Why is it necessary for the Collaborative attorney to withdraw if an agreement is not reached?
Attorneys are typically trained to approach cases with the underlying assumption that a judge will make the ultimate decision. Cases are analyzed with this foundation and are settled with the backdrop being “what will happen if we go to court.” “Going to court” can often become a weapon or threat that derails communication rather than moving the parties to settlement. Since settlement has not been the focus from the very beginning, cases often do not settle until the clients are “at the courthouse steps,” after incurring substantial attorney fees and depleting their emotional resources. The agreement by both the clients and Collaborative Professionals that the Collaborative Attorneys will not go to court focuses everyone on creative means of settling the case in a way that is acceptable to all clients. The focus of the process stays on reaching an agreement rather than preparing a case for trial since the Collaborative Attorneys will not be representing the clients in court. The tenden
Attorneys are typically trained to approach cases with the underlying assumption that a court will make the ultimate decision. Cases are analyzed with this foundation and are settled with the backdrop being “what will happen if we go to court.” “Going to court” can often become a weapon or threat that derails communication rather than moves the parties to settlement. Since settlement has not been the focus from the very beginning, cases often do not settle until the parties are “at the courthouse steps,” after incurring substantial attorney’s fees and depleting their emotional resources. The agreement by both the parties and Collaborative Attorneys that the Collaborative Attorney will not go to court focuses everyone on creative means of settling the case in a way that is acceptable to all parties. The focus of the process stays on reaching an agreement rather than preparing a case for trial since the Collaborative Attorneys will not be representing the parties in court. The tendency t
A. Attorneys are trained to approach cases with the underlying understanding that a court will make the ultimate decision. Cases are analyzed with this foundation and are settled with the backdrop being, ìWhat will happen if we go to court?î Court can often become a weapon or threat that derails rather than moves the parties to settlement. Since settlement has not been the focus from the very beginning, cases often do not settle until the parties are at the courthouse steps, after incurring substantial attorneyís fees and depleting their emotional resources. The agreement by both the parties and attorneys that the collaborative attorney will not go to court focuses everyone on creative means of settling the case in a way that is acceptable to both parties. The tendency to ìdriftî to court as the default decision-making method is reduced. In addition, the open exchange of information that happens as part of the Collaborative process gives the Collaborative attorneys insights and informa
Collaborative Practice Attorneys are trained to approach cases with the underlying understanding that a court will make the ultimate decision. Cases are analyzed with this foundation and are settled with the backdrop being “what will happen if we go to court.” The transparency, cooperation and level of communication between clients and all team members that makes for ‘success’ in collaboration are antithetical to the legal posturing, legal maneuvering and vilification of the other party that characterizes the litigation process. Honest appraisals of value or merit, offers of compromise or cooperation which open the door to settlement in non court alternatives like collaboration are viewed as weaknesses to be exploited in litigation. Court can often become a weapon or threat that derails rather than moves the clients to settlement. Since settlement has not been the focus from the very beginning, cases often do not settle until the clients are “at the courthouse steps, after incurring su
Traditionally, attorneys are trained to approach cases with the underlying understanding that a court will make the ultimate decision. Cases are analyzed with this foundation and are settled with the backdrop being, “What will happen if we go to court?” Court can often become a weapon or threat that derails negotiations rather than moves the parties to settlement. Since settlement has not been the focus from the very beginning, cases often do not settle until the parties are at the courthouse steps, after incurring substantial attorney’s fees and depleting their emotional resources. The agreement by both the parties and attorneys that the collaborative attorney will not go to court focuses everyone on creative means of settling the case in a way that is acceptable to both parties. The tendency to “drift” to court as the default decision-making method is reduced. In addition, the open exchange of information that happens as part of the Collaborative process gives the Collaborative attor
Related Questions
- Can one attorney practice collaborative law if the other participant has not signed a participation agreement?
- When I lease a commercial office space, is it absolutely necessary to hire an attorney to go over the contract?
- Why is it necessary for the Collaborative attorney to withdraw if an agreement is not reached?
