ILNews

Collaborative divorce offers closure for clients, demands less attorney time

Jenny Montgomery
January 18, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Holly Wanzer remembers a client whose marriage of more than three decades was ending due to her husband’s infidelity. Because Indiana is a state with no-fault divorce, the painful reasons behind the woman’s broken marriage would be of no relevance in a courtroom. But in collaborative divorce, clients can speak candidly about how they’re feeling.

Gathered in a room with her future ex-husband, his attorney and Wanzer, Wanzer’s client confronted her spouse. “She felt like the weight of the world had been lifted off her shoulders because she got to say, ‘You hurt me; this changed my life,’ and he listened,” Wanzer said.

divorce Elisabeth Edwards, left, and Holly Wanzer say collaborative divorce works for clients who hope to avoid the courtroom. (IL Photo/Eric Learned )

Wanzer and law partner Elisabeth Edwards say that one of the reasons they practice collaborative divorce at Wanzer Edwards is because of the closure it offers clients. But they also enjoy simply practicing law in a different way.

More time, less paperwork

Spouses using collaborative divorce hire their own collaborative law attorneys and sign a pledge stating that they will not attempt to take the case to court before a collaborative agreement is reached. Working as a group, they hash out the conditions of their divorce. If either party breaks the agreement barring litigation, their collaborative attorneys must withdraw and the parties must hire new lawyers. That provision means clients are generally motivated to make negotiations work.

Edwards said meetings with the parties and lawyers are usually two or three hours long, and Wanzer said she’s seen some divorce cases come to resolution in two meetings.

“For litigation, if you involved the court, you’re doing really well to get in and out in eight or nine months,” Edwards said.

Both Edwards and Wanzer said they enjoy not being at the mercy of the court’s calendar and that any deadlines they have are self-imposed. Collaborative divorce also eliminates the time that would be spent preparing paperwork.

“It’s much more efficient – it’s the way I like to lawyer,” Wanzer said. “I have a piece of information and I’m going to give it to you so we’re both on the same page, instead of I’m going to wait for it to be asked for and then only give you what you asked for – those kinds of litigation games disappear in the collaborative process.”

Catherine Stafford, managing attorney at Stafford Law Office in Bloomington, said the collaborative divorce cases she has handled have generally been resolved in two to four meetings – but those meetings are sometimes contentious.

“Those meetings can be very tense. It’s not an unstressful situation,” Stafford said. “However, it cuts through a lot of layers of negotiation with everyone there in the same room. We can just say what needs to be said in a meeting rather than file a lot of pleadings about it.”

Stafford, Wanzer and Edwards are all mediators, and many of the skills they learned in that capacity apply to collaborative law, too. But a key difference between mediation and collaborative divorce is that in mediation, the mediator is not representing the interests of either party, but rather serving as a neutral third party.

The agreement reached in collaborative divorce must be submitted to the court, which issues the final divorce decree. If at some point in the future either party should violate the agreement, the other could pursue a remedy in court.

Wanzer said that people tend to take more ownership of the results they achieve in collaborative divorce as opposed to court because agreements decided in court are usually handed down from a judge.

“The prospect of standing before a stranger, a judge, and letting that stranger make a decision about where my child is going to live and what my child’s schedule is going to be would terrify me and be terribly uncomfortable,” Wanzer said.

A slow-growing trend

Stafford said the practice of collaborative law has existed for about 20 or 25 years – but it’s just beginning to catch on in Indiana.

catherine stafford Stafford

“You’re always hesitant to pick up each new fad as it comes along,” Stafford said. “It’s been really effective – I was a little dubious at first.”

She attended a two-day training in 2008 hosted by the St. Joseph County Bar Association to learn how to practice collaborative law, but such trainings aren’t always easy to find in Indiana. Wanzer and Edwards said they hope to see training offered this summer and said the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals lists training opportunities farther from home, such as the 2nd annual IACP Institute, which will be offered in Phoenix this March.

In order to successfully orchestrate a collaborative divorce, each party must have an attorney who is trained in collaborative law, and that can be a problem in some parts of the state where the practice hasn’t taken off. Stafford said she knows of six other attorneys in her area who also practice collaborative law.

“I think that maybe some attorneys are scared of the process because they think it might put them out of a job, or that there’s going to be less work for them to do,” Edwards said. “I think that so many clients want the assurance that the threat of court is off the table.” Wanzer explained the importance of preserving the family relationship.

“Of course, I represent a client, but at the end of the day these people need to be co-parents together long after attorneys have left their lives. And I’m not doing my job, in my opinion, if I’m employing a scorched earth approach that’s going to ruin that co-parenting relationship,” Wanzer said.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT