Friday, October 19, 2007

Florida Divorce Blog on collaborative divorce

From the post Collaborative Divorce Unethical?

"It may not last, but collaborative divorce is slowly gaining traction. But it’s certainly not appropriate for many types of people and cases.

It is actually questionable whether collaborative divorce is less expensive than traditional divorce, but it is generally more harmonious.

But it has its critics.

The Colorado Bar Association has, in effect, banned collaborative divorce in Colorado, characterizing it as unethical. Why?"
The original post answers the question, so give it a look.

I want to make the following points:
  1. Under Indiana's rules, I have an ethical obligation to protect my client's best interests.
  2. Collaborative divorce is nothing more and nothing less than another tool for lawyer's to use or not in protecting our client's best interests. The choice depending on the facts of the case.
  3. With more clients being terrified of seeking legal counsel because they think lawyers are budgets, I do not think we are doing anything to help the general public or our specific clients by foreclosing collaborative divorce.
  4. I think most attorneys prefer settlement (which is how I describe collaborative divorce) rather than fighting over minute detail to the bitter end (which increases fees).
  5. Any competent attorney knows on what issues (the where) to fight and what kind of fight to put up.
  6. It is not in our client's interest nor the profession's interests nor our own interests to drive our clients into bankruptcy due to unnecessary actions on our part.
  7. It is our duty to explain to our clients their options in each case with an explanation that includes all the pro and cons.
  8. Therefore, any competent attorney ought to be free to chose the options best for each client's case without a general ban foreclosing an option that might be in the best interests of a particular client.

No comments: