Collaborative Law Section Luncheon
on december 4, the Collaborative law section received insight from
alice boullosa, lMft, and kristin diMeo, CPa/abv, two experienced neutral
Continued from page 18
collaborative professionals, on what successful collaborative teams do really
well and what not to do, based on lessons learned.
Collaborative Professional must assess the
likelihood that a Resolution can be reached in
a manner consistent with these Standards and
within a timeframe appropriate to this matter
and to the client(s) circumstances.” Like Rule
4-1.19 screening, the Standard 2.4 screening
must take place before a participation agree -
ment is signed and throughout the process.
Confidentiality Before the Participation
Agreement Is Signed
Standard 1.4B reminds us that a
collaborative professional may not disclose
confidential information before a participation
agreement is signed. Of course, with informed
(preferably written) consent, a client may
permit the professionals to communicate to
prepare for the collaborative process.
Conclusion
Keep in mind that, under Standard 1.1,
if there is a conflict between professional
rules of conduct and the Standards, the
rules of conduct control. Further, the IACP
is not a regulatory body and does not
enforce the Standards. But the Standards
are considered best practices developed and
approved by leaders in the field. We can and
should use the Standards to improve our
collaborative processes.
Available at https://www.collaborativepractice.
com/professional/re sources/iacp-standards-and-
ethics.aspx.
2 This article is based, in part, on a workshop
conducted by Diane Diel, David Fink, and J.
Mark Weiss of the IACP Ethical Standards
Rewrite Task Force.
3 Standards 4.5B & C
provide exceptions to (i)
provide referrals or (ii) consult
about reinstating or resuming
the collaborative process or
other ADR processes.
1
thank you to the luncheon’s sponsor:
Author: Adam Cordover –
Family Diplomacy
MAR - APR 2018
|
HCBA LAWYER
19