Tag Archive: court

1. Mediation: Why It’s Better To Help Each Other Climb The Mountain

   March 25, 2013 12:56 pm Leave a Comment

   

   By Meredith Cox

   Depending on how the day has unfolded I may indulge in N.C.I.S. or Criminal Minds reruns or some lighter fare such as Real Housewives of Vancouver.  One late night I tuned into Family Matters, Justice Harvey Brownstone’s show on Family Law.

   The guest was former Alberta Court Judge, Michael Moran.  He was explaining his decision to leave the bench after 22 years to become a mediator so he could serve the public better.  As a mediator he has the luxury of being able to listen fully to the parties’ perspectives to help them solve their own problems.  He cited the “Judge Judy Phenomenon” where the litigants tell their story, she interrupts a few times, gives a quick decision and they cut to a commercial.  The result of the show is a distinctly false impression of the justice system.  Judges do not always have the freedom to dig deep and understand every aspect of the conflict.  Judicial decisions are frequently made in the face of incomplete information.  He realized the best outcome could not possibly come from a fraction of the story.

   I was reminded of two recent cases in which I had acted for the husband and the wife respectively.  We started both cases by suggesting mediation to the other side.  They refused so we commenced a proceeding in Court.  In one case my client was threatened with contempt of court for trying to tell her side of the story.  We were getting nowhere and the trials were looming.  Neither party had the funds for a trial.  After many fruitlessly painful court attendances and thousands of dollars later we came full circle and agreed to mediation.

   After the first mediation session both clients reported feeling satisfied with the way the day unfolded.  They felt heard and understood.  They sat with a mediator for the day and hashed out their issues.  Both parties got to talk at length about what they wanted and what happened behind the scenes before and after separation.  It took time, but it was well worth it.  Some of the misunderstandings were cleared up.  At the break one of the couples went out to get coffee for everyone.  They returned chatting and laughing.  The connection between them was tangible.  In both cases, the mediator used the newly built bridges to assist with designing the terms of the settlement.

   The process of mediation got the parties and the lawyers into different mindsets of calm, compassion and warmth.  We worked as teams instead of adversaries to climb the proverbial mountain.  It was not easy, but both cases eventually settled.  Mediation produced healthier and more effective ways to resolve conflict for the clients.  Simply, it was less stressful and more rewarding for all involved.

   About Meredith Cox

   Meredith Cox is a collaborative family lawyer and trained mediator.  Her law practice and ongoing education have focused on the diverse interests of family law clients since 1994.  After learning about Collaborative Family Law in 2002, she was immediately convinced the process offered a better way to help clients create their own solutions.  Meredith is firmly committed to resolving family law disputes respectfully and sensibly for the sake of the clients and the children caught in the middle.

2. Involving Collaborative Lawyers in the Mediation Process

   December 14, 2012 12:20 pm Leave a Comment

   

   by Marie Nickle LL.B LL.M AccFm

   One of the problems with the mediation process is that the independent legal advice lawyers are not involved in the thought processes or the discussions taking place in the mediation sessions.  The option generating that takes place in mediation involves in-depth thought and discussions of the practicalities of any given arrangement, being the things that make sense in the day-to-day lives of the parties.  Nor have the lawyers been involved in the discussions that take place concerning the parties’ concerns and values and how these expressed concerns and values play a considerable part in arriving at agreements.  The mediation process concentrates on many things for the parties, including legal obligations and entitlements.  However, the ILA (Independent Legal Advice) lawyers are advising only on legal obligations and entitlements after completion of the mediation and often, agreements reached are scuttled, leaving parties frustrated and angry at having paid for a process that didn’t deliver.  The result is that mediation is brought into question as a viable alternative dispute mechanism.  As well, the reputation of the mediator is not well served.

   As an example, I was involved in a case, giving ILA to a wife on a comprehensive mediated agreement.  The mediation had taken place 3 years earlier by a very well known and respected mediator.  The parties, although advised by the mediator to obtain ILA, did not.  Instead they procrastinated and lived within the spirit of the mediation report for 3 years, at which time circumstances dictated the need to conclude and turn the terms into a legally binding document.  In my conversations with the ILA lawyer for the husband, he(the lawyer) proceeded to malign the mediator, offering comments to the effect that the mediator should face consequences for assisting the parties with what he viewed to be an imbalanced agreement in my client’s favour.  He (the lawyer) was not prepared to “allow” his client to sign the agreement.  The result was that the negotiations had to start afresh between us on behalf of the parties.  Both parties felt they had wasted their money in the mediation process and neither were prepared to recommend it.

   A way to resolve this is to have the parties represented by Collaboratively trained legal counsel at the outset of the mediation process.  The lawyers do not necessarily have to be involved in every meeting, although this would be ideal.  At a minimum, they would be available to provide their respective clients with legal advice and input along the way, ensuring no surprises at the end of the process.

   The cost is still less than a court process, which is the only meaningful comparison when discussing the cost of any resolution process.

   Marie B. NickleThe Galleria 204-1715 Lakeshore Rd. West Mississauga, Ontario L5J 1J6

   Profession: Family Law Lawyer, Mediator, Collaborative Trainer Tel: 905-823-1232 Fax: 905-823-7104 mariebnickle@bellnet.ca www.mbnlegalresolutions.com

3. Lofty Collaborative Goals

   August 21, 2012 2:28 pm Leave a Comment

   

   By Diane F. Daly

   There are a small number of family law matters that head to court and must be decided by a judge.  They often involve parties, one or both of whom, have mental health issues, or drug, alcohol or other addiction issues.  In some court cases, the parties are feeling so angry, hurt, afraid or betrayed that they cannot or will not consider any alternative to court.  They become entrenched in their positions.  Hollywood is rife with examples.  Remember Jon and Kate Gosselin?  Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards?  How about the very public and ugly custody battle between Alec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger over their daughter, Ireland?

   Fortunately, that is a very small percentage of family law matters. There are also Hollywood divorces where the parties used Collaborative Family Law to deal with their separation and divorce amicably, collaboratively, and privately.  We heard virtually nothing of the details of the divorces of Kobe and Vanessa Bryand or Madonna and Guy Ritchie, or Robin Williams and Marcia Garces Willes.  They all used Collaborative Family Law to settle their custody, support and property issues.

   In collaborative practice, the separating couple retains a well-trained team of experts – collaborative lawyers, family specialists and financial specialists.  The team’s goal is to help the separating couple resolve all matters arising out of their separation with integrity and in a dignified and respectful way, without going to court.  Each member of the Collaborative team utilizes his or her own expertise to assist separating couples identify their underlying needs, desires, concerns and fears.  We help clients maintain control of their lives and their process.  And compared to court, it is less costly, speedier and much more private.

   Collaborative practitioners believe in the integrity of the collaborative process.  We believe that, first and foremost, families need to reconfigure their family unit in the best interests of their children.  Husbands and wives may become ex-husbands and ex-wives, but hopefully not ex-fathers and ex-mothers.

   Collaborative practitioners strive to facilitate their clients’ empowerment through the process.  We want to offer the best and highest of what each professional has to offer to ensure the best possible result for each of the separating parties, keeping the children’s best interests front and centre.

   Dedicated Collaborative Practice professionals undertake ongoing training and continuing education to ensure we do our jobs to the best of our ability.  And it is both a sophisticated and varied education.  In September, many Collaborative Practice professionals will attend the Ontario Collaborative Law Federation (OCLF) conference in Barrie.  We will take workshops on a whole range of subjects: understanding neuroscience to assist clients to obtain a better outcome; engaging the reluctant spouse; integrating advocacy and neutrality to avoid and manage impasse; overcoming impasse; powerful non-defensive communication; using technology to improve inefficiencies in your Collaborative practice team.

   In October, the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP) will hold its 13th Annual Networking and Educational Forum in Chicago.  There will be workshops on: the value of a child specialist in negotiating custody and residential arrangements for children; the value of a family business expert where divorce involves a family business; learning to recognize different communication styles; the use of forensic accounting in Collaborative Practice, how to deal with domestic violence in Collaborative Family Law cases; learning to assist clients with balancing legal mandates for support and the need for flexibility tailored to individual family financial circumstances.  Seasoned, experienced collaborative lawyers, family specialists and financial specialists will train and mentor newcomers.

   No matter whether it is a Collaborative Family Law Lawyer, Collaborative Family Specialist or Collaborative Financial Specialist – we are all learning and sharing practical skills, training, exploring, discussing and debating constantly.  As Collaborative Practitioners at the forefront of an exciting and dynamic movement, our goals is to provide the finest expertise to assist people to separate and divorce, and reach resolution with dignity, respect and integrity.

   Diane F. Daly
   Collaborative Lawyer, Mediator & Arbitrator
   165 Cross Avenue, Suite 301
   Oakville, ON L6J 0A9
   Tel:  905-844-5883
   Fax:  905-844-9765

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

4. “The Good Karma Divorce” as a Prescription for Successful Collaborative Family Law Outcomes

   August 3, 2012 9:08 am Leave a Comment

   

   By Meredith Cox

   In addition to all the bad things we associate with the advent of television, there is another item to put on the list. All the lawyer shows have fostered unrealistic expectations about the legal system. Television judges always seem to get “it” and they only need an hour to do so. They are always banging gavels to signify a decision has been made. Then people start hugging and shaking hands. The halls of justice are not constantly echoing with the sound of gavels and quickly dispensed rulings. The judge does not always assess the situation with the same standards of fairness as clients. This is largely why lawyers can never predict what will happen in court.

   The Good Karma Divorce is an excellent resource for anyone going through separation and divorce. As a family court judge, the author, Judge Michelle Lowrance, understands better than most why going to court is not the best option for couples. She debunks the myth that there exists a “non-discretionary standard of justice that is not dependent upon the judge’s personal values.”

   I know this all too well because I argued a hotly contested motion before a judge, who wrote out his ruling in my client’s favour before he realized he knew a relative of one of the parties. He advised us he was stepping back from the case. We went down the hall to argue the same case in front of another judge. The result was completely different. We were not successful. Same facts. Same materials. Same family. My client was gobsmacked. My competitive side was irked. No one likes to lose, but even more to the point, I learned a valuable lesson about the justice system.

   Another myth destroyed by Judge Lowrance is the notion that the judge can solve everything simply by virtue of his or her exalted position using special powers. The gavel is not a magic wand. We need to be aware that a trial decision is not the wonderfully cathartic experience we all believe it will be. Clients do not leave the court room unscathed. They limp out exhausted, emotionally depleted, imbued with renewed animosity and a lot lighter in the wallet. Moreover, the blistering aftermath of a family trial can endure for years. People remember what the other person said about them in court. Generally, testimony is not flattering and sometimes people take serious liberties with the truth.

   Family law trials are about law and not about punishing the perceived wrongdoer. In our no-fault divorce system, you don’t get to bring up adultery and watch your spouse get yelled at. Because we have watched our parents disciplining our sibling offenders with time-outs, lectures, disappointed head shaking and raised voices, we anticipate the judge, who operates with similar authority, will treat a spouses indiscretions and misdemeanours with like aplomb.

   The Good Karma Divorce gives us a comprehensive four point prescription. First, you need to develop a personal code of conduct to guide your behaviour in the face of conflict and around your children. Second, put a harness on the negative emotions that swirl around – criticism, anger, blame, resentment, etc. Throw forgiveness and apologies on the fires of conflict. Third, prevent collateral damage to your children at all costs. Children do not just forget all the ugly details. Not all children are resilient. It takes an incredible amount of effort and forbearance to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. Do not make them take sides… ever. Fourth, you must not give up when you are tired of negotiating. Never assume you are the only one compromising or that your lawyer folded in your darkest hour. This is the point where you have to dig deep.

   Judge Lowrance wants us to view divorce as an opportunity for personal transformation and not a total failure. An awareness of karma as a force presents the ability to alter your life by changing thoughts and actions. Despite the belief that our brains are fully developed by the time we are adolescents, the experts now know the brain can evolve and change its structure. The scientific word for this phenomenon is called “neuroplasticity.” This is an emerging area for collaborative teams of family lawyers, mental health professionals and financial professionals. Part of the theory is that if we anticipate, manage and understand how the brain works in stressful, trigger-laden situations, we can achieve better outcomes for families.

   The good news in all this is even if you only adopt some of the recommended behaviours successfully, you can improve your brain’s functioning. It is more like a lifestyle than a diet where you have to do it all perfectly. You can adopt the principles at any time during and after negotiations. We always hear the saying “it takes two to tango.” When just one of the parties begins to apply the basic tenets, there can be a benefit for all involved. I took heart when I read this because I kept thinking how difficult it might be to get both parties on the same page at the same time. Karma? What is that anyway? Isn’t that just for New Age self-deceiving freaks trying to comfort each other in the face of evil?

   The Good Karma Divorce holds out the promise of finding a place of composure, wisdom and bravery with an easy to follow recipe. There is a judge in our region who orders parties to read certain books and prepare summaries of what has been learned to send to the other side. This book should be recommended reading for every couple and every family lawyer on the road to separation and divorce with regular reviews to ensure the learning stays imprinted on our collective psyches.

   As a dispute resolution process, Collaborative Family Law offers a forum for separating couples to learn important life skills, prevent more harm to the family and get on with the business of negotiating from a place of enlightenment.

   Regards,

   MEREDITH G. COX | Principal
   B.A. (Hons), J.D., LL.B.
   Barrister & Solicitor, Collaborative Family Lawyer and Mediator
   SWEATMAN LAW FIRM
   1400 Cornwall Road, Unit 11 | Oakville, ON L6J 7W5
   T.905.337.3307 | F.905.337.3309

5. BRIDGING THE GAP: Have Lawyers Priced Themselves Out of the Market?

   July 11, 2012 12:10 pm Leave a Comment

   

   Marie Nickle

   By Marie Nickle

   Most family law court matters settle before trial and many of those matters should not have been brought to court in the first place. Court is expensive for litigants if lawyers are involved and more and more disputants are representing themselves. Unfortunately, lawyers have priced themselves out of the market. Parties simply cannot see the value that lawyers bring to them, given the high cost. We are a service industry and yet we fail to bring satisfactory service to the public, to the extent that parties choose to risk going at it alone before the Judge rather than pay the high price of representation. Some parties have never retained a lawyer due to cost, others have and are gravely disappointed at what they perceive to be lack of service – not explaining the situation properly, not returning phone calls, acting without instructions, and, of course, charging too much and not delivering. This is why, together with mediation becoming a quicker and cheaper way to resolution, lawyers need to reflect on the service, or lack thereof, they actually provide to their clients. Remember, you don’t have to be a lawyer to mediate an agreement between parties, even though mediation is a legal process. Mediation is largely an unregulated field, probably because parties are supposed to obtain independent legal advice from lawyers. Problems arise, however, if mediators underplay the importance of the independent legal advice. After all, there isn’t a law that says you have to hire a lawyer. I suggest that the solution to the problem lies with the lawyer giving better service to the client and adopting a problem solving approach from the outset. Negotiation is such a large part of what we do as lawyers in family law, whether in court or out, yet so many lawyers lack good interest-based negotiation skills. Acceptable negotiation tactics are along the lines of my way or the highway and this rarely works. It only usually serves to make the other side angry or angrier, pushing the likelihood of settlement further into the future. The client becomes unhappy because of the ongoing cost and complains about the legal system and the lawyer to anyone who will lend an ear. But what if the lawyer were to negotiate meaningfully for the client? There are a lot of unrepresented parties in court who could benefit from such a service. This would entail something short of full blown representation requiring full retainer. It would be a limited retainer arrangement. More affordable for the client and less taxing on the lawyer than full blown court record representation. Of course, the retainer agreement must be precise in conveying the service. Lawyers are expensive, but court is the most expensive process. It is not enough to say that alternate process options are expensive. The relevant cost of the alternate to a court process is the correct cost examination. This is all presuming lawyers are involved and we want lawyers involved for lots of good reasons – to protect the public being one very good reason. But the way to get the public interested is for lawyers to start providing a service the public wants, and needs. Average people just can’t spend upwards of $40,000 each on lawyers heading toward trial in a seemingly never ending court process. The public will look for other ways. They will go to mediators and they will represent themselves. Lets work on ways to bridge the gap between lawyers providing a good helpful service, and all those unrepresented parties.

   Marie Nickle is a lawyer, mediator, arbitrator and trainer. She has a Masters Degree in Alternate Dispute Resolution from Osgoode Hall Law School. She trains lawyers in the Collaborative Law Process. Her office is on Lakshore Road in South Mississauga. 

6. Collaborative Family Law Saves Resources in the Future

   July 10, 2012 10:57 am Leave a Comment

   By Christine A. Torry

   Like many of my colleagues, I have learned some fundamental truths working in the field of family law for almost 30 years. Those lessons are what led many senior practitioners to endorse the use of collaborative practice for the resolution of family disputes.

   One of the most basic truths is that despite the wish that a client may have to never deal with an “ex” again, with few exceptions, an ongoing relationship will continue for many years, usually as parents or grandparents, or for financial support.

   The cases that have been resolved through the traditional court process have a high rate of return to the court, for future problems. Family separations involve ongoing rights and responsibilities whether dealing with the parenting and time share of children, child support or spousal support. And there are always changes in the future that need to be addressed. Children get older and want to change residence, perhaps live with the other parent. There are activities to decide upon, and whether they should be competitive level or recreational. Children go to university and the cost sharing has to be decided. One parent may believe a child should contribute to post-secondary education, and the other may want the child to experience Europe for the summer. A payor loses a job, or retires, and needs to have support changed. A recipient remarries. If the parties have not learned skills to help them negotiate and reach agreement on future changes, they revert to the first method used, such as court. They can’t reach agreements so they go to someone, like a judge, to make the decision for them. The cost is significant in terms of time and financial resources.

   As a family law lawyer, there are many clients who I represented in a court process, that come back to the expense of litigation when they need to change something in the original order.

   One client separated in 2001 and obtained a court order resolving custody, access, child support and division or property over a year later. They had 2 children; a boy born in 1988 and a girl born in 1993. In 2007, the matter returned to court as the son was in college living away from home, and the costs had to be sorted out. A court proceeding was needed as the parties could not reach an agreement directly. That took about a year of court time. The client returned to my office again this week, as the daughter is starting college in the fall and the cost sharing needs to be agreed to. It is likely that a further court action will be required to sort that out as well.

   In another situation, parties were married for 10 years and were involved in court litigation for 8 years to reach an agreement on all of their financial issues. Two years later the eldest child began University away from home. Another court proceeding is needed and takes the full four years of the child’s attendance at University to get resolved. They also have a son, who is in Grade 11. Likely another court proceeding will be required in 2 years when he starts university.

   A third situation was in litigation for 5 years, and was back in court on at least four occasions over the next 10 years to address issues, resulting from a payor’s lost job, and a child’s post-secondary school program extending beyond one degree.

   I have represented clients in collaborative proceedings for almost 10 years. Interestingly, not one has come to see me to deal with a change. They somehow manage to do it themselves. They recognize that they need to work together in the future, and invest in creating a working relationship through the use of the collaborative process, to help them solve disputes as they arise. More importantly they don’t see the solution from a win or lose perspective. They are able to work on solutions that address everyone’s interests, particularly the interests of their children.

   From my perspective, considering the anecdotal evidence, there are strong reasons why parties should choose a collaborative approach to resolving their separation. It is time and money well invested in their future.

   Christine A. Torry
   Willis & Torry, Barristers & Solicitors
   35 Queen Street South
   Mississauga, ON L5M 1K2
   Tel: 905-819-2970
   Fax: 905-819-8379

7. Enlightened Parents Choose Collaborative Family Law

   December 19, 2011 1:16 pm Leave a Comment

   by Fareen Jamal

   Parents who would never harm a hair on their child’s head, often don’t realize that the bickering, squabbling and high-conflict that usually accompanies a court proceeding when they seek a divorce, is the psychological equivalent of taking a pail of scalding water and pouring it down their child’s back.

   Research has shown that children of high-level conflict families carry the marks and scars of the conflict.  It is not the separation of the parents, but rather the way the parents interact that creates these problems.

   The nature of family law when encountering the adversarial court system may, in fact, encourage conflict.  Spouses verbally share the details of their most intimate lives, selectively revealed in confidential conversations with their partners whom they trust and with whom they share a close bond.   Court pleadings reflect a party’s own particular view of its position and may reveal irrelevant or prejudicial information.

   Family law litigants feel vulnerable and violated when intimate details of their lives are exposed.  This may be further exacerbated if the individual does not want the separation or termination of the marriage.  The allegations may include personal accounts, drafted by lawyers in language that emphasize intimate facts to bolster the claims of their clients (and sometimes as gratifying private spite or promoting public scandal).  Court documents lend an air of credibility to the accusations, whether or not they possess any credence.

   Courts expose the private lives of family litigants.  Courts demand a significant level of personal detail from family litigants, such as parties’ date of birth, home addresses, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and children’s access schedules.  The publicity of litigated issues and court decisions may in fact be detrimental to a child’s best interests, and invade a child’s current and future right to privacy.

   Not to mention the potential of identity theft from family court files.  The personally identifying information in family court files provides a treasure trove of information for an identity thief. This information is publicly accessible to any party by attending the records department at any court house.

   No doubt these are some of the reasons why actor/comedian Robin Williams, who separated from his wife of 19 years last New Year’s Eve has chosen to get a Collaborative Divorce.  One of the clauses in the agreement read:

   “We will strive to be honest, cooperative and respectful as we work in this process to achieve the future well being of our families.  We commit ourselves to the collaborative law process and agree to seek a positive way to resolve our differences justly and equitably.”

   The agreement was to be child focused at all times.

   In Collaborative Family Law, both parties (and their specially trained family law lawyers) negotiate the issues arising from their separation in private, outside of the courtroom, with a written agreement not to litigate.  Should the negotiations not work out and the couple decide to litigate, the lawyers must resign from the case.  This motivates everybody to work out a settlement that everybody is satisfied with.  The process often employs neutral professionals, such as a financial advisor/and or child specialist, to offer their expertise.  The emphasis is on full disclosure, looking out for the children’s best interests, and reaching win-win solutions, rather than on competing and trying to “defeat” the other party.

   This is not to say that all family law matters belong in the Collaborative process.  I consider the courtroom much like a hospital’s emergency room ~ some cases do in fact belong there, however most cases are better served by other methods.

   With more than one-third of those who enter into a formal or legal first marriage divorcing before their 30th wedding anniversary (and the probability of divorce somewhat higher for a remarriage) and with an unknown number of unmarried cohabiting litigants also turning to the courts upon the dissolution of their unions, a significant proportion of the population are affected.  Most of these would be better served outside a courtroom.

   I applaud Mr. Williams’ approach, for choosing not to engage in vindictive behaviour, public humiliation, scandal or a bitter court battle.  I applaud his choice of Collaborative Family Law.  His children, although no longer young at 19 and 16 years of age, will no doubt also appreciate the way their parents have chosen to deal with their separation.

   Fareen Jamal

   Bales Beall LLP, 2501-1 Adelaide Street East, Toronto, ON M5C 2V9, (416)203-4538 fjamal@balesbeall.com

8. Communication

   November 30, 2011 10:55 am Leave a Comment

   

   How many clients have experienced the frustration of negotiating terms of a Separation Agreement with their spouse in an adversary process that has involved lawyers, and that has seemed to take forever and cost a small fortune? Just when you think you are close to reaching the final “deal” that you can live with, there is a “push back” from your spouse, that makes you feel like exploding. It may not be a major item, in fact, it may not even involve money, but could relate to the return of a “personal item” or the division of furniture, but it is the “straw that breaks the camel’s back”, and you just feel like having your lawyer tell your spouse’s lawyer that the deal is off. Why should you keep giving in? Why does your spouse have to always win? You tell your lawyer to take the case to court.

   How many negotiations break down at this stage, and how many clients are feeling dissatisfied? How many lawyers are also feeling frustrated and dissatisfied?

   The typical lawyer response would be to justify the “fairness” of the deal. I believe we are so ingrained in our defensiveness that we bring strategies used in war to our communication. We become defensive any time we feel the need to protect ourselves. We develop barriers in our communication. We are protecting our egos, our self-image. Many lawyers engage in power struggles with their own clients, to try to convince the client that the proposed settlement is fair, and is in the client’s best interests.

   As a lawyer in this situation I know I have felt frustrated with my client. I would try to convince him/her that the deal is more than fair; it would cost a small fortune to take this matter to court, with no guaranteed result, and I would tell him/her that they need to look at the big picture. In effect, I would be engaging in a power struggle with my client. My client is in a power struggle with their separated spouse, and I am also in a power struggle with the spouse’s lawyer.

   When I was faced with this situation recently I made a conscious effort to try the methods of “Powerful Non-Defensive Communication” taught by Sharon Strand Ellison.

   I first asked the client “what do you mean by fair”? The client was most upset and angry and continued to complain that they were tired of conceding, why did their spouse have to always win, etc. I then said: I hear you saying that your spouse’s proposal to reimburse her for some income tax is not fair to you and you want me to dissolve the negotiations, and take this matter to court. Yet at the same time you have said to me on numerous occasions that you want this over, that you are finding it incredibly stressful, you are having trouble sleeping, and you feel ill at times. You also have told me that the legal costs are killing you. And I know I have told you under the law model the result is not always so crystal clear, and there is a range of likely outcomes in terms of what a court might order, and the amount they are seeking is within that range, then I believe that you are responding right now from emotion because you are upset, and I think you should think about how you want to respond formally before giving me any further instructions.

   My client agreed, and shortly thereafter we reached a final settlement.

   What would the client/lawyer relationship look like if we could remove the power struggle from our relationships? What if we could change the way we communicate and we could all model effective communication techniques for each other? What impact might that have on our negotiations with spouses, and other lawyers?

   I believe it is possible to remove the power struggle from our relationships, even with our teenage children, our spouses, and with other lawyers. We can change the world one word at a time.

   Karen Thompson-Harry, B.A.(Hons), JD.

   Barrister and Solicitor, Mediator, Arbitrator, Collaborative Family Lawyer

   1 Wellington Rd. 124

   Erin Ontario N0B 1T0

   Telephone: (519) 833 0040

   Fax: (519) 833 0041

   Toll Free: 1 866 969 0040