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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT