the chicago bar association presents · the chicago bar association presents: ... zachary m....

The Chicago Bar Association Presents:

Demystifying the Collaborative Process in Domestic Relations Cases: An Interactive Presentation

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 3:00-6:00 p.m. The Chicago Bar Association 321 S. Plymouth Court Level of Instruction: Intermediate Presented by: CBA Domestic Relations Committee and Collaborative Law Subcommittee Also Available: Archived Webcast, DVD Rental, Written Materials This interactive seminar will provide an overview of the collaborative process, the professionals used in a collaborative case, and how the process differs from litigation, with time reserved for questions and answers. Attendees will then be divided into groups to prepare/conduct a mock divorce utilizing the collaborative process. TOPICS AND SPEAKERS: Participants will be divided into teams representing a husband or wife going through a divorce. Fact patterns will be utilized and one team member will be chosen to represent each party in the following sessions:

• Initial Team Meeting presentation with the parties, attorneys, a financial neutral, coaches, and a child specialist. Topics will include: setting goals, the participation agreement, and identification of needs versus interest-based negotiations.

• Professional Pre-briefing presentation followed by a demo of a substantive team meeting where a party’s issue of concern is addressed by the professional team.

• Panel discussion with team of professionals about the nuances of working on a team, attorney-client privilege issues and needs versus interest-based negotiations.

Jason Sposeep, Partner, Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP Rita Ghose, Brigitte Schmidt Bell, P.C. Jeff Kostis, JK Financial Planning Beth Wilner, Families in Transitions, Inc. Kate van Dyke, Divorce Counseling & Coaching, Inc. MODERATORS: Stanley Majka, Brigitte Schmidt Bell, P.C. Zachary M. Kafoglis, Rosenfeld, Hafron, Shapiro & Farmer

TABLE OF CONTENTS Demystifying the Collaborative Process in Domestic Relations Cases:

An Interactive Presentation November 6, 2013

Speakers Bios .......................................................................................................................... CBA3 Case ......................................................................................................................................... CBA7 Agreement ............................................................................................................................. CBA11

CBA1

Page intentionally blank for double sided copying.

CBA2

Domestic Relations Committee Bios 2013.11.04.docx

De-mystifying the Collaborative Process in Domestic Relations Cases Wednesday, November 6, 2013

3:00 – 6:00 pm

Presented by the CBA Domestic Relations Committee and the Collaborative Law Subcommittee

Biographies

Stanley Majka, J.D. Collaborative Attorney and Mediator Stanley Majka is a Collaborative family law attorney and a mediator who helps clients resolve disputes consensually in the areas of divorce, parenting, guardianship, elder law, and elder care. Stanley believes that his clients achieve the most durable and satisfactory results when they understand their options, communicate effectively, and act in their own interests. He is proud to practice among a group of Collaborative professionals who work together with one another and their clients to provide the expertise and support necessary to make that possible. Named Peacemaker of the Year by the Center for Conflict Resolution, Stanley was honored as one of the twenty-five most influential people in its twenty-five year history. Stanley was a faculty member for the Collaborative Practice Basic Training in Chicago in 2012 and 2013. He continues to train attorneys and other professionals in the art of mediation through the Center for Conflict Resolution, DePaul University School of Law, Northwestern University School of Law, Loyola University School of Law, and several independent training programs including one created by his firm, Brigitte Schmidt Bell, P.C. He certified as a mediator through the Center for Conflict Resolution, where he continues to serve on the Peer Review Committee and volunteer as a mediator. Zachary M. Kafoglis, Esq. Rosenfeld Hafron Shapiro and Farmer

Mr. Kafoglis is an attorney and mediator with over 25 years experience in family law and general litigation. He has successfully tried over 100 jury and bench trials. He is currently an attorney with the firm of Rosenfeld Hafron Shapiro and Farmer. He is a trained mediator and collaborative attorney. He is known for his ability to transition individuals and their families through the crisis of divorce with compassion and integrity.

Mr. Kafoglis is currently serving as co-chairman of the CBA Domestic Relations Subcommittee on Collaborative Law. He has held other professional leadership positions, and he has served as chairman of the United Way board and the Chamber of Commerce leadership program in his former community.

CBA3


Mr. Kafoglis graduated from the University of Kentucky in 1983 with a BA in History and Economics, and was a member of the Phi Alpha Theta National History Honor Society. He graduated from the University of Louisville, Brandeis School of Law in 1986 and served in leadership for the Student Bar Association. He is admitted to practice law in Illinois and Kentucky and he is a member of the American Bar Association, Illinois State Bar Association, Kentucky Bar Association, and Chicago Bar Association. Beth I. Wilner, Ph.D. Families in Transitions, Inc. Dr. Wilner is a licensed clinical psychologist and mediator, who has been in private practice since 1993. She is the founder of Families In Transition, Inc. (FIT), a comprehensive psychology practice offering a wide range of clinical, advocacy, and conflict resolution services. Individual, couple and group therapies are offered addressing a broad range of issues and concerns. FIT also offers a full spectrum of conflict resolution services including: divorce and post-decree mediation, parenting coordination, custody evaluation (604b), and collaborative law coaching and child specialist services.

A sought after speaker and educator, Dr. Wilner has presented community-based and professional seminars on a wide variety of topics including: stress management, adult attention deficit disorder, substance abuse and behavioral addictions, couple’s communication skills, domestic violence, mediation, collaborative law, and high conflict divorce.

Dr. Wilner received her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the Illinois Institute of Technology, with highest honors. She has been trained and certified in mediation by the Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR), and received additional training in Family and Divorce Mediation through DePaul University’s Center For Dispute Resolution. She has also completed the Collaborative Law Institute of Illinois’ (CLII), Interdisciplinary Collaborative Family Law Training Program, and works frequently with attorneys on collaborative divorce cases. Jason N. Sposeep Partner, Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP Jason began his career at Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP in 2001 as a law clerk and has practiced as an attorney since 2003. Jason was on the Board of Directors of the Collaborative Law Institute of Illinois (“CLII”) for many years and he continues to play an active role on the CLII Community Outreach Committee. Jason has and continues to lecture at Chicago Kent College of Law, Loyola Law School, DePaul Law School, the Illinois CPA Society and the Chicago Bar Association and other legal agencies on a number of family law issues including Collaborative Law, trial techniques as they relate to business valuation experts, marriage and divorce planning, guardianship divorce actions on behalf of wards, prenuptial agreements, domestic violence and child custody disputes.

Jason was named as a Rising Star by the Illinois Super Lawyers in 2012 – 2013.

CBA4


Rita Ghose, J.D. Collaborative Attorney and Mediator, Brigitte Schmidt Bell, P.C.

Rita Ghose is an Attorney, Collaborative Lawyer and a Mediator who, since the beginning of her career in 2002, has focused her practice of law on helping families handle their complicated disputes in a non-adversarial manner. Her wealth of experience, including a social work background and a specialized certificate in child and family law, allows her to approach each legal issue from various angles and to explore creative and non-traditional solutions.

In 2004, Rita joined Brigitte Schmidt Bell, P.C. where she has dedicated her career to resolving cases through the Collaborative Process and mediation. She also accepts litigation cases, but always with the primary goal to first try to resolve the disputed matters amicably in order to prevent clients from spending undue resources on protracted litigation. She has developed a specialty in helping families create unique solutions to their issues involving pre and post nuptial agreements, divorces, custody matters, post-decree matters, child support, spousal support and maintenance, guardianship, and other family-related matters. She understands that just like families are never tailored from the same cloth, neither should solutions to their problems.

Rita trained as a mediator at the Center for Conflict Resolution and as a Collaborative Attorney at the Collaborative Law Institute of Illinois (CLII). She is a Collaborative Law Fellow, and served as the Chair of the CLII Membership Committee from 2009 to 2012 and as a Board Member since 2012, increasing the number of quality professionals practicing collaboratively. Jeff Kostis, CFP, CDFA, CPA/PFS JK Financial Planning

• Certified Divorce Financial Analyst, 2011 • Certified Financial Planner, 2003 • AICPA-certified CPA, 1995, and PFS, 2008 • Master’s Degree in Accounting, University of Texas, 1993 • Graduate of Bradley University, 1991

Kate van Dyke (Coach): Kate van Dyke, M.A., PCC is President of @divorce.com, a comprehensive holistic online divorce education program and DCC, Inc, a coaching and consulting company, that provides coaching for pre-nups, Controlled Separation© Agreements, Divorce – Collaborative, Mediation and Traditional, Estate Planning and Final Wishes. Kate has been a divorce educator for 10 years and a mediator for 8 years. She consults with the Archdiocese of Chicago for marriage preparation as well as marital crisis. In addition to teaching classes and workshops, Kate has presented various divorce topics at the 2012 IACP conference, Loyola, John Marshall, Chicago School of Psychology, Chicago & Illinois Bar Associations, financial associations and has been cited in many publications including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Lawyer Magazine.

CBA5


Kate is a Fellow of the Collaborative Law Institute of Illinois, a member of International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, AFCC, CCR, a Professional Certified Coach of the International Coach Federation and a member of the Mediation Council of Illinois.

CBA6

FOR TRAINING PURPOSES ONLY. PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE.

© 2013 Brigitte Schmidt Bell, P.C. 1

TRISTAN and ISOLDE Collaborative Divorce

Basic Facts:

Tristan and Isolde (“Izzy”) were married thirty-one years ago after meeting and falling in love while

working together in the Peace Corps. Three years later, they gave birth to their son, Jupiter, who is now

28. Jupiter has completed his masters in industrial engineering and is working in the tech industry. Both

Tristan and Izzy work for the same manufacturing firm. They are in their middle fifties and have been

expecting to retire in about 8-10 years. They each have a modest 401K retirement account.

“The” Conversation. Three months ago, Tristan told Izzy that he was in love with Heloise.

Izzy knew Heloise because they all worked together a couple of years ago on a design team for a new

product, but she didn’t understand what he was saying until he came right out and told her that he

wanted a divorce because he wanted to be with Heloise. Izzy was shocked. Heloise was not much older

than Jupiter. In that same conversation, Tristan went on to tell Izzy that Heloise was not his first affair

during their marriage, and that he had, in fact, had a series of affairs dating back probably twenty years.

Tristan felt better for getting this off his chest because he had been carrying a lot of guilt about the

secrecy of these affairs through most of their marriage. Even though he feels relieved for finally having

the courage to tell Izzy what’s been going on and what he wants, he still feels guilty because he had not

wanted to hurt Izzy, which he is why he had avoided this conversation for so long.

Izzy was devastated. She felt as though her world was turned upside down. She couldn’t help but look

back at her life over the past 20 years, thinking of her lovely family life with Tristan and Jupiter, the

wonderful times they had spent together, and she has not been able to reconcile that picture with this

new information. She feels stupid and clueless. Whenever she’d heard about this kind of thing involving

someone else, she hadn’t understood how anyone could be so blind. She thinks she should have known

that something was so fundamentally wrong with her relationship Tristan. How could she have not

known? Was she somehow partly responsible for Tristan’s infidelities? She doesn’t feel confident about

anything she thought she knew only a few months ago.

The Downtown Condo. About nine months ago, Tristan and Izzy sold their family home in

Hinsdale where they had moved 25 years ago so Jupiter would have access to good schools, and they

moved back into the city into a condo downtown with a fabulous lake view, which is a walk from work

and the theater district and which has been a dream of theirs since they became empty-nesters. After

“the conversation,” Izzy asked Tristan to move out, which he did. Tristan has been staying with a male

co-worker who was recently divorced, which he jokes is just like playing a role in the “Odd Couple.” Izzy

loves living in the condo and wants to continue to live there.

The Michigan House. Tristan and Izzy have also recently invested heavily to build a hi-tech

dream home on Tristan’s family’s farm in Michigan. This is a farm where Tristan, Izzy, and Jupiter spent

many great vacations over the years. It was parceled off among Tristan and his four brothers when

Tristan’s father died a few years ago. Tristan wants to keep the house. The Michigan property carries a

construction loan that soon needs to be converted to a mortgage.

CBA7



TRISTAN and ISOLDE First Collaborative Team Meeting-Notes

Tristan and Izzy met with their attorneys and coach(es) on October 5th at Tristan’s attorney’s office.

