Posted on

In recent years, how we handle many of life’s pivotal moments, including the sensitive divorce process, has shifted dramatically. The introduction of tools like Zoom into the collaborative divorce process has transformed how meetings are conducted and brought many benefits to clients. Let’s explore how this technological shift has significantly impacted clients through the lens of hypothetical client experiences.

The Time-Saver
Meet Sarah and John, who decided to part ways after a decade of marriage. With demanding careers and a busy family life, finding time for numerous meetings took a lot of work. The adoption of Zoom for their collaborative divorce process was a game-changer. They could attend sessions from the comfort of their home, saving valuable time otherwise spent traveling to and from meetings. This convenience allowed them to approach each session with a clearer mind, focusing on the matters at hand rather than the stress of commuting.

The Comfort of Distance
Then there’s the story of Emma and Alex. Sitting next to each other in a professional office would heighten their emotional stress, making productive communication challenging. Zoom provided a much-needed physical buffer. By attending sessions from separate locations, they found themselves more relaxed and able to communicate effectively. This emotional comfort translated into a more focused approach to resolving their issues.

Access to Specialized Professionals
Consider the case of Mia and Carlos. They had specific needs: Mia wanted a financial expert, while Carlos sought guidance on parenting plans. Previously, they were restricted to professionals in their immediate area. Zoom opened up a state-wide pool of experts. They were able to engage with a financial advisor from the suburbs and a parenting expert from St. Paul, each bringing specialized knowledge to the table.

The Long-Distance Couple
Finally, there’s Rachel and Tom, who were already living in different cities when they decided to divorce. For them, arranging in-person meetings was nearly impossible. Zoom made it feasible for them to engage in the collaborative process without the need for travel. This was particularly beneficial for Tom, who also frequently traveled for work and could join the sessions from anywhere, ensuring continuity in their proceedings.

The Bigger Picture
These stories highlight the flexibility and accessibility that Zoom has brought to the collaborative divorce process. Clients are no longer bound by geographical limitations or the constraints of traditional office hours. The comfort of attending from a familiar environment reduces stress, allowing for more productive discussions. The physical separation provided by virtual meetings can lower emotional intensity, fostering a more amicable environment for negotiation.

Moreover, this shift isn’t just beneficial for the clients. Professionals, too, have found that they can offer their services more broadly, reaching clients they wouldn’t have otherwise. It’s a win-win situation where expertise is now unrestricted by location.

Integrating Zoom meetings into the collaborative divorce process is more than a response to a world increasingly reliant on digital solutions. It’s a thoughtful adaptation to the needs of those going through one of life’s most challenging transitions, offering a sense of control, comfort, and accessibility that was previously hard to achieve with in-person meetings. As technologies continue to improve, it’s exciting to see how our ways of meeting with clients will continue to evolve.

Carl Arnold is an experienced family law attorney and mediator. He currently focuses his practice on Family Law Mediation and Collaborative Divorce. His office is in Northfield, Minnesota and he works with people from all over the state using Zoom. Carl has been a long-time member of the Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota.

Arnold Law and Mediation LLC
Attorney/Mediator
507-786-9999
carl@arnoldlawmediation.com
www.arnoldlawmediation.com

Register here

Topic: CLI New Collaborative Experience Training Tune-up
Date: September 12, 2024
Time: 9:00 AM – 12 Noon
Location: Virtual on Zoom (This is a change from the originally planned in-person location in Edina)

Description: Attendees of the New Collaborative Experience have had some time to think about working Collaborative practice into their businesses.  This session is a chance to come back and work on specific needs identified through a survey sent to trainees to help fill the gaps and refresh as needed.

In response to the survey (Click here to start the survey) from participants who attended the NCE we will be discussing:

  • Enrolling the Client
  • How to talk about Neutrals
  • How to get the spouse on board with CP
  • Paperwork needed for CP
  • Marketing
    *In case you have not completed the NCE Training Tune-up survey, here is the link

Fee: $0
CE: None
Materials: Provided to registered attendees in an email
Speakers: Training Committee members based on results of survey

Training Committee Chairs:
Louise Livesay-Al |  louise@livesaylawoffice.com
Rebecca Randen | rebecca@randenlaw.com

For questions on registration, contact: Sandy Beeson: cli@collaborativelaw.org

Thank you to our Annual Partner Sponsors for their continuing support of CLI! Click here to learn more about our Supporting Partners

Posted on

I have a prediction: In the next twenty years, Collaborative Divorce will become the standard for divorce process in Minnesota.

