Wow Smidge,

So glad to hear that someone went down the collaborative route and it is working out for them. I have tried and tried to get through to my x2b but she seems hell bent on going down the adversarial route even though it means that we'll end up resenting and hating each other and a damn sight poorer.

My solicitor is a member of Resolution and has really tried so very hard to get her round a table but no, she wants my head on a plate and our money down the drain.

I think it so much depends on personalities on whether it is possible to be amicable in a divorce situation.

Well done and good luck,

Under Siege

I am new to the website so this is the first opportunity to visit the Collaborative Law forum.
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) who has been accredited to work with family Lawyers through the Collaboration process. I am also 4 years post my own divorce and can take onboard many of the comments in this forum so far.
Collaborative Law is new and new things take time to become familiar.
My role is to act as a financial neutral between the two parties, imagine if all of the underhand dealing that went with the financial disclosure just didn’t happen?
I am present to give working solutions to the financial side of divorce both parties provide full disclosure of their finances and I am there to provide options over splitting pensions or offsetting with capital and the share in the house etc. Often it helps both people to understand the true value of something to one person and reach a compromise in other areas if they can actually see them across a table. I think it’s harder to lie to someone face to face about something this important.
It is a more intense process of divorce and will never suit someone who is looking to punish their ex because they are just not in the right place right now to take the process on board. It’s an option that needs qualified lawyers to work with both parties and involves IFAs like myself who have proved their knowledge and experience through examination to all work on the solution and not the problem.
It takes a lot of courage to face your ex for many different reasons but this process offers a much more personal outcome to suit your needs, it is likely to be a shorter process, not necessarily cheaper but certainly more focused on the outcome and not the journey.

I was put off mediation because I assumed I would have to sit eyeball to eyeball with my ex and couldn't bear that.
I later discovered you could be in separate rooms for mediation - such a seemingly small thing would have made all the difference at the outset.
Is the collaborative process eyeball to eyeball negotiation?
A massive disincentive is the presence of solicitors - the sheer financial pressure of knowing that the clock is ticking on your solicitor's bill - the idea of hours of negotiation at their rates is frightening.
I'm not convinced solicitors and barristers are needed for Ancillary Relief negotiation. Settlements are about what suits the couple - the law on ancillary relief is so broad and vague it hardly seems to come into it.All precedents are highly dependent on the unique circumstances of each case and don't apply to other cases.

I'd like to understand how collaborative law differs from mediation - the main difference seems to be the presence of solicitors around the negotiating table.
Isn't it just solicitors charging their usual hourly rate for what should be the less expensive route of mediation - what do the solicitors do that mediators can't?
For example do mediators draw up Consent Orders after mediation?

I'd like to understand how collaborative law differs from mediation - the main difference seems to be the presence of solicitors around the negotiating table.
Isn't it just solicitors charging their usual hourly rate for what should be the less expensive route of mediation - what do the solicitors do that mediators can't?
For example do mediators draw up Consent Orders after mediation?

Lawyers come to the process with their legal expertise. Anything agreed in mediation has to be checked over by the lawyers first or a judge can overturn it on the basis that you've not had legal advice. So collaborative family law means that you negotiate with legal advice as you go along, and the legal advice is, to some extent, to both of you. Also, the lawyers are working together to come to a solution, rather than fighting each other on your behalf. If you go through mediation then whatever you agree can be overturned when one of you gets legal advice and an adversarial lawyer argues that you could have done better. So I think that collaborative law is probably safer in that what you agree is more likely to be what you get.

I'm not doing either, mind. I wanted to go down the collaborative route, and we both have lawyers with the collaborative law training, but my husband doesn't trust me enough so wants to fight things out.

Sadie