Why I absolutely love Collaborative Practice for Resolving Divorce Cases.

by | May 12, 2011 | Uncategorized

Collaborative Practice offers the promise of peaceful negotiation with maximum professional support.

I have been involved in matrimonial law most of my career. I have seen some pretty awful stuff. People come to my office at the worst time of their lives: a family in pain; lovers betrayed. As the family is the very heart of our existence and interaction as men and women, the demise of a marriage thrusts real, honest people into some of the deepest and most exquisite pain we humans are capable of experiencing. Divorce professionals, for better or for worse, are given a front row seat to such sorrow and tragedy. We go through a lot of tissue. I have seen a coffee cup thrown across a room. I have seen strong, grown men cry. I have seen suicide attempts and suicide successes.

 

children, kids, custody, visitation, parenting, coparenting, collaborative practice

 

I have seen the serious collateral damage that a divorce war can inflict on the most innocent – children. I witnessed divorces that were so acrimonious in their conflict that the children of the marriage were literally destroyed by the drug and alcohol addiction that so often accompanies children of divorce, and they had to eventually be admitted into Rehab centers like Arista Recovery (https://www.aristarecovery.com/) to overcome their addiction phase.

Early in my career, I enjoyed the thrill of a battle in court. Litigation can be intoxicating for an attorney. I experienced the adrenaline rush of a nasty phone call to an opposing counsel, the delivery of a strongly worded letter on attorneys’ stationary and the excitement of combat in the court room. It is easy to allow oneself to get caught up in the warfare and become a part of the problem rather than a guide to a solution. In law school we are taught to be “zealous advocates” for our clients. The problem, however, is that in our zeal, we often overlook and destroy our client’s most important asset – the family relationships. Furthermore, “zeal” with its weaponry of formal discovery, motions, court work and general nastiness can deplete the family finances in such an extreme way that our clients are left bankrupt. Sometimes I feel like some attorneys are more zealous advocates of collecting more fees than they are of doing what is best for the client. It is actually called the “adversarial process” in that parties are purposely pitted against one another. Surely, encouraging couples to be adversarial rather than constructive and mutual when discussing delicate issues like parenting is terrible for a family. Don’t get me wrong, some cases require a court battle. However, the vast majority do not.

collaborative practice keeps people out of court

I have since recovered from the mindset that everything must be scorched earth. Towards the beginning of my career I did mediation, which was a great way to keep folks out of court and focus on solutions. The limitations of mediation, however, are that the parties don’t often have the support of advising attorneys in the room. As a neutral mediator, I am unable to advise what is in a party’s best interests. I can’t protect the interests of my clients. I always recommend that clients seek independent legal advice, but it is hard sometimes, if the attorney is not in the room. On the other side of the same coin, some advising attorneys misunderstand their role and drive what could otherwise be a simple mediated case into litigation.

In Collaborative Practice, however, the parties and their attorneys jointly sign an agreement that they will not be going to court. The agreement further stipulates that should either party choose to litigate, both attorneys are disqualified from participating. This frees the attorney from having to posture with every meeting. If the attorneys are not constantly concerned that they will have to litigate every issue, they are freed to focus on solutions rather than looking for more conflict. The attorneys’ roles switch from zealous advocates to “legal educators” and “counselors at law”. The power shifts away from the attorneys to the parties. The parties decide what the agreement will be and the attorneys merely provide advice regarding the law.

Additionally, the parties can bring in additional professionals to work on their Collaborative Practice team. Mental health professionals can be utilized as divorce coaches or child specialists to assist with the hugely emotional issues in every divorce case. A neutral financial professional can be brought in to assist the parties with understanding the money issues and for planning for the future. As an attorney, I am then relieved of the burden of having to act (incompetently) as an emotional support, child custody expert or as a financial guide. Often these additional professionals will have a lower billing rate than the attorneys so tremendous economies of scale can be achieved. You pay money to the people most qualified to give the particular service.

I enjoy Collaborative Practice as a human being as well. It is wonderful to work with a collaborative practice preserves familiiescouple to transition their family in the least destructive manner possible. I love collaborating with professionals from other disciplines to help the family find the very best solutions for their situation. Collaborative Practice is much more mutually respectful, civil, child-centered and humane than traditional litigation. Although divorce is always painful no matter which model of dispute resolution is used, couples can leave the collaborative divorce process feeling good about their futures and knowing that they found constructive solutions for their families.