In my nine years as a family law attorney, the majority of my cases have been “traditional” in nature.  Traditional in this sense means that the process of divorce starts with a petitioner spouse who serves a summons and petition upon the respondent spouse.  The divorce is either settled along the way or it is litigated all the way to trial.  Sprinkled in for the past five years have been Collaborative Divorce cases, in which both spouses choose to work with a Collaboratively trained team (comprised of two attorneys and sometimes a neutral child or financial specialist) and to resolve their divorce in an out-of-court setting. Both processes end with a divorce, but one often results in collateral damage resulting from unchecked animosity and litigation, often referred to as the “scorched earth” approach.

Most family law attorneys with whom I have spoken really dislike these scorched earth cases. Some attorneys are complicit in these cases for myriad reasons.  These difficult cases, which take place with heavy court involvement, place a tremendous burden on families, on attorneys, and on the courts.  Every case that is filed (and that is not In Forma Pauperis) requires the same filing fee to pay for case oversight. Some cases require only that a judge reviews and signs the final divorce decree, while others languish in courts for years, as court staff oversees countless motions, counter-motions, requests for phone calls, letter submissions, etc.

Many family law practitioners grow weary of endless divorce litigation.  Of unpleasant and over-aggressive attorneys (we all have our own “no-fly” list). Of client despair (“So you’re telling me I might as well give up?!”). Of not being paid.  This work is emotionally taxing.  There is seldom follow-up with clients after a case concludes, even those whom we genuinely like.  After all, who wants to hear from the one person most closely related to the end of their marriage (aside from their ex) after the waters calm?  Who among us has ever felt concerned about personal safety after working a particularly difficult case involving one party with anger management problems (and possibly an affinity for firearms?)

Yet family law practice has its rewards. Family attorneys have unique skills: we are insightful and often empathetic.  We excel at interpersonal communication.  We are problem solvers.  At our best, we are a helping profession: acting as a guide to clients who are in the dark and often feeling very vulnerable.  It is an honor to help our clients through family-related legal problems.  The best way to serve our clients is by helping them to preserve their dignity and to make decisions in a way that will not cause them to feel shame or regret years after their matter is concluded.  While it is not impossible to have a good family law matter in a traditional context, it is never a guarantee.  Cases that start out smoothly can easily become derailed by one misstep: an e-mail that struck the wrong tone (often unintentionally). A poorly timed request. A genuine misunderstanding of intention.  I myself am guilty of misunderstanding and missteps.

I have known many family law attorneys who either stopped practicing law entirely or pivoted to another practice area mid-career. Something obviously needs to change and I believe a sea change is indeed coming.  I sense that the tide is turning in favor of extended ADR and Collaborative Divorce instead of the nuclear approach that takes a pound flesh from all involved (especially the poor children in these scorched earth cases).

As our Collaborative community continues to grow, I am seeing more and more thoughtful practitioners and many younger attorneys attracted to this process that asks everyone to show up in good faith: attorneys, neutrals, and clients alike.  Some matters should not be routed into the Collaborative model.  Obvious exceptions from Collaborative practice include matters involving domestic violence, coercive control, and unacknowledged addictions.  Most families, however, would benefit from the approach that creates a space for active listening, understanding, and slowing down when needed.

If you are reading this and you find yourself battle-fatigued from traditional family law practice or if you are curious about Collaborative practice, I hope you will take some time to reach out and learn about this unique and wonderful multi-disciplinary community of professionals committed to serving families with excellence and integrity.

I hope to still be practicing family law in 20 years; if I am, I know it will be because I have pared down my traditional family law practice considerably and have prioritized Collaborative practice and other forms of ADR.  I will revisit this blog entry and muse on the state of family law practice in Minnesota in 2043, I am certain, with gratitude and hope for families in Minnesota.

Rebecca Randen is a family law attorney and mediator. She practices Collaborative and traditional family law and is based out of Edina, Minnesota. Rebecca speaks Spanish and has represented many Spanish-speaking clients. Rebecca is serving her third year on the CLI Board of Directors and is serving as Board President through the end of 2023.

Rebecca Randen is a family law attorney and mediator. She practices Collaborative and traditional family law and is based out of Edina, Minnesota. Rebecca speaks Spanish and has represented many Spanish-speaking clients. Rebecca is serving her third year on the CLI Board of Directors and is serving as Board President through the end of 2023.

Attorney/Mediator
Randen, Chakirov & Grotkin LLC
rebecca@rcglawoffice.com | rcglawoffice.com

 

 

Forum Registration

Every December our Collaborative community has a wonderful opportunity to gather for our Annual Forum.
The Forum is a time and place to connect with colleagues, become informed and educated about important professional topics, regenerate our passion and enthusiasm for our Collaborative work, and have fun!
You won’t want to miss this opportunity. We so look forward to seeing you and hope you will join us!

Event Details:
What: CLI Minnesota Forum 2023
Theme: Creativity in Collaborative Practice
Dates & Times:
Thursday, December 7, 2023
8:30 AM – 4:15 PM Educational sessions, time with exhibitors
3:15 PM Special Breakout session for students and non-member professionals to learn more about Collaborative Practice.
4:15 PM Happy Hour
6:00 PM Dinner
7:30 PM AJW Fun Factor
Friday, December 8, 2023
8:30 AM – 12:00 PM Annual Meeting, educational sessions
Full Agenda: Click here
Location: InterContinental Saint Paul Riverfront Hotel |11Kellogg Blvd. East, Saint Paul, MN 55101
Menu:
BREAKFAST BOTH DAYS: Continental
LUNCH THURSDAY: Sandwich Shop Buffet:
DESSERT BUFFET: Cookies and bars
HAPPY HOUR APPETIZERS and CASH BAR
DINNER: Baby Beet and Arugula Salad with Candied Walnuts: Creamy Goat Cheese, Citrus, Orange-Vanilla Vinaigrette.
Choice of:
Sautéed Salmon | Paella Rice, Meyer Lemon Sabayon
Seared Chicken | Natural Pan Sauce, Smoked Gouda Mashed Potato
Butternut Squash Ravioli | Mascarpone Sage Cream Sauce, Sauteed Spinach, Balsamic Reduction
Dessert: Lemon Tart
Cost:
CLI members must login to their online account to receive member pricing.

ALL PACKAGES WITH HOTEL ROOMS ARE SOLD OUT.
PLEASE REGISTER WITOUT HOTEL AND CONTACT THE HOTEL DIRECTLY FOR AVAILABILITY OF A ROOM.

Both Days, with overnight, with dinner: SOLD OUT 

Both days, no overnight, with dinner:
Includes both Thursday & Friday
Includes Thursday Lunch & Dinner
Includes Thursday Evening Entertainment
Member: $375
Non-member: $450

Both days, no overnight, no dinner:
Includes both Thursday & Friday
Includes Thursday Lunch
Includes Thursday Evening Entertainment
Member: $350
Non-member: $425

Thursday only, with overnight, with dinner: SOLD OUT

Thursday only, no overnight, with dinner:
Includes Thursday
Includes Thursday Lunch & Dinner
Includes Thursday Evening Entertainment
Member: $225
Non-member: $300

Thursday only, no overnight, no dinner:
Includes Thursday
Includes Thursday lunch
Member: $175
Non-member: $250

Thursday dinner only
Member: $50
Non-member: $75

Friday Only:
Includes Friday
Member: $100
Non-member: $175

Continuing Education: (See agenda for specific credits)
CLE: Standard (X) credits pending
LMFT & MN Board of Psychology: Standard credits (X) pending
LICSW & ADR: A self-filing certificate will be provided (X possible)

Special Breakout Session for Students and Family Law Professionals
Thursday 3:15 PM | CLICK HERE TO RSVP FOR THIS SESSION ONLY
A special opportunity for Students and non-member professionals interested in learning about Collaborative Practice.
Registrants for this special session are invited to stay for the networking happy hour following the informational session, and for the add-on cost of $30, stay for dinner.
Cost for Students and non-CLI member professionals to attend the
3:15 PM Breakout Session: 
Attend the 3:15 Breakout Session & happy hour: $0
Dinner add-on: $30

 Deadlines, Cancellations, Parking:
-Deadline for registration with a hotel room is November 24.
-We can only guarantee an overnight room at the Hotel for the first 35 registrants, so please register EARLY!
-The deadline for Forum registration without a hotel is November 28.
-Refunds for Forum registration cancellation will be processed if notice of cancellation is received on or before November 17.
-While the room rate is included in the Forum attendance fee, attendees will be responsible for incidental charges to their reserved room.
-Hotel check-in is 3PM. Luggage may be checked with the valet.
-Check-out time is 11AM.
-Parking: Parking is available through the valet service at prevailing rates or nearby surface lots.

 Agenda: Click here
Sponsorship Packages available Click here

Sponsors Supporting the CLI Mission and Forum 2023
Annual Platinum Partner
Rainbow Mortgage, Inc. www.rainbowmortgageinc.com | Dave Jamison

Annual Gold Partners
OurFamilyWizard www.ourfamilywizard.com | Racheal Howitz

Keller Williams Integrity Realty www.pickle.properties | Lisa Proechel

The Prudden Company www.pruddencompany.com | Amber Tyrrell

Annual Silver Sponsors
Baker Vicchiollo Law LLC www.mnlaw.us | Jolene Baker Vicchiollo

CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC www.crosscountrymortgage.com/brett-leschinsky Brett Leschinsky

Edina Realty www.edinarealty.com/jennifer-morris-realtor# | Jennifer Morris

Sponsors Supporting the Forum 2023

Forum Breakfast Sponsor
The Katallasso Group www.thekatallassogroup.com | Lisa Welter

Forum Lunch Sponsor
Cultivating Joy www.cultivatingjoycoach.com | Jillian Lydell

Forum Dessert Sponsor
Family Law Software www.familylawsoftware.com| Nancy Shafer

Forum Charging Station
Alerus Mortgage www.RandiLivon.com | Randi Livon

Forum Materials Packet
Lear Appraisals, LLC learappraisals@popp.net | Bob Lear

Forum Happy Hour Sponsor
Thomson Reuters www.ThomsonReuters.com | Ryan Tauer & Steve Stauff

Forum Evening Social Sponsor
AJW Financial, Inc. www.ajwfinancial.com  | Amy Wolff

This Course is revolutionary training to stabilize the inner aspects of collaboration. If and when a participant “understands’ and is willing to make the non-dual paradigm shift, universal love is naturally always present for them for collaborative work without effort to maintain it.  This inner power of love works then with the outer aspects of collaboration to enhance collaborative practice for the clients. Details and registration at Click here

Topic: CLI New Collaborative Experience  Tune-up Training
Description: Attendees of the New Collaborative Experience have had some time to think about working Collaborative practice into their businesses.  This session is a chance to come back and work on specific needs identified through a survey sent to trainees to help fill the gaps and refresh as needed.

In response to the survey from participants who attended the NCE we will be discussing:

  • Enrolling the Client
  • How to talk about Neutrals
  • How to get the spouse on board with CP
  • Paperwork needed for CP
  • Marketing

Date: September 7, 2023
Time: 9:00 AM – 12 Noon
Location: 3300 Edinborough Way, Edina, MN 55435 | First floor training room

Fee: $0
Food: Light snacks and refreshments
CE: None
Materials: Provided at the training
Speakers: Training Committee members based on results of survey

Training Committee Chairs:
Louise Livesay-Al | louise@livesaylawoffice.com
Rebecca Randen | rebecca@rcglawoffice.com
For questions on registration contact: Sandy Beeson: cli@collaborativlaw.org

Register here >

Posted on

In collaborative dissolution cases, this is a common objection when meeting for the first time with clients.  Another variation is, “I can be a terrific co-parent, just not with my spouse.”  I am often stymied by this reaction.  Of course, I know nothing about the other spouse except the views of my potential client.

My initial response is to acquiesce and to reject the collaborative approach.  But depending on the circumstances, both spouses bear the risk of escalating litigation.

A better approach is to persuade the spouse in my office of the advantages of the collaborative model, especially if the couple has trouble communicating.  They may have misperceived the resistance of the other spouse.  I consider the context.  The couple has typically been working toward a break-up for a long time.  They have often taken strong positions based upon strained communications.  I encourage the spouse to review the open communications features described in the Participation Agreement.

For example, in four-way meetings with clients and attorneys, both spouses can be safely heard without the risk that their words could later be regretted.  In addition, the spouses themselves can set the pace of the process rather than be bound by judicial deadlines.  This may be persuasive in cases where one spouse is more eager to end the marriage.  Resolution is often facilitated when some issues are allowed to “percolate.”

Another advantage of the collaborative process is cost savings.  Initially, this seemed to me to be counter-intuitive given the potential number of team members and meetings.  But when the alternative is communicating exclusively through the attorneys, these meetings are a bargain.

If a client in my office expresses a favorable view toward the collaborative process, another approach is to communicate directly in writing with the “stubborn” spouse.  The correspondence always contains the caveat that I represent only their spouse and I recommend they obtain their own attorney.  I include a general discussion recommending the collaborative model and provide IACP literature and brochures.

The letter accurately states that the vast majority of all divorces are resolved through settlement.  A major advantage with the collaborative process is the emphasis on preserving future relationships (especially where minor children are involved).

In discussing the problem of the stubborn spouse, one of my colleagues gave me permission to share the following experience.

He consulted with a woman who was knowledgeable and favorably inclined towards a collaborative divorce.  But she was adamant that her husband was too stubborn and controlling to ever agree to anything she suggested.  Nevertheless, she agreed that he could send her husband a letter recommending the collaborative process.  The letter was down-to-earth and explained the practical benefits of enhanced communications and interest-based negotiations.

To his client’s surprise, her husband agreed to give it a try and requested a referral to another collaborative lawyer.  As it turned out, the collaborative process proved successful.

The take-away for both collaborative professionals and clients is to continue exploring this option even when confronted with resistance from a stubborn spouse.  The process of reaching agreement is facilitated when couples can meet on their own terms.  Also, clients are often attracted to the collegial format.  If a resistant spouse is on the fence, share with them Father Frances Fleming’s sage advice, “Love your enemies.  It drives them nuts.”

About the Author

Gregory R. Solum, Attorney at Law
My goal is to guide my clients to their destination in a manner that is transparent, fluid and valuable. General Practice of Civil, Family, Probate and Appellate Law since 1980/ Mediator (including Family Court) since 1995/ Collaborative Team Divorce since 2000/ University of Minnesota Law School Instructor 1991-2009. www.solumlaw.com

Posted on

 

It may be tempting to save money in a divorce by drafting a decree with your spouse, or by completing a form decree. This is especially true if it appears that you and your spouse are in accord on all issues. But be warned: unintended consequences can arise months or years after your decree has been filed and entered by the Court.

Once your decree has been filed by the Court and entered by Court Administration, your decree becomes the legal guide for everything related to your divorce: custody and parenting time, support, property and debt division.  On the surface, these issues can seem simple and many couples attempt drafting their own dissolution paperwork without counsel in an effort to save on the investment of lawyers and other professionals.  While it is true that parties are often in the best position to make decisions about what their families need, attorneys are uniquely trained (and perhaps some are even naturally suited) to imagining something their clients may not be inclined to consider: the worst-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario is and should be an ever-present consideration for attorneys as they counsel their clients regarding important decisions that will have long-term impacts on parenting and financial issues. An attorney may be a glass-is-half-full type of person, but he or she has been trained to imagine what could go wrong five years out from a divorce or custody determination.  The worst-case scenario may not be an enjoyable rumination, but it is critically important in drafting strong contracts.

Take Couple A, for example.  Couple A was married for 12 years.  They have an eight-year-old child and they own a home, which they purchased together during the marriage.  Couple A decide to divorce in November and to sell the home in the spring when the housing market is stronger.  They agree to share the closing costs and to equally divide the sale proceeds.  They also decide that they will have equal parenting time, but they do not create a specific parenting time schedule.  Couple A feels pretty good about the progress they are making, and they should feel great – many couples are not able to have fruitful conversations about parenting and property issues in the context of a separation.  Couple A signs and files their divorce decree, which awards the home to Wife, pending the sale of the house.  Husband has purchased a townhome a few miles away.  Couple A is glad to have the divorce behind them so they can focus on their child and on moving forward with life.

What could go wrong?

Let’s check back in with Couple A one year after their decree is entered.  It is late fall and the marital home is still unsold. At the time the divorce was finalized, the realtor recommended repairs that required time and money and the parties were not able to agree on a listing price.  Some offers were made, but the parties felt that the property should sell for more.  Wife has been paying the mortgage for the past year, and the parties have now just received a solid offer.  Wife wants to be credited for reducing the mortgage principal during the year she made mortgage payments and is asking for additional sale proceeds.  Husband does not agree –  he has done some of the repair work on the home and has paid for lawn maintenance.  The decree is silent on principal reduction, and he believes the net equity should be divided equally, as worded in the decree.

