Collaborative Divorce
At the very outset of the collaborative divorce process, both attorneys pledge in writing not to go to court under any circumstances. Indeed, both of the collaborative lawyers pledge to withdraw should one party become dissatisfied, threaten to go to court, or if settlement cannot be achieved.
Does a pledge of settlement serve the best interests of the clients?
On the surface, these pledges would appear to foster the best interests of the divorcing couple. However, it also creates a singular objective, namely, settlement. Any and all other options short of settlement are unacceptable, meaning that the attorneys are not only interested in settlement – as are most mediators and even some adversarial lawyers – but are totally invested, indeed driven, by it! After all, under this pledge both attorneys are out of a job if one party becomes dissatisfied with the collaborative process, threatens litigation, or if settlement negotiations reach an impasse.
It thus seems reasonable to ask and be concerned about whether this overriding commitment to settlement actually serves the best interests of collaborative clients. For instance, to what length will one or both of the collaborative attorneys go to achieve settlement – and carve another “settled” notch in their belts? Might this pledge consciously or unconsciously influence how an attorney communicates with or behaves toward his or her client? Might it also influence how the attorneys interact with each other? And, might it affect how many of a client’s rights and interests one or both attorneys might be willing to sacrifice to achieve settlement?