Another Story

[tubabent]

I am almost done with a collaborative divorce.  If you are contemplating this with any notion that it will be less painful or less expensive, you are wrong.  It is a money hole designed to enrich a small group of lawyers and their friends.  The circle of participants where I went through this process (Minnesota) is almost incestuous they are so close.  The lawyers will recommend coaches, financial planners, child-custody specialists, and other people in their circle.  They will propose four-way, five-way, six-way meetings that cost upwards of $1000 per hour.  It all adds up to huge amounts of billing.  A meeting which shouldn't require more than the two lawyers and the spouses includes three or four other people, at gigantic cost.  A lot of time (and money) is wasted on process issues that have nothing to do with the divorce.  The point of the process is to resolve issues of dispute.  The CL process wastes a lot of time on issues that are not in dispute.  I would strongly recommend against anyone using this process. 

Now to my story.  My (soon to be) ex-wife is mentally ill, primarily paranoia.  When this was too much to bear, I sought a divorce.  We had informational meetings with mediators, traditional lawyers, and collaborative law lawyers.  Although I felt that a mediator could handle the case, her paranoia pushed us toward collaborative law.  It was a gigantic mistake with enormous financial costs.   Even though I can't live with my ex-wife, the mental illness was not to be used in discussion relating to custody or otherwise.  It was agreed before the process began that my wife would retain custody of our teenage children.  We also agreed, before the process began, to divide assets equally.  The only area of dispute was how to structure spousal maintenance and child support.  Nevertheless, her lawyer encouraged her to have a "coach".  Thus, at the initial meeting where we should have been discussing the sole area of dispute, we wasted two hours (at approximately $1000 per hour) reading a list of ground rules and discussing process and what we wanted out of the divorce.  Needless to say, I blew up at this waste of money and was severely chastised for not following "the collaborative process". 

The result of this meeting (which cost more than $3000) was that we met with a financial planner to divide assets and figure out a spending plan.  As I near the end of this whole mess, this was the only part of the process that made sense.  We are fastidious about the finances in our family (no debt, credit score above 800, etc), so I had every piece of information required at my finger tips, including monthly expenses by category down to the penny.  The financial planner developed a plan that made complete sense, although it required some juggling.  This process made sense because we couldn't accomplish it ourselves given the complexity of tax laws, but it still required another two hour meeting with the lawyers and my wife's coach (I refused to have a coach since I saw it as a waste of money).  This plan was to be put into the final decree. 

The child custody specialist met with us and our children, and this, too worked well, although it was completely unnecessary.  I don't hold this against CL, but against the courts.  The parenting plan and custody did not require another overpriced "expert."  There was no dispute, but another pile of money went down the drain.

This morning as a write this, a decree hasn't been issued.  I have no idea when it will. 

For anyone contemplating this process (which means that you are still on terms that you can communicate), I would suggest the following before you consult a lawyer.  Find a competent divorce financial planner and develop a financial plan.  This plan will spell out the division of assets, support issues (if any), and identify what needs to be divided and how.  There is no need to have lawyers involved in this process as they have no special expertise.  The lawyers will have to draft papers related to pension plans, but this is primarily boilerplate. 

Secondly, if your state requires it, consult a child custody expert.  In Minnesota, some counties require that a child custody expert help draft the custody arrangement.  Although this is a waste of money if the parties can agree, the alternative is that the court will require stupid things like parenting classes. 

A note is needed here: it is not clear that the experts we used would have met with us prior to our meetings with the lawyers because they are part of the club that includes our lawyers.  However, I am sure we could have found alternative experts. 

My final two cents: do everything you can before you ever meet with a lawyer.  If you are a candidate for collaborative law, you are probably on good enough terms to find the appropriate professionals yourself.  At that point, present the information to the lawyers to draft the decree.  Don't, under any circumstances, involve the lawyers prior to that point.  I think it is essential that each party have their own lawyer, but only to advise them if they are making a long-term mistake.  Once you have lawyers, make clear that their only job is to help resolve issues in dispute.  Everything else enriches them and costs you money.  I don't know how to do this, but it is the most frustrating thing to sit in a meeting full of process unrelated to the reason for the meeting. 

Finally, in our case, given that the central issue was financial, had we not wasted more than $20,000 on lawyers, coaches, etc, the financial issues might not have been issues at all. 

Good luck.

[Rowyn]

                     Divorce is essential to marriage. Thanks for sharing this story.



________________
California Criminal Defense Attorney

[badeth]

It's a must to find a collaborative divorce attorney with proven track record. You have to sift all important information about the lawyer so you won't end up haggling with the unjust pricing. It is important to ask the collaborative divorce attorney if he/she specializes in this field, because it will be more practical if this lawyer helps you resolve the divorce quickly and convince your spouse to agree with the terms.

[apeterson]

I must agree with this. Sometimes divorces end up tearing you apart financially...I hope it will all work out well for you. Thanks for sharing your story with us!

[MyThoughts]

You experience is similar to mine. I live in Marin County, CA, where collaborative law divorces are widely touted by local attorneys as the way to avoid litigation and considerable expense. For anyone considering their options, here is my advice after my experience, much research, and many discussions with others who have gone through this process:

+ if you are on friendly, trusting terms, do all you can to avoid attorneys. Here in CA the process that has seemed to work best in my informal poll is mediation.

+ if you are NOT on friendly, trusting terms, collaborative law is probably not for you. My experience is consistent with this poster's experience. We entered this process on fairly good terms. The decision to take the collaborative route was based on representations from psychologists and the attorneys involved that it would be a less expensive, lower conflict approach than all alternatives (mediation, litigation). We had also looked at using a mediator several friends had used. We almost went that way but my ex- was talked out of it by our children's therapist. I reluctantly acquiesced in an attempt to take the most cooperative approach.

My ex-wife's attorney is known locally as probably the largest public proponent of this process and is widely regarded by her peers and other professionals.  What I learned -- and corroborated with several others who had been through this process after doing some research -- is that she talks the collaborative talk but plays all of the litigious games. In other words, you end up subject to a process, without a judge, where she would not provide information, break agreements, chastise me (but never my attorney), pursue highly emotional arguments, etc. My attorney was consistently professional and constructive but reluctant to challenge the other attorney. At one point, after the other attorney had browbeat and lectured me in a session, he took on a mediators role in an attempt to diffuse her behavior.

IF all parties are participating and communicating in good faith and transparently, the process could work. IF NOT (as has been my experience), then mistrust is fed by attorneys who are essentially litigating without supervision. The entire time the meter is running. The attorneys routinely communicate how much all of this would have cost if litigating. What is worse, the psychologist / coaches are in on this same program. All involved are reluctant to call out behaviors inconsistent with collaboration principles. We spent over $60,000 and could have done this easily for less than $6,000 with a local mediator who is widely respected.

The worst part of this process is that my ex-wife and I are on worse terms.

So, for anyone considering this option, there is NOTHING that requires that all parties communicate transparently despite representations to the contrary.