Talk:Collaborative law

Question[edit]

does anyone know of any examples of law firms outside of family law that practice collaborative law? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prd37 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Collaborative divorce[edit]

there was a request to discuss merging collaborative divorce with collaborative law. this is my response :

collaborative divorce is the more accurate description since a collaborative divorce involves more than just lawyers who have been trained in the collaborative process. other professionals involved could be a therapist, divorce financial analyst. Most professionals involved now refer to it as collaborative divorce instead of collaborative law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.128.240 (talk) 09:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind in some jurisdictions we have collaborative separation as distinct from collaborative divorce. I would love to know the answer to your question. Thanks for allowing our Irish post. Zoom505 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoom505 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative law is the better description, in England we resolve many family issues, ranging from pre-nups to divorce, using the collaborative model. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.74.110 (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the term collaborative divorce is too narrow as the process is now used in all aspects of family law. JS

It is my understanding (I am an attorney in NJ, USA, who is trained in collaborative law) that Collaborative Divorce is a subset of Collaborative Law. Commercial disputes can be resolved through the collaborative process, just like family disputes -- probably more so, as business disputes are more often about money, involving parties who often continue to deal with each other after the dispute is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul G. Kostro (talk • contribs) 01:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Law[edit]

I have tried to tidy up various references as well as correcting inappropriate use of US specific terminology.The page still needs to be better referenced. JS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.193.72 (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

Is it correct to use "Collaborative Law" with initial caps, or "collaborative law" all lowercase? Mattymatt (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias, unverified[edit]

This article reads like an advertisement written by a collaborative lawyer. It contains many one-sided, unverified and/or unverifiable statements. Tinman44 (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it actually was written as an advertisement. I've deleted all of the unsourced sections and paragraphs, but even what's left should probably be re-written from the best available sources. Will Beback talk 23:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some wording and sentence use changes to make it more NPOV, but given that there are few actually provided sources for the content as is, I'm not about to go out and prioritize for finding critical sources. Granted, I'm sure skeptical/critical viewpoints would only add to the complete coverage of the subject, I just think that the lack of sources as for what collaborative divorce is, as well as the history of it (and contextualizing that history by examining similar efforts or discussions of divorce before and during its origins), as well as how often it's practiced... All of that is really basic information missing from this article which is much higher priority than getting information on "why collaborative divorce might not be so great."

If the wording is POV ("the benefits are" vs. "proponents claim that X serves to do Y", that's a problem to be solved by wording. If there are an overwhelming number of sources and citations which by selection provide a disproportionate sense of established literature and knowledge in a field, then that is a bias that needs to be solved by searching out critical citations. Again, I'm not against searching out criticism, that would be a welcome addition to this article. I just think that if future editors are looking for where this article needs help, there are a half-dozen really basic things higher on that list. --Monk of the highest order^(t) 02:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly bias...[edit]

It seems to me less like an advertisement and more a problem of not being artfully written and focusing too much on England and commonwealth nations. I have added some more authoritative citations. What will it take to remove the "disputed" label from the article? It is an important topic for people considering divorce.Phelenet (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I moved some of the information at the top of the article into a "History" section, which can be further subdivided to provide information on the growth of Collaborative Law outside England and commonwealth nations. Perhaps this balancing will make the article more "neutral"?--jsloan (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Article[edit]

Collaborative Law has become an important Family Dispute Resolution option. Given this background I was surprised to see how much unsupported and poorly referenced material had crept into this article.I would urge those of you who are collaborative practitioners to resist adding to this article unless your additions are properly sourced and referenced. This is an important reference source and should not read like an advertisement for IACP or any individual who may or may-not have "invented" the process.

I deleted the first two paragraphs of the "History" section as it has become a battlefield between to senior US family lawyers over who introduced the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negropont (talk • contribs) 12:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted these paragraphs once again. It is unattractive for an editor to attribute the introduction of the process to the USA to himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Negropont (talk • contribs) 23:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Collaborative law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140914105824/http://divorcenewjersey.com/collaborative.html to http://www.divorcenewjersey.com/collaborative.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Collaborative law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]