D ivorce is a problem to be solved, not a battle to be won. The collaborative model provides an opportunity and an incentive for parties and lawyers to use their best efforts to reach agreement. If this is not possible, then by the terms of the agreement between the parties and their attorneys, the parties are free to seek litigation counsel. Lawyers therefore have an incentive to facilitate agreement, rather than to foster conflict between the parties. In the event that the collaborative process is unable to resolve all the issues in dispute between the parties, agreements reached during the collaboration can be preserved, and litigation can focus on the remaining issue or issues, limited and defined by the less expensive collaborative process.
Collaboration offers a middle ground between mediation and full adversarial litigation.
In mediation, the parties meet with one neutral mediator. In mediation the parties advocate for themselves while often using the services of consulting attorneys outside the mediation sessions. The neutral cannot give any party advice or assist either of the parties in advocating their position. Parties who might not be as skilled in negotiating or in understanding financial or legal nuances can feel secure that their lawyer is protecting their interests. Because the collaborative process provides the parties with added support, it may be a more comfortable option for many clients.