Domestic partnerships FAQ’s: #1. How does the end of a domestic partnership or other long term relationship differ from the end of a marriage?

For state registered domestic partners (and only for state registered domestic partners, local registration or even same-sex marriages valid in other states  will not suffice) the legal rights and responsibilities arising under Washington law are the same as those arising in a divorce. Even in this situation, issues governed by federal law can be complicating factors.

For people who have not become state registered domestic partners, but have been in a long term relationship, whether they are a same sex or opposite sex couple, the legal rights that a court could assign to the parties in the case are quite different in some respects than the rights assigned in a divorce.

But for parties in either of the above situations, one important part of the answer will be that the transition does not differ from the end of a marriage because, as in a marriage, it is the full shape and measure of the personal and parenting connections between the two people involved that is changing, and the experience for the parties involved is largely about navigating that change.

Conventional Law FAQ’s: #2. Can I afford to think about trying to keep some peace in a conventional family law dispute?

Your interests, in a conventional family law case, whether in terms of the parenting arrangements or financial arrangements you seek, do need to be well defended.

It is often equally important however, particularly if you are going to be co-parenting with the other party going forward, to keep a part of your focus on the desirability of winning for your children by preserving, and encouraging the other party to preserve, as much peace as is possible through the difficult process of a conventional divorce or other family law contest.

Even if children aren’t involved, you may still find seeking peace where practical to be very important to your own quality of life going forward. It can also be an important part of the process to keep some focus on in order to give yourself the best possible chance of limiting the legal costs of resolving a family law matter.

Unlike in collaborative law, the adversarial process of a conventional family law case won’t be designed to help you keep and build peace… you’ll face the challenge instead of doing so despite the pressures often arising in the conventional family law process towards polarization and animosity.

Daniel Sobel is one of a number of lawyers practicing in Bellingham who, even in a conventional adversarial case, is very aware of your need to pursue two different strategies simultaneously:

1. maximizing your preparedness for achieving the outcomes you need in contested rulings from the court or in negotiations in the shadow of potential court ruling.

2. behaving as your representative with civility and an eye towards your important interest in preserving or rebuilding some peace, whether for a co-parenting situation, or simply because you do not want an unnecessary level of animosity fostered between you and the other party.

Conventional Law FAQ’s: #1. What is meant by referring to the conventional model of divorce or family law as “adversarial”?

The conventional model of handling family law cases is at times referred to as an adversarial system.

This doesn’t mean you and your partner have to see each other, at bottom, as enemies while you are in this process… and it doesn’t mean your lawyers have to engage in every available fight, or zero in on and hit as hard as possible every perceived vulnerability of the other side either… parties and lawyers can, and sometimes do, behave in a range of appreciably reasonable and respectful ways within the conventional adversarial family law case.

What calling the process adversarial does mean is that the process at times depends on directly, and at times exists by negotiation in the shadow of, the adversarial process of a court hearing or trial.

In a hearing or trial before a judge, the judge hears and weighs a contest of arguments and evidence from the two sides, and then makes a ruling granting one party, or the other party, (or neither party, since the judge can craft his or her own ruling, dissimilar to what either party had asked for), a greater or lesser share of the relief that had been requested.

If you are in this type of case, it is important to work with your lawyer to prepare the kinds of effective and well founded arguments that give you the best opportunity to get the type of results you need. Either you’ll find that these arguments do ultimately need to be made directly to a judge to obtain a ruling, or you’ll find that there is a need to show the other side that you are prepared to have your lawyer make these arguments at court, in order to further the out-of-court but often still leverage-based negotiation process.

About this blog

I am Daniel Sobel, a family lawyer practicing in Bellingham, Washington. I’ve created this blog to supplement the information available at www.danielsobel.com.  Because so many different types of family law issues can arise, most visitors to the blog will want to use the Categories drop down menu to the left to select posts on the topic in which they are interested.

Thank you for visiting, best wishes in navigating your family law matter by whatever means you decide are right for you, and if you would like to set up a free consultation, I can be reached at (360) 510-7816, or via e-mail at danielsobel@gmail.com

Collaborative Law FAQ’s: #8. Is the suggestion being made that collaborative law makes for an easy divorce or separation?

There is no promise of an easy divorce or separation by using collaborative law. It is recognized that regardless of how well the process itself can work, the underlying fact of the transition out of a relationship can make for a time that is very hard in many ways to move through.

The promise of collaborative law is to place the resolution of your divorce, separation, or other family law matter into a process specifically designed to help you and your partner make it, not easy, but more respectful, less stressful, less expensive, and healthier and more stable moving forward.

Collaborative Law FAQ’s: #7. How does a collaborative case start, and where would we go from there?

A collaborative case starts, like any other representation, with you meeting with your lawyer and exchanging information about the situation you are in and the type of resolution you are hoping to head toward. You begin the process in consultation with your own lawyer, and have that foundation in place before the rest of the process unfolds.

For a case to be handled in the collaborative model, in addition to your selecting a collaborative lawyer, the other party will have to have decided to do so as well.

Every situation is different, but generally it is more productive for you to mention to the other party that collaborative law is an option you’d be interested in pursuing if they are, and perhaps offer the www.collaborativepractice.com website as a reference, than it is to engage in too much direct persuasion of the other party re: the model being a good one.

This is in part to make the process function as effectively as possible if it is chosen… it’s best if each party has made an independent inquiry into the collaborative model.

Once the collaborative model has been chosen, there will be a meeting early in the case with both parties and both lawyers present where significant focus will be placed on detailing and mutually committing to the collaborative process. After this, the four-way meetings designed to move through the issues in the case will follow on a schedule that works for you and the other party.

Once these problem-solving meetings begin, you’ll find that their exact nature is significantly affected by what issues you and your partner are bringing to the table to be worked through. You’ll always have the ability to take a step back and consult with your lawyer if you need to, and you won’t have an externally imposed deadline by which all the issues have to be resolved.

Collaborative Law FAQ’s: #6. What if, in the end, we just can’t agree?

Upwards of 90% of cases that are handled collaboratively are handled successfully to an agreed resolution, without ending the collaborative process to resort to court hearings or trial. So, for the large majority of people who start the collaborative process, the answer is, actually, you can agree. It’s important to remember that when weighing the option of a collaborative divorce against a conventional divorce, but of course the other possibility needs to be addressed as well.

Starting a case by use of collaborative law is not an unbreakable commitment to stay out of court. A person can attempt a collaborative law case, not obtain a full resolution through the collaborative process , and end the collaborative process by resorting to conventional court-based methods if that is what he or she chooses.

If a collaborative law case ends, this means the representation between both parties and their respective collaborative lawyers ends. Both lawyers must withdraw and not cross over into being litigators of the same case they had worked on in the collaborative context.

This is a very significant consequence. In part, this withdrawal provision functions to provide both parties additional background incentive to reach an agreed solution. It also assures both parties that neither lawyer could have any ego-based or financial incentive in having the work towards agreement break down and become a litigation case that lawyer can handle.

In the rare situation where the collaborative case doesn’t resolve all the necessary issues, the withdrawal provision could mean increased costs and a delay for both parties, if they have to start the litigation process after having tried the collaborative process. This is part of the reason why a potential client and a potential collaborative lawyer have a full and frank discussion before entering a collaborative representation.

It is important to make sure the case is not one where, for example, domestic violence issues would prevent collaborative work, or where either party is actually quite set in wanting to exact revenge through the divorce process for deep enmity that has developed during the relationship.

Collaborative Law FAQ’s: #5. How can adding an additional professional be a cost savings?

The collaborative process often involves a professional financial neutral, and this is part of both the effectiveness and the efficiency of the process. Costs are saved because the financial neutral is to a significant extent replacing work that both attorney’s would have to do and bill for in a conventional litigation based case.

In addition, in a case involving business valuation or other complex financial issues, the single financial neutral of the collaborative model may be best seen as replacing a costly situation in which both lawyers and one financial expert on each side engage in a struggle over that issue.

Using a single financial neutral, instead of exposing an issue like future earnings or business valuation to a contest between competing attorneys and dueling financial experts, can be a savings not only in terms of the fees directly related to handling that one question, but in terms of preserving the overall momentum towards a mutually respectful agreement.

Keeping the process functional often feeds back into a savings of fees related to other issues in the case. In a conventional litigation case, one party “winning” the battle over how much a business is worth may only serve to increase the hard feelings behind fights over other issues like how much maintenance should be paid and for how long, or how real estate and debts should be divided.

As useful as the financial neutral is, it’s also worth emphasizing that the neutral doesn’t act as an authority over the parties, and doesn’t dictate what resolution the parties must agree on. The financial neutral instead provides both parties an efficient way to reference a common stock of financial information while the parties are working towards the parties’ own agreement on how to resolve the financial issues going forward.

Collaborative Law FAQ’s: #4. Is the collaborative process much less expensive than the litigation model?

You will see collaborative law touted as a less costly model than litigation, and that is a valid shorthand assertion. It is important, though, to point out the dynamic involved in collaborative divorces tending to cost less, so that potential clients are aware of the important role they as clients play in making that so.

It isn’t that a collaborative case is guaranteed to cost less, or that the lawyers are charging less per hour worked. Instead, the legal cost savings happen largely in relation to the fact that the more each side wars against the other in a divorce, the more expensive it will tend to be.

The collaborative process provides structure and support that tends to help parties deal with issues effectively, without a series of costly court battles breaking out, and that’s the main basis of the savings compared to litigation.

Another source of savings can be the involvement of a financial neutral in a collaborative divorce case, as part of the professional team.

Collaborative Law FAQ’s: #3. How does the process work for parents, and, is it mostly designed for divorcing parents?

Parents looking ahead to years (or decades) of co-parenting may be particularly drawn to collaborative law. They may share the understanding that a reasonably low-acrimony, or even healthy, relationship between co-parents is a powerful predictor of well-being for children.

The collaborative process can also protect children during the months in which the divorce or separation process is ongoing from the immediate stresses of having parents fighting an adversarial court battle.

For the parents themselves, it can be a lasting quality of life advantage to have gone through a process that is designed to facilitate effective and respectful communication in the future, not set a pattern of adversarial post-separation behavior.

All of that being said, the process is fully open to, and equally well designed for, people who don’t have children together, but value what the collaborative process can offer during and after the separation or divorce process.

Some couples may value taking their best chance on coming out of the relationship at peace with each other, wishing each other well, or even transitioning into a friendship.

Others may not anticipate remaining in contact with each other going forward, but simply want to move through the process of resolving financial or other issues by a method that can make the divorce or separation itself less of an ordeal, emotionally and financially.