Anybody know anything about this? As opposed to mediation?<br><br>
I thought we'd do mediation and have our own lawyers look over the final document once eveything was done. My STBX propsed this today and I'm not sure why.<br><br>
here's a link:<br><br><a href="http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/cafaq10" target="_blank">http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/cafaq10</a><br><br>
I don't get it though....I thought mediation sounded good. Something about this feels weird and unsettling to me and I can't put my finger on it....he was adamant about NOT having lawyers involved at all and was really pissed when i suggested we do so, though very minamally, and this seems to involve individual lawyers a lot more. I assume it'd be more expensive too....
Collaborative law is where both lawyers are looking to come up with a solution instead of being adversarial and fight it out until you're both broke. You will all sit down together and come up with something that is legal and works for all of you.<br><br>
Mediation (unless you take your lawyers with you) will cost less.<br><br>
Both are good processes for relatively quick and easy resolutions.
I read up on it and the part I don't like is if negotiations don't work you have to get a NEW attorney to go to court with. That means starting from scratch and paying twice if you have someone who refuses to ever offer a meaningful compromise.
Sometimes people do change their minds about legal representation, especially when they start talking to other people. There's that mentality of "watch out that he/she doesn't screw you over' and it scares people out of simpler resolutions (like mediation).<br><br>
Mediation does not produce a legally binding agreement, so you will have to get it finalized legally a different way. Sometimes that alone freaks people out and makes them think that they need a 'lawyer to protect their rights'. Collaborative law is like the next best thing to mediation and generally, the lawyers are working efficiently to come up with a resolution (which is why they don't go to court or get into really adversarial disputes).<br><br>
If the two of you are being fairly reasonable and open to find what is fair, then both mediation and collaborative law will work well for you. Collaborative usually goes much faster than a drawn out adversarial dispute, so it will cost more than mediation, but still far cheaper than the other route.
We did the equivalent of that (collaborative law) in France. It worked really well. The lawyer laid out what we needed to come to an agreement on, and pointed out the "flaws" in our initial agreements in regard to whether the judge would sign off on the agreement. It worked well for us overall. But we were both reasonable and there were no MAJOR conflicts and my EX was racked with guilt for asking for the divorce so he was, perhaps, even more reasonable than he might have been if the tables had been turned.<br><br>
It is actually a guarantee of the neutrality of the lawyer(s) that they can't continue to represent you if it becomes adversarial... And an incentive for them to keep it fair and consentual. After all, they lose clients if an agreement can't be reached, and since they can't keep on either party, there is less risk that they will "woo" the party with the highest ability-to-pay if (or when, if they're secretly looking to higher fees) it becomes adversarial.
thanks for your responses. It sounds pretty good but i think I'm going to see if he's still open to mediation. I'd prefer it to be cheaper and I think it would work for us.<br>
thanks guys <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">