Working from the assumption that the judicial model is not the best dispute resolution option in such an emotionally entangled situation, we start the analysis of what do the parties really need. The ultimate objective of the process is a judicial recognition of the dissolution/agreement. Outside of that what is needed is a method to empower the parties to make joint decisions.

Being creatures of habit and culture, lawyers and litigants will resort to trial based strategies if they know that is the final arbiter. To remove this specter, and corresponding method of case development, the only avenue is to agree at the outset that litigation will not be an option. Once lawyers agree they will under no circumstances take the case to court they are relieved of the need to prepare witnesses, serve subpoenas, depose experts and the like. They are likewise challenged to contain the conflict in such a way as to resolve the dispute or lose the client. Parties may later decide to opt out of the process and go to court, but the lawyers may not represent them. This is the key to the collaborative process. The lawyer has to be good enough to find solutions or lose the client. Radical? Only in its simplicity!

Collaborative Divorce is an interdisciplinary process. The lawyer represents a client, protects their interests, and addresses all the needs. Emotional concerns are referred to mental health coaches trained in the dynamics of divorce.