the Collaborative Practice Center of Greater Washington. This means that even as a solo practitioner I have the benefit of wonderful colleagues in our really great office space at Dupont Circle. And, much as I love lawyers, having mental health professionals among those colleagues adds a different dimension to the atmosphere in the office. This creates a great working environment that supports not only clients who opt for the collaborative process in their divorce, but for other clients in litigation and mediation as well.

Being master of my own time has other benefits. It has allowed me to spend pro bono hours on cases where people can't pay or pay right away, as well as on the Collaborative Project of Maryland, which provides assistance to low-income couples willing to try the collaborative process. It also permits me to take on some responsibilities in the practice groups I belong to and to build further expertise in continuing education workshops and conferences.

My practice has grown steadily and last month I took the big step of hiring some part-time help by sharing a paralegal with the other law firm in the Center. In family law, obviously, you live from client to client. It's not like a corporate practice where you have the same clients for years. Once you finish a divorce that's pretty much it for client, except for the occasional change in custody arrangements or child support payments. There's never a guarantee that a new client is going to walk through the door.

Fortunately, they do! I've done some marketing through online outlets. Who knows, this blog and related social networking may also help in reaching out to new clients. But most clients come now, as they always have, from referrals -- from former clients, from fellow lawyers and from other collaborative professionals.

So even though I haven't quite closed the books on 2012 -- I've actually scheduled some meetings for next week between Christmas and New Year's to accommodate clients -- I can look back with a great deal of satisfaction on the two years of my law firm and the Center. I'm grateful for the support from my colleagues here at the Center, in the collaborative practice groups, and in the wider community of family lawyers in the DC area, and looking forward to a new year of moving forward with my firm.

Relocation

One of the topics at a workshop on "intractable" child custody issues I attended last week in Baltimore was relocation. This of course becomes a big issue in a divorce, essentially anchoring both parents to the place they happen to be in when they get divorced even if neither of them wants to stay.

The courts generally consider that children are better off if both parents are engaged with them, so that joint custody is the preferred arrangement. Whether this is full half and half sharing by the two parents or weekends for one, it is usually imperative that both parents are near to each other.

There are exceptions and I recently had a case that went to court where my client won approval to relocate with her child to a new city. Her ex-husband was not willing to agree to it and I cautioned my client that courts are unlikely to approve this kind of move. But she was insistent and we were able to convince the judge.

At the workshop, sponsored by the University of Baltimore School of Law, the instructor made the point that even beyond the goal of keeping both parents involved, residential stability itself can help children adjust to a divorce. Relocation is difficult for children even when there is no divorce involved and can lead to impairment in social adjustment and academic achievement.

Even if there is a clear economic benefit -- from a great new job, for example -- it is rarely a good idea for a child unless it is a move out of an environment of poverty. This is particularly true for young adolescents, because more of their identity is wrapped up in their peer group and it is quite a jolt to take them away from that. These youth can't replace their social capital in the way adults can. Research has shown they experience more social distress, have difficulty making friends, and less overall social contact.

Adding divorce to the equation compounds all these negative effects. Even a move of just an hour away can have a negative impact on children. Residential stability -- and this means staying in the family home -- can be an important buffer against harmful effects on school and social performance for children involved in a divorce.

The workshop, conducted by licensed psychologist Mindy Mitnick, was oriented more toward mental health professionals but all this was very helpful in understanding the bigger picture in an issue that often comes up in divorce, whether collaborative or not. The other main topics covered -- domestic violence and sexual abuse -- are a good deal rarer, though sadly they do come up in divorce cases (though these are not likely to be handled through collaborative).

Collaborating practitioners

The season's round of holiday parties includes those for the collaborative practice groups I belong to and they are among the most enjoyable. At the DC group party, held in a member's home, we put on skits and change the words to songs with the kind of black humor that comes with a cynical profession, but always in good fun. It is a time for us to celebrate the community of collaborative practitioners -- lawyers, mental health professionals, financial advisers -- that works together on cases during the year. We have become a pretty chummy group and we enjoy each other's company.

Clients sometimes start to feel uncomfortable when they're involved in litigation and their lawyer seems a bit too friendly with opposing counsel. The reality is, of course, that clients come and go but you have to live with your professional colleagues. Besides just professional courtesy (you know the old joke about why the shark didn't eat the lawyer), there are ethical boundaries governing how lawyers deal with each other in a case and it is better for the clients in the long run if these boundaries are not crossed. That said, every lawyer I know is totally devoted to advocating for their client.

This is true in a collaborative case as well. But in collaborative, this friendly feeling our practice group has cultivated works very much to the benefit of clients because the interaction among the professionals is an important component in making the process work. We know each other well and respect the goals of the collaborative process, and that helps a lot in smoothing over the rough patches when they occur.

And there are rough patches. With everyone sitting at the same table and discussing things at the same time, collaborative is set up to be as non-confrontational as possible, but even in the best of cases there is some emotional hurt and bitterness involved. One of the workshops at this year's forum of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals in Chicago was on how to recognize emotional "triggers" -- words or behavior that elicit an emotional response. It is good to be alert to things that trigger emotions in clients, but, as those conducting the workshop made clear, it is also very helpful to be aware as a professional of your own triggers, because your emotions can get involved, too.

There are six people sitting at the table as a rule -- the two clients, two lawyers and two mental health professionals -- and all of us are a complex bundle of good and bad qualities interacting in what is often an emotionally charged atmosphere. It demands a lot more than just legal expertise for a lawyer to make this function effectively. So we all work at cultivating the bonds -- and the self-awareness -- that will keep these three-hour meetings helpful and productive. Whether its holiday parties or workshops, it's a type of preparation that makes us professionals, well, more professional, and more effective in helping our clients through a difficult transition.

Ending civil war

Our collaborative practice groups usually have some sort of program at each meeting, and the most recent meeting of the Montgomery County group had a guest speaker from New York who talked about collaborative practice in civil cases.

Collaborative originated in family law because it is such a natural fit and has proven very beneficial in resolving the issues arising in divorce. But, as Marc Sheridan explained in his presentation, there are some types of civil cases, such as employment and business disputes, where sitting down around a table and discussing things together also produces a result more satisfying to the parties involved and a good deal cheaper in legal costs.

Marc, who is a partner with Markus & Sheridan in Mt. Kisco and New York City, said that the same things that work in a divorce dispute -- keeping the focus on solutions and putting reason ahead of emotion -- also works in these civil disputes. In addition, the ability to call on outside experts such as economists, forensic accountants and business consultants can be particularly helpful.

Marc is also founder of the New York Civil Collaborative Group, which recently completed a video on collaborative practice in civil cases that lawyers can view for Continuing Legal Education credit.

Most of the lawyer members of our practice groups are in family law, though a few of them will also do civil cases. But for all of us it was interesting to see this other application for collaborative. The point in general is to stay out of court, with all the acrimony and arbitrariness that entails, and to reach a fairer settlement that leaves fewer emotional scars. I could imagine that clients who have a satisfying collaborative experience in a divorce might be willing to use the same method in certain types of civil cases, should the need arise.

Collaborative Project of Maryland

One of the initiatives I’ve gotten involved in is the Collaborative Project of Maryland, a nonprofit set up to provide collaborative services at little or no cost – pro bono and low bono, as we say. We got a grant from the state government to fund it and we’ve been busy spreading the word.

This week, we went to Towson, just outside Baltimore, to visit the Women’s Law Center of Maryland. The collaborative project’s coordinator, Vega Subramaniam, and a couple of us lawyers explained how collaborative works. We described how the two partners come to a table with a lawyer for each, a mental health professional who we call a divorce coach for each, and, if necessary, a financial expert.

One of the participants from the women’s center had a reaction I sometimes get from clients: “Isn’t that a lot of resources for just two people?”

Yes, it is. Her concern was that as the state was cutting back aid for mediators – just one person who tries to help a couple sort out their issues – it seemed to be a luxury to have four or five professionals involved in a settlement.

But divorces come in all shapes and sizes. Some are amicable and the two parties can quickly reach an agreement that they just have their lawyers sign off on. Other times, a mediator can really be just the ticket, clarifying issues for the two parties so that they can see their way clear to agreeing on a settlement – or sometimes even staying together. I also do mediation and it can be a satisfying experience for everyone.

Other times, however, emotions are too raw or financial and other issues are too complex. The collaborative process allows the two parties to work through these problems in a non-confrontational way that looks to the future rather than spend time in recriminations about the past. The sessions of two or three hours each do run up some time with the professionals involved. But generally speaking, this time – and the expense associated with it – don’t come anywhere near that required for litigation, even if the case never actually goes to trial. I’ve worked at two of DC’s top family law firms and seen the amount of resources that go into preparing for a trial – time spent by the senior partners, the associates, the paralegals, the support staff, assorted experts. The bill for all this can be astounding.

Some cases are simply too complex to be settled by anything other than litigation, but many others can be better resolved through alternative dispute resolution, either mediation or collaborative.

The goal of the project is make collaborative available in cases where it’s suitable even to people who can’t afford to pay, or pay fully, for these resources. Our trip to Towson comes after earlier trips to Baltimore and St. Michael’s on the Eastern Shore as we work to educate people about how collaborative works and the availability of this service.

We are very lucky to have Vega as the director of the project. She is passionate and extremely competent, and, like many in the nonprofit sector, is working for less money than she deserves because she believes in the goals of the project. She is based in Rockville and the link the project’s website is under Important Links.

My new blog

I specialized in family law because I believe it is a chance to use my legal expertise to help individuals in the time of their greatest need. Solid legal counsel regarding a client’s rights and possibilities during this process can ease the mental and emotional strain that can be generated by the end of a marriage.

 

Separation and divorce are very personal and emotional events that are regulated by our judicial system but which strike at the very core of our wellbeing. The lawyer who helps you navigate through this painful process must know the law, but must also be sensitive and empathetic to what you are going through.

 

That's one of the reasons I've gravitated toward collaborative practice in divorce, a form of alternative dispute resolution that brings the parties to the table to talk instead of to the courtroom to litigate. It is often a way to produce a fairer settlement with less emotional damage for both parties as well as for the children.

 

I'd like to use this blog to discuss how this process works. I belong to numerous professional associations in collaborative practice and regularly attend workshops and conferences where we  discuss how best to help people through this transition. And I'm working every day with clients to help them solve their problems. 

 

In these postings, I'd like to share some of the insights from this practice -- with my colleagues, with my clients and potential clients, but also with anyone looking for a better understanding of how to manage the complex emotional relationship in a marriage or other partnership.