The attorneys reviewed/highlighted the major points of the Collaborative Law Participation Agreement

(“CLPA”), which had been previously distributed to Izzy and Tristan, including the fact that it is a contract

confirming the limited scope of their attorneys’ representation to include only the Collaborative process,

and if the Collaborative process fails they will not continue to represent them. This mirrors language in

each of their individual attorney retainer agreements. The coaches and the attorneys explained the

scope of confidentiality within and outside of the Collaborative process. Tristan and Izzy confirmed they

agreed to all the terms of the CLPA and all of the participants present signed the CLPA.

Izzy and Tristan identified their GOALS and CONCERNS as follows (parenthetical indicates speaker):

Want to come out with a certain amount of dignity (T + I)

Live in the downtown condo (I)

Izzy to live in the downtown condo (T)

Keep Michigan house (T)

No objection to Tristan keeping the Michigan house (I)

Emerge from the divorce with financial security for the future (T + I)

Concern about liability on each other’s mortgages (I + T)

Remain amicable (I + T)

Be able to dance together at Jupiter’s wedding (T + I)

Other issues discussed:

Timing for divorce

Grounds for divorce (requires minimum 6-month period of separation for Irreconcilable

Differences).

Immediate need to refinance the loan on Michigan property within 45 days.

Agreement to wait until next meeting to move forward on refinancing Michigan house to allow

time to gather information to help make good decision(s).

Referral to and retainer of a Collaborative financial neutral.

Tasks

T + I to meet with financial neutral and sign retainer agreement and have him/her sign CLPA

I + T to give financial information and budgets to financial neutral

T +I to meet with Mortgage broker and investigate possibilities for individually financing the

various properties

Future Meeting(s) -- (Three future meetings were scheduled at intervals of about two to three weeks).

CBA8



New information from tasks and other communications since the first team meeting:

Izzy has told her coach that she is disturbed that the team did not acknowledge the actual

reason for the divorce and has asked for some acknowledgement that, although she is willing to

plead “Irreconcilable Differences,” this divorce has come about because of Tristan’s adultry.

o Izzy’s coach asked the professional team to consider how to address this request

o Tristan’s coach has spoken with him, and Tristan is willing to address this issue at the

next team meeting

The Condo has been appraised for $300,000, which both parties feel is a good valuation. They

owe $245K and Izzy has been advised by the broker that if she can bring an additional $18K to

closing, she can get financing in her own name.

Izzy would like to reduce her payments even further because her monthly budget is tight already

and she is worried that she will not have enough to live on and pay the mortgage.

Tristan and Izzy spent over $400,000 building their Michigan dream house.

o Tristan spent cash from his inheritance on the construction, and the rest came from a

construction loan, leaving a $280,000 debt to finance.

o Because of its unique features, the house has no relevant comps in the area, but a new

appraisal valued it at $275,000 (well above the area market, but below what they have

in it).

o The broker advised that if Tristan brings another $65K to closing, he can finance in his

own name

Tristan has $90,000 left from his inheritance from his father

Izzy and Tristan have approximately $26K in cash remaining from the sale of their former marital

home

Izzy earns about $52K/year and is locked into a position which caps at a 2% annual raise

Tristan earns about $60K/year and has just been promoted to a new position that promises

higher than 2% annual increases

Izzy does not want to come out less able to maintain her lifestyle than Tristan after the divorce

Tristan has a 401K worth just under $150,000 (pre-tax)

Izzy has a 401K worth about $160,000 (pre-tax)

Tristan is 57

Izzy is 56

Both Izzy and Tristan are very encouraged and excited about the results of the mortgage-

broker’s findings and they have each locked in a rate of 4.2%. Tristan is anxious to move ahead

with the refinancing of respective houses ASAP. He has indicated his willingness to help Izzy

make her $18K down payment.

Professionals’ Teleconference

In a pre-meeting professional team conference call, the financial neutral expressed his/her concern

about the parties seeming haste to proceed with their refinancing plans, and he/she asked the team to

help them slow down long enough to consider the longer term impact of their current thinking.

CBA9



IZZY and TRISTAN Collaborative Team Meeting Agenda

Date: November 6, 2013

Location: CBA

Time: 3:30 p.m.

