From the desk of My Collaborative Team President, Edward S. Sachs, ACP
We have been having discussions, both in our Collaborative Introductory Learning Program and at our Happy Hour, about what it takes to become a full-time peacemaker. Wouldn’t you love to have a practice that never goes to court again. A practice in which you truly help people work through a very difficult time with minimal damage.
Most, if not all, of our participants who have either made or have begun making the shift to an out of court practice agree that becoming a peacemaker is all in the mindset. If you really want to be a peacemaker you don’t have to change the services you offer, you just have to change how you provide those services.
Many of our listing members do a significant amount of mediation. Some specialize in pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements. Sometimes they even do them in the Collaborative Process. MCT member Aubrey Ducker, an Orlando Florida Collaborative Attorney, describes how he utilizes the Collaborative Process and his peacemaker training in the field of estate, probate and guardianship law. These professionals all still represent divorcing couples too. They still provide divorce and family related services, they just do it in a peaceful and collaborative way.
I can’t believe the title of this article uses the word that has been in my head in recent weeks. It is as if you read my mind. I have always been concerned (from my initial training in 2006) with the use of the words “paradigm shift” to describe the change in how we think about resolving conflict. It just sounds too academic to me. I have come to the conclusion (only in recent weeks!) that we should be calling it a change in your “mindset.” I think most folks can relate to that better. Think about the mindset of a divorce litigation lawyer in an initial consult. They are eliciting facts to support whatever theory they have in mind to present the client’s case in court. If some “bad stuff” comes out about the other spouse, they ask follow-up questions to build up the court case against the other spouse. When they then present the bad stuff to counsel for the other spouse in their effort to “fight” for their client, they are in essence burning an already damaged bridge to settlement. Compare that to the mindset of a collaborative lawyer in an initial consult. They are eliciting facts aimed at resolving the case. If some “bad stuff” comes out about the other spouse, they worry about the impact on resolution and explore with the client the options to get around the “bad stuff” in a way that satisfies the client without sabotaging a settlement. They are trying to save a bridge to settlement that the bad stuff endangers. So, instead of a paradigm shift, let start calling it a change in your mindset from your initial consult forward. Even the person on the street can understand what I am saying when I say we have to change our “mindset” right from the start of an initial consultation. David Miller