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.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Friday, December 14, 2012
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).
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).
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)