Whats the difference between Collaborative Practice and Mediation?
Both Collaborative Practice and mediation rely on the voluntary and free exchange of information and a commitment to resolutions that respect the parties’ shared goals. If mediation does not result in a settlement, the parties may choose to use their counsel in litigation, if this is consistent with the scope of representation upon which the client and lawyer have agreed. In Collaborative Practice, the lawyers and parties sign an agreement, which aligns everyone’s interests in the direction of resolution, and specifically provides that the collaborative attorneys and any other professional team members will be disqualified from participating in litigation if the collaborative process is terminated without an agreement being reached. Professional advice should be sought when deciding whether mediation or Collaborative Practice is the best process for any individual case.
In mediation, an impartial third party (the mediator) assists the negotiations of both parties and tries to help settle your case. However, the mediator cannot give either of you legal advice or be an advocate for either side. If there are lawyers for each of you, they may or may not be present at the mediation sessions, but if they are not present, then you can consult them between mediation sessions. When there’s an agreement, the mediator prepares a draft of the settlement terms for review and editing by both you and your lawyers. Collaborative Practice allows you both to have lawyers present during the negotiation process to keep settlement as the top priority. The lawyers, who have training similar to mediators, work with their clients and one another to assure a balanced process that’s positive and productive. When there is agreement, a document is drafted by the lawyers, and reviewed and edited by you both until everyone is satisfied. Both Collaborative Practice and mediation re
