Collaborative Law -- OSBA pushing for these changes in Ohio

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

In Ohio, the OSBA is supporting/pushing for collaborative law to become statutory. The bill has passed the House and they are working to get it through the Senate.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_461

The idea behind collaborative law is to reach agreements on more divorces with less courtroom intervention. Collaborative law is something that can be practiced without statute guiding it however with the law it will provide more options spelled out for courts to acquire and allow. And it makes it easier for attorneys to practice collaboratively.

 

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

In Ohio, the OSBA is supporting/pushing for collaborative law to become statutory. The bill has passed the House and they are working to get it through the Senate.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_461

The idea behind collaborative law is to reach agreements on more divorces with less courtroom intervention. Collaborative law is something that can be practiced without statute guiding it however with the law it will provide more options spelled out for courts to acquire and allow. And it makes it easier for attorneys to practice collaboratively.

It seems alot of states are making changes to their matrimonial laws. Were the previous laws defective?

 

[Ohiogal]

It seems alot of states are making changes to their matrimonial laws. Were the previous laws defective?

This is an ADDITION to the laws already on the books.

 

[tuffbrk]

Are you for this or against it?

The issue that I see is if the attorney does not actually represent your interests. Then you wind up learning after the fact that the attorney didn't do their homework and had you agree to something that was not necessarily in your best interests. There's not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it after the fact.

I'm guessing the Pro would be less expensive to the consumer? Quicker turn times? Easier to get on the docket for post judgement issues?

Just curious as to your stance.

 

[Ohiogal]

Are you for this or against it?

The issue that I see is if the attorney does not actually represent your interests. Then you wind up learning after the fact that the attorney didn't do their homework and had you agree to something that was not necessarily in your best interests. There's not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it after the fact.

I'm guessing the Pro would be less expensive to the consumer? Quicker turn times? Easier to get on the docket for post judgement issues?

Just curious as to your stance.

Collaborative law done correctly can be a great thing. And yes the attorney would represent your interests through the settlement negotiations. However, if you cannot reach a settlement, that attorney will NOT be your trial attorney. Collaborative law is about settlement at its best. And the attorney still has to meet the standards for practicing. Therefore, they would still be expected to do their job and be subject to the rules of professional responsibility and malpractice expectations.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

In Ohio, the OSBA is supporting/pushing for collaborative law to become statutory. The bill has passed the House and they are working to get it through the Senate.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_HB_461

The idea behind collaborative law is to reach agreements on more divorces with less courtroom intervention. Collaborative law is something that can be practiced without statute guiding it however with the law it will provide more options spelled out for courts to acquire and allow. And it makes it easier for attorneys to practice collaboratively.

Doesn't that lead to abuses sometimes? Attorneys pushing agreements that don't necessarily benefit their clients? I realize that the going opinion is that the best agreement is one that makes neither side happy, but I have seen some really bad/illogical agreements done on a collaborative level.

 

[Ohiogal]

Doesn't that lead to abuses sometimes? Attorneys pushing agreements that don't necessarily benefit their clients? I realize that the going opinion is that the best agreement is one that makes neither side happy, but I have seen some really bad/illogical agreements done on a collaborative level.

Anything can lead to abuses. Both clients have to be willing to participate in this type of decision making. Both of them enter. And they still have the option of going to trial if they don't want to agree. They just need to get NEW counsel. As for what you have seen, quite frankly, I am not believing that you have as much as experience as you say you do because YOU NEVER BACK IT UP.

 

[tuffbrk]

I didn't go to trial. I wanted to do so but my attorney advised that it would cost an add'l $30k, that we would need to be in court the following day and he was not prepared to go to court. So I really didn't think I had much choice. This was already my 2nd attorney and my costs at this point were $42k. I really had nothing left to even retain another attorney.

My ex was so ridiculous, dragged things out to such a degree, his attorney kept complaining to my attorney about him, he played the whole "pity card" due to his recent liver transplant and I think that both attorneys just wanted the case over. I only recently found that there was case law on the books that addresses the situation that I was in during the divorce - my attorney never referenced it or cited anything about it. It was presented to me that there was nothing that I could do, that it was the best deal that I was going to get. Again, I learned later that my attorney did nothing - not even in property settlement percentages - to help me.