In addition, Wife has put in an offer on a home twenty miles away from Husband’s new home.  Wife wants the now 9-year-old to attend school near her new home, in a different school district.  Even though the parties agreed on equal parenting time, Husband has been picking up overtime at work to help offset some of his expenses, so Wife has had significantly more overnight parenting time over the course of the last year.  Wife has hired a lawyer and is threatening to take Husband to court to address school choice, parenting time, and the division of equity from the sale of the marital home.

If Couple A had attorneys, even to simply review their draft decree, they could have included some provisions to address these foreseeable events.  As a family law attorney, I have encountered many “Couple As,” who, with the best intentions, endeavored to divorce without counsel because they believed it would save them time and money.  However, in many instances, these couples overlook important details and pitfalls that a family law attorney will mitigate by including provisions that anticipate change and communication breakdowns.  In the end, these couples have unnecessarily spent significant amounts of money to resolve issues that could have been avoided by addressing them properly at the time of divorce.

If Couple A had engaged in the Collaborative Divorce process and retained collaborative attorneys committed to working only out of court, they would have had conversations focused on problem solving the issues that they later encountered up front. While many divorcing couples can and should make efforts to reach agreements on their own, attorneys offer unique perspective and experience when counseling clients on important agreements.  If you are considering a divorce or have questions about whether the Collaborative Divorce process is right for you (there are many wonderful blog posts on the CLI site explaining why it probably is), contact CLI or browse through the online listing of collaborative attorneys (Find a professional) – most of us offer free initial consultations and love the collaborative work we do.

About the Author:
Rebecca Randen is a family law practitioner and partner at the firm Randen, Chakirov & Grotkin LLC.  She practices collaborative and traditional family law in the metro and greater Minnesota.  She is a lifelong Beatles fan.
www.rcglawoffice.com

Posted on

Thirty years ago, in 1990, a family lawyer in Minneapolis named Stu Webb had an idea.  He thought the idea was good enough to share with the Minnesota Supreme Court Justice at the time, “Sandy” Keith.  Stu’s letter of February 14, 1990, to Chief Justice Keith starts out:

Dear Sandy,
I met you at a party . . . several years ago.

Stu did not even know Sandy Keith!  But undaunted, Stu plows ahead:

I think I’ve come up with a new wrinkle that I’d like to share with you.  One of the aspects of mediation that I feel is a weakness is that it basically leaves out input by the lawyer at the early stages [of the mediation process]. . ..  By that I don’t mean adversarial, contentious lawyering, but the analytical, reasoned ability to solve problems and generate creative alternatives and create a positive context for settlement. 

…[Y]ou and I have both experienced, I’m sure, those occasional times, occurring usually by accident, when in the course of attempting to negotiate a family law settlement, we find ourselves in a conference with the opposing counsel, and perhaps the respective clients, where the dynamics were such that in a climate of positive energy, creative alternatives were presented.  In that context, everyone contributed to a final settlement that satisfied all concerned—and everyone left the conference feeling high energy, good feelings and satisfaction. More than likely, the possibility for a change in the way the parties related to each other in the future may have greatly increased.  As a result, the lawyers may also develop a degree of trust between them that might make future dealings more productive.

So, my premise has been:  Why not create this settlement climate deliberately?  . . . I would do this by creating a coterie of lawyers who would agree to take cases . . . for settlement only.  . . . I call the attorney in this settlement model a collaborative attorney, practicing in that case collaborative law. 

This little history might end here but Chief Justice Sandy Keith did respond to Stu’s letter(!!):

Dear Stu,
Many thanks for one of the most thoughtful letters I have received these past months.  Congratulations .  . . on the model you are setting up in the family law area.  . . . I know it will be successful.   . . . I think you have thought it through better than most attorneys and I think it is a very valid model in the family law area.

Both Stu Webb and Sandy Keith were pioneers in family law practice.  Sandy was a pioneer in using a mediation process in family law; Stu was a pioneer in creating a collaborative process in family law.  Thanks to them, out-of-court processes—mediation and collaboration—are benefiting clients all over the world.  Sandy Keith—former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, former Lieutenant Governor, former State Senator, and former family law attorney—died October 3, 2020.  His support of the Collaborative process is not forgotten.