Participants: Izzy, Tristan, Izzy’s Attorney __________, Tristan’s Attorney ___________, Izzy’s Coach

__________, Tristan’s Coach ____________, (or single coach), and Financial Neutral __________

Agenda

Grounds

Downtown Condo

o Refinance options

Michigan House

o Refinance options

Long term impact of options being considered

Impact of decisions on overall property distribution

Other issues needing immediate attention

Tasks

Future meetings

CBA10

W:\collaborative\forms\New Forms with CLII Logo\PA with logo Page 1 of 7

AGREEMENT TO PARTICIPATE INTHE COLLABORATIVE LAW PROCESS

I. AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS BY CLIENTS

• We acknowledge that prior to the commencement of the Collaborative Law process, each of our collaborativeattorneys independently advised us of the benefits and risks of participating in the Process and communicatedadequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to theProcess.

• We acknowledge that prior to the commencement of the Collaborative Law Process, each of our attorneysexplained to us and we understood that, if the Collaborative Law Process does not result in settlement of ourDispute and litigation ensues, our collaborative attorneys must withdraw and the parties must retain new lawyersto participate in the litigation.

II. GOALS

• We acknowledge that the essence of the Collaborative Law Process is the shared belief by participants that it isin the best interests of parties and their families in typical family law matters to commit themselves to avoidinglitigation.

• We therefore adopt this conflict resolution process, which does not rely on a court-imposed resolution, but relieson an atmosphere of honesty, cooperation, integrity and professionalism geared toward the present and future well-being of the family and considers all reasonable options to maximize opportunities for settlement.

• Our goal is to reach settlement in the most amicable way possible and to settle the issues relating to the dissolutionof our marriage (our “Dispute”) in a private and non-adversarial manner that avoids the negative economic, socialand emotional consequences of protracted and acrimonious litigation.

• We freely and voluntarily commit ourselves to the Collaborative Law Process as described in this document (the“Collaborative Law Process” or “Process”) and agree that this Process is in each of our best interests as the meansfor resolving our Dispute.

CBA11


III. NO COURT INTERVENTION

• We commit ourselves to settling our Dispute without court intervention.

• We agree to make full, honest and timely disclosures of all information relevant to our Dispute, whether requestedor not, without resorting to formal discovery procedures that are available in the litigation process, except as weagree otherwise in writing. We also agree to promptly update information previously provided in which there hasbeen a material change.

• We agree to engage in discussions and conferences to settle all issues, primarily through open, face-to-facenegotiations with both attorneys and clients present.

• We agree to direct all participants involved in this Collaborative Law Process, including any retained professionals,to work in a cooperative effort to resolve issues without resorting to litigation or any other external decision-makingprocess, except as we agree otherwise in writing.

IV. CAUTIONS

• We understand there is no guarantee that the Collaborative Law Process will be successful in resolving our Dispute.

• We understand that the Collaborative Law Process cannot eliminate concerns about the disharmony, distrust andirreconcilable differences, which have led to the current conflict.

• We understand that the Collaborative Law Process is dependent upon the honesty, integrity and good faith of eachparticipant and cannot protect against dishonesty and bad faith dealings.

• We understand that the Collaborative Law Process differs from the litigation process in its objectives and the meansfor accomplishing them. For example, formal discovery procedures that are available in litigation, but not in theCollaborative Law Process, include procedures such as subpoenas, depositions, interrogatories, and documentrequests that are enforced and regulated by the court. In the Collaborative Law Process, unlike litigation, there areno formal court hearings until the settlement is concluded. In litigation each party has the right to advocate in thatprocess by his or her own expert(s), whereas in the Collaborative Law Process ordinarily joint experts are used.

• We understand that until the Collaborative Law Process terminates, we are waiving our rights to formal discoveryand court hearings.

• We understand that we should not lapse into a false sense of security that the Collaborative Law Process willprotect each of us, because each party is expected to assert his or her own interests; that the Collaborative LawProcess, even with full and honest disclosure and a spirit of cooperation, will involve vigorous good faith negotiation;and that, although our attorneys share a commitment to the Collaborative Law Process, each of them has aprofessional duty to represent his or her client competently and diligently, to exercise independent judgment, and

CBA12


to advocate for his or her own client only, from an interest based, problem solving model of negotiation.