So I kind of feel like the divorce was just the icing on the cake allowing myself to be taken advantage of and treated like a door mat. I do my best to set it aside because I believe that if I allow it to color the rest of my life then I really did lose more than just "things." What becomes difficult, though, is that when I go back to court, it is always cited that I have a mediated agreement. Apparently if I had gone to trial, the courts are quicker to..."re-look" at the settlement. (I don't really know the right words to use!!)

In the meantime, I used a very reputable firm, an attorney that came highly recommended and still feel as if they weren't really "there" for me. And not to incite Bali, but I believe I was treated as I was simply because I was a W-2 earner, my ex was self-employed (and just recently had undergone surgery, I know how that looks) and so I was treated as the "Breadwinner" as if I had always been the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage and my ex was treated as a poor, helpless little kitty.

All the kicking, yelling and screaming that I did simply was ignored because the mediators just bought into the ex's nonsense. Of course, 3 months later, he was working under the table and staying off of the grid.

So...I seem to have lost track of the point that I was trying to make! LOL!! Happy Memorial Day Weekend everyone.

 

[Ohiogal]

Tuffbrk let me point out a few things

I didn't go to trial. I wanted to do so but my attorney advised that it would cost an add'l $30k, that we would need to be in court the following day and he was not prepared to go to court. So I really didn't think I had much choice. This was already my 2nd attorney and my costs at this point were $42k. I really had nothing left to even retain another attorney.

Good grief. How much was your attorney charging and why wasn't your attorney prepared to go to court? Attorneys should ALWAYS prepare for trial. And to tell you he needed an additional $30k for the following day? That is ridiculous and NOT above board.

My ex was so ridiculous, dragged things out to such a degree, his attorney kept complaining to my attorney about him, he played the whole "pity card" due to his recent liver transplant and I think that both attorneys just wanted the case over. I only recently found that there was case law on the books that addresses the situation that I was in during the divorce - my attorney never referenced it or cited anything about it. It was presented to me that there was nothing that I could do, that it was the best deal that I was going to get. Again, I learned later that my attorney did nothing - not even in property settlement percentages - to help me.

Then your attorney was being irresponsible. That is possible in any situation. That doesn't mean collaborative law is a bad idea. Any attorney could act unethically. Doesn't matter what type of law or what situation. But it is not good to assume that an entire type of law is bad because of an attorney's actions.

So I kind of feel like the divorce was just the icing on the cake allowing myself to be taken advantage of and treated like a door mat. I do my best to set it aside because I believe that if I allow it to color the rest of my life then I really did lose more than just "things." What becomes difficult, though, is that when I go back to court, it is always cited that I have a mediated agreement. Apparently if I had gone to trial, the courts are quicker to..."re-look" at the settlement. (I don't really know the right words to use!!)

If you go to trial then you are NOT agreeing to things and you have the right to an appeal if things don't go your way. If you settle then you basically are waiving your right to an appeal for many reasons.

In the meantime, I used a very reputable firm, an attorney that came highly recommended and still feel as if they weren't really "there" for me. And not to incite Bali, but I believe I was treated as I was simply because I was a W-2 earner, my ex was self-employed (and just recently had undergone surgery, I know how that looks) and so I was treated as the "Breadwinner" as if I had always been the primary breadwinner throughout the marriage and my ex was treated as a poor, helpless little kitty.

Lovely. Here is the thing: I hear a lot about very reputable firms or that an attorney has appeared in Super Lawyers or another mention like that. Many of those lawyers may be very good attorneys. But most ranking sites are based on advertising or are a method of advertising. The best way to find a lawyer is to interview them. Get referrals from friends and then interview the individual attorneys. Once that is done, choose the one who makes you the most comfortable but doesn't promise or guarantee anything. Also take into consideration how often they read caselaw, if they have had disciplinary action against them and been disciplined, and if they know the pros and cons. Don't hire an attorney that can't tell you the flaws in your case -- regardless of the type of case. If they don't see the flaws or won't tell you about them, that is a problem. And EVERY case has flaws. Have yet to see one that doesn't.

All the kicking, yelling and screaming that I did simply was ignored because the mediators just bought into the ex's nonsense. Of course, 3 months later, he was working under the table and staying off of the grid.

So...I seem to have lost track of the point that I was trying to make! LOL!!

I don't really know what your point was either at this juncture. But I do believe collaborative law can be a very good thing.

Happy Memorial Day Weekend everyone.

Right back at you.