COLLABORATIVE LAW ALLIANCE
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (CLA/NH)

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Collaborative Law is a way of making legal decisions without going to Court. Like mediation, it is an “alternative dispute resolution” (ADR) technique. Both clients and lawyers meet in a series of 4-way meetings to work out all issues. The lawyers may not threaten to go to Court.

The principles are discussed in detail in the resources accessed through our Links page. Click here to go there. Also, the text "Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes", by Robert H. Mnookin, Belknap Press at Harvard Press, 2000 is a good resource.

• Each party is represented by his or her own lawyer from the beginning



• The lawyers and clients all work on settlement, without the distraction of preparing for litigation



• Clients, not the Court, are in control of the process and outcome



• No threats of “I’ll see you in Court”



• Attorneys avoid language that is accusatory, blame-oriented, critical or judgmental



• Focus is on creative solutions and problem solving, rather than replaying the past issues or problems



• Attorneys facilitate settlement



• Process is confidential



• The lawyers are available to provide advice during the negotiation sessions (as opposed to mediation, in which the parties are not represented by counsel, and don’t have counsel available to them during the negotiation)



• Process is aimed at avoiding further division of the parties



• Process helps the clients to learn to communicate, which is beneficial to the clients and their children in the future

This is the technical term meaning that if the Collaborative Law process breaks down, the lawyers must withdraw. The parties must hire new lawyers for litigation. The “disqualification provision” is part of the Agreement to the Principles and Guidelines of Collaborative Law which is signed by both lawyers and both clients at the beginning of the process. (Click here to view a sample of the Agreement.)

• Lawyers are trained to go to Court. Without a rule preventing them from going to Court, the lawyers continue to look at the case with their “trial eyes”, to prepare what needs to be done next.
  
  
• Although a lawyer involved in litigation can reach an out of Court settlement, such settlements rarely occur early on in the process, and usually happen “on the courthouse steps”, after the temporary hearing, lengthy discovery, and many hard feelings.
  
  
• In the traditional divorce case, impasses in settlement discussions usually lead to premature trial preparation, costing the parties more money and time. With collaborative cases, impasses are not really impasses as the parties and lawyers get together to explore alternate ways to resolve the disputes.
  
  
• Collaborative lawyers develop substantial trust amongst each other. There is very little trust between trial lawyers.

This is the technical name of the agreement signed by the parties before beginning the Collaborative process. Click here to view the Agreement.

Collaborative Law would be worth considering. It provides all the advantages of each person having a lawyer to provide legal advice and assist with decision-making, with no “battle”. The lawyers commit to work cooperatively with each other and to stay out of Court.

Because of the vast difference from litigation, special training is required. In New Hampshire, all Collaborative Law Practitioners have at least five (5) hours of special training in the technique. Click here for the list of all New Hampshire attorneys trained in Collaborative Law, and admitted as practitioner members into the Collaborative Law Alliance of New Hampshire (CLA/NH).

For a list of New Hampshire attorneys who have completed the Collaborative Law training, click here. Most, but not all of them handle divorce and other family law cases.

A “soft sell” is usually best. Give your spouse some information about Collaborative Law (including how to get Frequently Asked Questions). Suggest that he or she have an initial interview with one of the lawyers trained in Collaborative Law.

Both parties must agree to use Collaborative Law for the process to happen. With very limited exceptions, this means that both parties must select lawyers trained in Collaborative Law. Suggest that your spouse consider the Collaborative Law option, perhaps meet with a trained lawyer.

Reaching an agreement on all issues in the divorce always means less legal fees than litigation. This is true whatever route is taken to get to the agreement – Collaborative Law, mediation or negotiation. With the traditional “negotiation” approach, the parties are still involved in the Court proceeding, and therefore, must attend several regularly scheduled hearings, even if they ultimately resolve the issues by agreement. Generally, it is the pressure of the Court process that “forces” the settlement. With Collaborative Law, the parties do not waste their time or resources on the regularly scheduled hearings.

These are both excellent ways of settling disputes. The real question is, what method would work best in your case? In mediation, the parties work with a neutral mediation who assists them in making decisions. Each party gets advice from his or her lawyer, outside of mediation, as needed. In Collaborative Law, there is no neutral person, instead the process involves the lawyers directly. The lawyers, rather than the neutral mediator, set the agenda and manage the process. To use either mediation or Collaborative Law, both parties must agree on the method.

• As clients negotiate, the lawyers are right there to assist clients in making informed decisions
  
  
• Clients do not have to come up with all of the solutions because attorneys are there to suggest options, based on experience
  
  
• Attorneys can give legal advice
  
  
• Clients don’t risk the agreement falling apart at the end when attorneys review it

• Extremely emotional cases (e.g. Parties who cannot stand to be in the same room with each other)
  
  
• Parties who are unwilling to consider the soon-to-be ex-spouse’s viewpoint
  
  
• Parties who are unwilling to reveal all assets and debts