• We understand that despite our best efforts, we may not reach an acceptable agreement in the Collaborative LawProcess. We also understand that either of us may become unwilling or unable to engage in the necessarydiscussions; and either of us may terminate the Process at any time and for any cause or reason or no cause orreason. In any of those circumstances, the Collaborative Law Process would end, both attorneys and their firmsand other professionals who participated in the Collaborative Law Process would be discharged and disqualifiedand we would incur additional time and cost in obtaining new professionals and “starting over”. We understand thatwe might feel some pressure to settle in order to avoid this result and the additional costs.

• We understand that alternatives to the Collaborative Law Process exist for resolving disputes of this kind includinglitigation, mediation, arbitration and cooperative law (the latter of which does not require disqualification of theprofessionals involved if the process is terminated and the matter is litigated). We each acknowledge that we haveconsidered, and received information sufficient for our purposes, regarding the risks, benefits, advantages,disadvantages, and costs of each of these alternatives.

• We understand that there may be statutes of limitations applicable to the legal rights, claims and causes of actionof one party against the other and have been advised to seek the advice of counsel other than our collaborativeattorneys with respect thereto.

V. PARTICIPATION WITH INTEGRITY AND GOOD FAITH

• We will work to protect the privacy, respect and dignity of all participants involved, including the parties, theattorneys, and the experts and consultants.

• We will maintain a high standard of integrity. We will not take advantage of each other or of the miscalculations orinadvertent mistakes of others, and instead will identify and correct them.

• We agree to inform each other of any proposed significant change in current circumstances before action is taken(except in emergencies) so that we first have an opportunity to reach agreement on the matter.

• Each of us will be expected to take a reasoned position in all disputes. Where such positions differ, each of us willbe encouraged to use our best efforts to create proposals that meet the fundamental needs of both us and ifnecessary to compromise to reach a settlement of all issues.

• Although we may discuss the possible outcome of a litigated result, none of us will threaten litigation as a way offorcing settlement.

VI. THE PROFESSIONALS

• We acknowledge, and our attorneys have confirmed, that each of our attorneys is independent from the other. Eachcollaborative attorney represents only one party in the Collaborative Law Process, and neither represents the other

CBA13


party.

• We agree that our collaborative attorneys, and any experts or consultants participating in the Collaborative LawProcess, are entitled to be paid for their services on a current basis. We agree to make funds available for thispurpose.

• If experts or consultants are needed, we will ordinarily retain them jointly as neutrals.

• While neither party and neither collaborative attorney is precluded from consulting privately with separate expertsor consultants, each such expert or consultant will be directed to follow the spirit and direction of this agreement,and, when appropriate, to collaborative with each other, meet and confer, and, if possible, render joint statementson the matters in question. The parties agree not to retain separate experts or consultants during the CollaborativeLaw Process without advising their respective collaborative attorneys of their intent to do so.

• Any expert or consultant participating in the Collaborative Law Process will be advised of the provisions of thisagreement and will be required to sign and deliver to each collaborative attorney a copy of this agreementacknowledging that he or she has read this agreement and agrees to be bound by it.

VII. CONFIDENTIALITY

• We agree that any discussion between or among the parties, attorneys, professionals, experts or consultantsinvolved in this Collaborative Law Process, and any documents crated or produced by or for any of them duringthis Collaborative Law Process, will be deemed in the nature of privileged settlement communications, and unlesswe agree otherwise in writing, and except as provided in this agreement, no statement, communication, or disclosuremade by any party, attorney, expert or consultant will be disclosed to or be admissible in any court or subject todiscovery for any purpose. We understand that this rule is not intended to preclude admissibility or discovery ofinformation that is obtained from sources outside the Collaborative Law Process; and thus evidence or informationthat is otherwise admissible or subject to discovery is not or does not become inadmissible, privileged or protectedfrom discovery solely by reason of its disclosure or use in the Collaborative Law Process.

• We agree that the rule stated in the preceding paragraph is subject to the exceptions to privileged communicationsset forth in the Uniform Mediation Act, 710 ILCS 35/1 et. Seq.

VIII. CHILDREN’S ISSUES

• In resolving issues about sharing the enjoyment of and responsibility for our children, the parties, attorneys andtherapists will make every effort to reach amicable solutions that promote the children’s best interests.

• We agree to act promptly to mediate or otherwise settle our disputes related to the children and to promote acaring, loving and involved relationship between the children and both parents.

