Another collaborative practice training is over, and another 120 lawyers have been trained here in Maryland. At the end of each of our trainings, we have a reflection circle. Every time we have one, I cry. It's becoming a kind of trade mark. I tell myself I won't, but well, I do. Not every case can or should be resolved collaboratively, but every lawyer should be trained to view each case as they view their collaborative ones. That more and more lawyers are trained in the method gives me hope for the future of justice, and so I cry. Why is that, you may ask? Well, at least here in the Trenches, all of our cases come with a story; our client has part, and their spouse has part. How that story ends has a lot to do with the professionals who help them write the ending. Will it end like a Shakespeare tragedy, with all the characters dead or maimed, or like one of his comedies, in which the characters meet difficulty, misunderstand each other, and then end with a resolution that works for everyone? How the professionals approach the story determines how it ends. If the lawyers approach it as "business as usual" in the traditional litigation sense of the word, then we are set for a Shakespeare tragedy. If, on the other hand, the lawyers approach it with a collaborative mindset, then the stage is set for a Shakespeare comedy, even if a judge needs to make that decision. The reason is that the collaborative lawyer understands that usually it isn't about the money or the house or the children, and they dig deeply to discover the true heart of the matter, the clients' deepest needs, and tailor their representation to meet those needs, whatever form of dispute resolution is chosen. Since I've been trained collaboratively, I'm a more effective lawyer, negotiator, litigator, mediator and collaborator; and that means justice is more likely to be served because all the facts, financial, emotional and otherwise, are addressed, as opposed to a client's position. That's why I cry.
No comments:
Post a Comment