Footnote from Stu Webb, 10/6/20:
Here is the link to the Star Tribune Obituary of Sandy Keith, who died last Saturday, October 3 at 91!  I could say that Sandy is responsible for releasing Collaborative Law to the world!  In 1990, when I self-questioned the credibility of the concept, I wrote him a letter describing the process and, essentially, highlighting some potential advantages of it over mediation (which was his former practice specialty!)  Instead of defensively ‘shooting it down’, he Immediately sent a short note back, basically saying ‘wonderful, go for it’!  And years later, I had the honor of participating in a Collaborative Law case with him in my home office!  WHAT A GUY!!
Star Tribune Obituary \Sandy Keith: https://www.startribune.com/sandy-keith-former-minnesota-supreme-court-chief-justice-dies/572638202/

About The Author
Tonda Mattie, has been a Family Law attorney for over 40 years and has practiced exclusively Collaborative Family Law since 2006.  She has been involved in the Collaborative Law movement since 1992.  She has been past President and past Co-President of the Collaborative Law Institute (CLI) of Minnesota.  She has headed the CLI Training Committee as chair or co-chair since 2004.  She is engaged in the practice of her dreams using a collaborative process that 1) allows good people to be their best despite the crisis they are in; 2) is centered on the well-being of the children; 3) creates a safe environment for difficult conversations; 4) focuses on the future rather than on blame and past grievances; 5) identifies and meets the needs and interests of all family members; 6) empowers parties to control and create their own mutual settlement; and 7) creates a climate in which healing can begin to occur. Visit her website at www.mndivorce.com

Posted on

Frustrated with the world of politics today? Unless you are reading this from your hospital bed, having just awakened from a long coma, I am going to guess the answer is yes. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, it’s likely that you have about had it with all of the acrimony and with the arguments being made by “the other side”. Probably the one thing we can all agree on is that everyone on “the other side” is quite disagreeable, both in their opinions and their manner of expressing their views.

If you have bravely ventured out into the world of political discourse in an attempt to influence “the other side”, whether at a gathering of friends or family, or on some social media site, there is a pretty good chance you came away even more frustrated after the experience. Any naïve thoughts you may have had about the other person changing their mind likely hit a brick wall that, by the end of the exchange, had become, if anything, even stronger in its resistance. If “the other side” argued back at you there is a pretty good chance that your brick wall got fortified as well. You and “the other side” achieved the very opposite of what you both wanted to achieve, and you both were left in a state of frustration.

As a divorce lawyer, I am struck by how similar all of this is to how most couples behave when they are in conflict.  I am hoping there is something about watching these political arguments that may create a true learning opportunity for these couples.  The reality that I just described; the dynamic that most arguments lead to chaos, frustration, and a deepening of divisions is an important insight. And what better time to learn it than when you are going through a divorce.

Trust me, as someone who has “been through” numerous divorces, the maddening events that are playing out on the political stage, bear an amazing resemblance to conversations I have regularly observed in my office during the past three decades. Two people, seized with emotions, bent on getting another person to agree with them, stay awake at night thinking of great arguments to persuade their spouse that they are right, or worse, thinking of “good” attorneys who can do that for them.

If you are in the middle of it (either politics or divorce), you are likely so caught up in your frustration with “the other side” that you have little insight about what you are doing that is actually making your life worse. However, if you are able to stand back, if only for a moment, both with the political arena and arguments with divorcing couple, it is fairly easy to see that all we are doing is pouring gas on a raging fire.  Once you come to that realization, you may find yourself wondering what the alternative might be. Our inner voice immediately retorts that “we can’t just give in”, thinking, from the standpoint of our ego, that fight or flight are the only true options. Is there a third option?

There is. It has different names, but the most common phrase that negotiators use is “interest-based bargaining.” I will skip that jargon and simply call this alternative “dialogue” for the moment. Dialogue, in the sense I am using it, is one of those ideas that is simple but not easy. It starts with the idea of letting go of arguments and changing minds and focusing instead on seeking common ground or at least a basis for common understanding. What I have observed, at least with divorcing couples, is that if we can reframe the discussion away from “arguments to change minds” and on to dialogues aimed at achieving common understanding, it is possible to achieve common goals.  This type of dialogue is a central tenet of something called Collaborative Divorce.  To learn more about Collaborative Divorce, go to www.collaborativelaw.org.  In the meantime, watch what is happening on the political stage and see if there might be some valuable life lessons that will help us become a better nation, and better families.

About the Author
Ron Ousky, JD, is a Collaborative Attorney and mediator who has dedicated his practice to making sure that families facing conflict understand their options.  He believes that families facing divorce are in a unique situation to make a better life for their families and he is dedicated to helping them find the resources to build a better future.  For more information about his practice go to www.ousky.com