The main distinction between a collaborative divorce and mediation is that in a collaborative divorce, the attorneys are not authorized to litigate the case if the parties won’t agree. In this case, active counsel would have to pull out and both parties would have to protected new attorneys in order to go to court. This removes the possible monetary remuneration of a bigger settlement in court and encourages both parties (as well as their attorneys) to reveal the whole thing and struggle to reach an agreeable settlement. To go through a collaborative divorce, both parties must sign an agreement that states they will reveal all relevant information, all professionals will be unbiased to both sides and all the participants will act in good faith. The attorneys have to sign this document, agreeing that they will not litigate the case if an agreement cannot be reached. The content of the meetings is secret and all parties are expected to be open, honest and approaching. The outcome of collaborative divorce is positive, around 95% of cases reaching a resolution outside of court. But the major benefit to collaborative divorce is that it appears to better hold up the family unit and put fewer strain on the children involved. Of course, collaborative divorce has its drawbacks as well. Should the parties be incapable to arrive at an agreement and choose to litigate, hiring new attorneys will ultimately delay the divorce process. In addition, the collaborative procedure isn't inexpensive. While not classically as expensive as the cost of litigation, collaborative divorce can be a expensive option, particularly in multifaceted cases requiring wide amounts of time and professionals to address all the issues.
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