For more information about Collaborative Practice, contact Shawn Weber for a consultation at 858-410-0144 or view:

https://weberdisputeresolution.com/explore-our-services/collaborative-divorce/

https://weberdisputeresolution.com/collaborative-divorce-a-safe-place/

See also:

Collaborative Practice California

Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego

International Academy of Collaborative Professionals

 

collaborative practice, san diego divorce attorney, collaborative divorce, solana beach divorce attorney, Shawn Weber

Collaborative Practice Public Service Announcement

by | May 3, 2011 | Uncategorized

Here is an excellent video with information about Collaborative Practice.  I am a firm believer that Collaborative Practice is a better way to divorce.  By attorneys, mental health professionals and financial professionals working together, a couple facing a divorce stands a much better chance of transitioning their family in a respectful way that is better for the kids and the couple’s finances.

For more information about Collaborative Practice in California, go to www.cpcal.com.

To schedule a consultation for a Collaborative Divorce, contact attorney Shawn Weber at 858-345-1616 or visit our website at www.BraveWeberMack.com for more information.

Working With Attorneys in Mediation

by | May 2, 2011 | Uncategorized


This is an excellent article about how to work with advising attorneys during mediation. I always say, make sure your attorney understand­s clearly at the first consultati­on that you are not looking for full blown representa­tion– just advice. I also agree with the comment that a collaborat­ive lawyer is the best candidate. Collaborat­ive lawyers through their training “get it” that you are trying to stay out of court. Remember, your attorney works for you and you are the boss. Don’t let an attorney talk you out of a settlement if you believe it is right for your family. You only need the attorney to make sure that your decisions are informed. You are a grown up, so if after conferring with your attorney, you believe that your choices are right, then follow your gut. You have to live with your choices, not your attorney.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What effect does adultery have on a California divorce?

by | Oct 18, 2010 | Uncategorized

Shawn Weber, Attorney and Mediator

The short answer is “none” because California is a “no-fault” state.

This means that evidence of adultery, as a general rule, is not permissible in court as it is not relevant. However, perhaps that answer is a bit simplistic. Evidence of an affair can come in if it is used to prove a fact that is relevant.

For example, I had a case several years ago where the husband had used community property funds to purchase expensive jewelry for his mistress. I represented the wife and brought the evidence of the jewelry purchase into evidence – not to show that there was adultery, but that the Husband had violated his fiduciary duties by secretly purchasing the very expensive jewelry with community property funds. In another case, I was able to bring evidence of of an affair in where the opposing party had invited the parties’ five-year-old child to sleep between her and her boyfriend. Again, I did not bring the evidence in to show that there was cheating. Rather, the evidence came in to show that the minor child was inappropriately being exposed to her mother’s sexual behavior.

So, the rule in a nutshell is that evidence of adultery generally does not come into evidence because the fact that an it occurred is not relevant in a no-fault state. However, where the evidence that shows that adultery occurred also shows that something occurred that is relevant, the evidence can come in, but only to show the truthfulness of the relevant fact and not the alleged adultery. (That the judge learns of the adultery as a consequence is a nice little bonus.) Importantly, the mere fact that adultery occurred cannot be considered by the court in dividing property, dividing debt, awarding support, awarding attorneys’ fees or determining child custody in a divorce.

Making sense of California’s Time Rule to Divide Pensions.

by | Feb 25, 2010 | Uncategorized

By Shawn Weber, San Diego Divorce Attorney

When dividing the community property interest in a defined benefit plan, the Court most often uses the so-called “Time Rule” or “Brown Formula”. Many clients (and a lot more attorneys than you would think) have a difficult time understanding how the time rule formula works.

Basically, the court uses a formula for the apportionment between divorcing spouses of the future retirement benefits. A percentage is determined based on the ratio between the time that a member spouse was enrolled in a defined benefit plan during the marriage and the total time that the person was enrolled in the plan. The formula is used because often times the member spouse is not yet retired and is still racking up separate property time in the plan, changing the percentage of the total benefit payment the non-member spouse would receive when the plan goes into pay status. For an excellent discussion of the Court’s use of the time rule, see In re Marriage of Judd (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 515, 137 Cal.Rptr. 318.

In applying the formula to a pension annuity, the Court in Judd “simply” boiled the time rule down as follows:

“The most effective method of [dividing the community property portion of a pension] would be to determine the community interest to be that fraction of retirement assets, the numerator of which represents the length of service during the marriage but before the separation, and the denominator of which represents the total length of service by the employee-spouse. Such disposition would comport with what we have termed the ‘time rule.'”

For me, it is easier to actually see the formula written out as follows:

1/2 x (Member’s system credit accumulated from date of marriage / members total system service credit at time benefits become payable) x (Member’s benefit at time benefits become payable) = (Non-member spouse’s share of system benefits)

Usually, a Qualified Domestic Relations Order or “QDRO” will be required by the pension administrator to apply the time rule to the pension. Then, once the pension goes into pay status, the payments will be divided according to the formula.

time rule, pension, retirement, dividing retirement, community property, QDRO, domestic relations order, san diego divorce attorney