The Collaborative Process and the New Divorce
Most family attorneys only talk about litigating and possibly mediation. Very few discuss the collaborative process, which is ideal for most families.
May 26, 2020 at 11:18 AM
5 minute read
COVID-19 has put pressure on everyone, especially couples who have problems in their relationship. The stress of being forced to live in a limited space and losing a job, income and possibly a home has people wondering about surviving, and possibly doing so without their spouse. It is more difficult for some to see a bright future with a spouse in these times.
Many family attorneys worldwide expect that there will be an increase in divorces in the near future. Most divorcing couples only know about fighting each other in court, but there are alternatives to litigation.
Attorneys have an ethical duty to ensure that their client makes an informed decision about their matter. This includes explaining options for handling their divorce and the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Most family attorneys only talk about litigating and possibly mediation. Very few discuss the collaborative process, which is ideal for most families.
In litigation, the judge decides the future of the couple and their children. Virtually everything that is filed in court is open to public scrutiny, so the media, friends, competitors and children can see what was filed. Judges must make decisions based upon statutes, rules and appellate decisions. A decision contrary to the statutes, rules and appellate decisions can be reversed on appeal.
The collaborative process is a private way for couples to dissolve their marriage. Everything done in the collaborative process is private, confidential and privileged, so no outsiders should know what is happening until simple papers are filed in court for approval. Instead of the nightmares of family attorneys fighting each other as is common in litigation, collaborative professionals work together to help the couple determine their own future. After all, who is in a better position to determine the best interest of the couple and their children than the parents themselves?
The distinguishing characteristics of the collaborative process are:
- The couple has the freedom to create a settlement that meets their family's needs, rather than being limited by the law, as judges are. There is a constant focus on the best interest of the children throughout the collaborative process.
- Each party has their own attorney, who is specially trained in the collaborative process. A neutral mental health professional acts as a facilitator and child specialist to help the parents decide how to raise their children. The facilitator also helps the couple focus on resolving their differences, rather than battling each other. When appropriate, a neutral financial professional is hired as well.
- The collaborative process is confidential and privileged, so no one should discuss what happens during the process with anyone else, and no one can be compelled to testify about the process except in very limited circumstances. Information and documents are voluntarily exchanged, and the couple commits to transparency. There is no need to go to court to ask a judge to order someone to produce a document or to provide information.
- The couple and professionals meet together. It is easier to schedule a private meeting than to schedule a hearing before a judge. The professionals demonstrate to the clients how to communicate properly and to resolve differences. Very few couples who have used the Collaborative Process ever return to court after obtaining their final judgment. The Collaborative Process is voluntary, so either party can terminate it at any time, but if they do, the attorneys cannot represent them in contested litigation against each other. The termination of a Collaborative matter is rare, with approximately 90% of Collaborative matters in Florida resulting in a full settlement agreement.
The international media recently covered the Greene v. Greene case in Miami where a child was temporarily taken away from her mother, an emergency room doctor. Had the couple used the collaborative process, the child's private life would not be known by everyone.
Florida Statutes Section 61.55 states the following as the public policy in Florida:
"It is the policy of this state to encourage the peaceful resolution of disputes and the early resolution of pending litigation through a voluntary settlement process. The collaborative law process is a unique nonadversarial process that preserves a working relationship between the parties and reduces the emotional and financial toll of litigation."
The collaborative process may not be for everyone. A person who has unreasonable expectations of a divorce, someone who wants to control his or her spouse, or someone who has significant mental health issues may not be able to use the collaborative process successfully, but that type of person likely will be dissatisfied with any divorce process that is used.
Anyone considering a divorce should consider retaining a collaborative attorney. Doing so will set the tone for your settlement negotiations and it will most likely result in a settlement that is private, fits the needs of the family and is enduring.
Robert J. Merlin, principal of Robert J. Merlin, P.A., is a Florida Bar board certified family law specialist and a Florida Supreme Court certified family mediator. He focuses his practice on nonlitigation family law, especially the collaborative process, mediation and prenuptial agreements. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLeveraging the Power of Local Chambers of Commerce: A Second-Career Lawyer’s Guide to Building a Thriving Practice
5 minute readCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readEssential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Trending Stories
- 1'A Death Sentence for TikTok'?: Litigators and Experts Weigh Impact of Potential Ban on Creators and Data Privacy
- 2Bribery Case Against Former Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin Is Dropped
- 3‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
- 4State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
- 5Invoking Trump, AG Bonta Reminds Lawyers of Duties to Noncitizens in Plea Dealing
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250