From the desk of My Collaborative Team President, Edward S. Sachs, ACP

Over fifty percent of divorce petitioners and over eighty percent of divorce respondents are pro se. That is an extremely high number of divorces in which no professional help is being utilized. It is easy to suggest that the way to get to these potential Collaborative clients is to offer either pro bono services or low bono services. But is that the only answer?

With percentages that high, a significant number of the pro se litigants do not fall into financial categories that would need free or reduced fee assistance. They can afford the Collaborative Process. So why don’t they utilize professional help? On Friday we began a discussion to try to answer the why.

While many agreed that fees are a big deterrent, most of the attorneys agree that it is their bad reputation of stirring the pot and costing a lot of money that drives clients away. Many also believe that potential clients are afraid of losing control of the process to the attorneys.

If these are the reasons, then why do we depend on attorneys to generate Collaborative cases?

At the recent Florida Academy of Collaborative Professionals annual conference, keynote speaker Woody Mosten challenged the attendees to start thinking outside the “Process box” when it comes to Collaborative matters. We should not be stuck in a single model but should mold the model to the needs of our clients.

Maybe the answer to the question of how to attract this potential pool of clients is to shift the starting of Collaborative matters to the neutral professionals. If clients utilized the mental health professional to guide them through the parenting plan and communication issues and the financial neutral to help them understand the finances and potentially negotiate a tentative settlement, they would have a better sense that they are in control and that fees are at a minimum. The neutrals can begin the Process under their individual Collaborative engagement agreements. Once the parties reach a point in which legal counsel is needed, at that time Collaborative attorneys can be brought on to the team and a Collaborative Participation Agreement is signed.

Ideally under that structure, the Process is limited to one team meeting at which any issues raised by the consulting attorneys can be addressed and an agreement can be finalized.

Now that is what I call a streamlined Process in which the clients save money and feel as though they are in control. Do you have thoughts on this approach to the Collaborative Process and expanding accessibility? Let us know in the comments below or join as at Happy Hour on Friday’s at 4:30pm on Zoom.