• We agree to insulate our children from involvement in our disputes and to conduct ourselves accordingly for their

CBA14


protection.

IX. WITHDRAWN OF ATTORNEY FOR VIOLATIONS

• We understand that our collaborative attorneys are permitted, and may be compelled, to withdraw from thisrepresentation if his or her client fails to comply with this agreement by withholding or misrepresenting information,acts fraudulently, illegally or in bad faith, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Collaborative Law Process.Examples of such violations of the Process are: the secret disposition of property, failure to disclose the true natureand extent of his or her income, assets or liabilities, failure to participate in the spirit of the Collaborative LawProcess, abusing the other party or the children of the parties, or planning to flee the jurisdiction of the court withthe children.

X. TERMINATION AND DISQUALIFICATION

• If a party decides that this Collaborative Law Process is no longer appropriate and elects to terminate theCollaborative Law Process, that party may terminate the Process by sending a written Notice of Termination tothe other party and all other participants. If a collaborative attorney deems it necessary to terminate thisCollaborative Law Process, a written Notice of Termination shall be sent to the collaborative attorney for the otherparty and all other participants. The Notice of Termination may be sent by regular mail.

• The termination of the Collaborative Law Process will occur automatically if a court proceeding is filed by one partyagainst the other party unless both parties agree otherwise in writing; provided that the parties’ agreement tocontinue in the Collaborative Law Process under these circumstances will not bind any professional who had beenparticipating in the Collaborative Law Process to continue, unless the professional agrees in writing to continueparticipating in the Collaborative Law Process.

• We understand that our collaborative attorneys’ representation is limited to the Collaborative Law Process and thatneither of our collaborative attorneys (and any attorney who associated in the practice of law with either of ourcollaborative attorneys during the Collaborative Law Process) can ever represent us in court in a proceeding byone of us against the other involving our Dispute or a matter substantially related to our Dispute, except for thepurpose of concluding a settlement reached in the Collaborative Law Process.

• If a court proceeding involving our Dispute is filed by one of us against the other, both collaborative attorneys (andany attorney who associated in the practice of law with either of our collaborative attorneys during the CollaborativeLaw Process) will be disqualified from representing or assisting either of us in the proceeding or matter substantiallyrelated to our Dispute.

• If the Collaborative Law Process terminates, all experts, consultants and other professionals participating in theCollaborative Law Process will be disqualified as witnesses in a court proceeding by one of us against the otherinvolving our Dispute or matter substantially related to our Dispute, and from assisting either of us in suchproceeding, and their work product will be inadmissible as evidence.

CBA15


XI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

THE PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THECOLLABORATIVE PROCESS, AGREE TO PARTICIPATE IN SAID PROCESS, AND AGREE TO ABIDE BYTHE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND SPIRIT OF THIS DOCUMENT. BY SIGNING BELOW WE ACKNOWLEDGEOUR AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENTS IN #1.

Date: ___________________________ Date: _____________________________

________________________________ __________________________________{client} {client}

________________________________ __________________________________Brigitte Schmidt Bell {Attorney}

ATTY. ARDC # ATTY. ARDC# _____________________

Address: 500 Davis St., #1006 Address: ___________________________Evanston, IL 60201 ___________________________________Telephone: 847/733-0933 Telephone: Fax: 847/733-0952 Fax: _______________________________Email: ___________________________ Email: _____________________________

Coach: __________________________ Coach: ____________________________Address: _________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________Telephone: _______________________ Telephone: __________________________Fax: _____________________________ Fax: _______________________________Email: ___________________________ Email: _____________________________Date: ____________________________ Date: ______________________________

Financial Professional: ______________________ Date: ______________Address: __________________________________________________________Telephone: ________________________Fax: _____________________________Email: ___________________________

Child Specialist: ______________________ Date: ______________Address: __________________________________________________________Telephone: ________________________Fax: _____________________________

CBA16


Email: ___________________________

Other Professional: ______________________ Date: ______________Address: __________________________________________________________Telephone: ________________________Fax: _____________________________Email: ___________________________

Other Professional: ______________________ Date: ______________Address: __________________________________________________________Telephone: ________________________Fax: _____________________________Email: ___________________________

CBA17

the chicago bar association presents · the chicago bar association presents: ... zachary m....

Documents