Whatcom Collaborative Professionals MemberMeeting- Collaborative Conference of the Seven Kingdoms and a Few Duchys
April 13, 2015 at precisely 12:00 until some unknown hour late into the wee hours of the night(speculative guess from a Secretary who fled for cover around oneish, suspecting some foul play may be afoot in the disappearances of one-half the Collaborative Board and wondering when on earth Robert Kelly, president elect, had time to polish off that crown and get fitted for those robes)
Whatcom Superior Courthouse, Fifth Floor, in the Grand Hall o' Hades, Den of the Juvenile Armies, and Incalescent Nerve Center of the Collaborative Games of Chairs Far Less Comfortable than Thrones.
Collaborative Champions Present at the Fateful Convocation of Collaborative Powers: Anamnesis Adella Wright (having brought two of the four winds to sit at her back as a makeshift electric apotropaic - again, suspecting foul play of a mystical variety), Pamela Englett (tending the lap-dragon she'd snuggled in in her briefcase), Penny Henderson with a cauldron of steaming soup, Pat Henderson (arms ample with compassion), Mimi Mawson, Marie Bjornson, Sandy Voit, Sandra Anderson, Kathryn Resnick (fresh from her quests in the Southlands of Texas), Laura Weight, Clint Eastww.... er... James Deaa... er Calvin Klei... errr Patrick the Rebellious Gallery, and (sitting securely upon the throne still stained with the aura of our missing Empress Kira) Robert of Kelly The Mysterious Mediation Magician.
ᐧ
Purportedly Having Taken a 3:10 to Yuma: Empress Kira, princeling Jared, and Royal Pursewarden Roy Martin. As Kathryn's incursions into the firelands of the South yielded no news, there is a low murmur among the group that the story of their departure for Arizona for "the holidays" hides a more grisly reality. They have truly passed over into the south, but little is known beyond this. Search parties fearfully defy the ukases of president Magician elect to find the truth, which is - we are promised - "out there". This mostly involves watching Netflix. There's a lot of truth on Netflix.
Last Seen Decking Themselves Out for Some Red Wedding Thing:Cathy Westover, Leon Henley, Chris Taylor, Shannon Montoure, Cathy Westover, and Betsy Brinson.
12:00 -12:10:The earlymeetingmill began to grind as case discussions were swapped, soup was slurped, and Patrick railed against the evils of the house of Levi for theirviciousattack upon hisbelt loops. The group passed an early referendum to endue Rebel Patrick in jeggings for future combat, lest the belt loop slip into a noose and end his long and prominent career. Also for style.
The group vetoed a subsequent motion to provide the rebel with matching Uggs and a shawl.
12:10 - The Strident Secretarial Screams Harken theMeetingHour:
Special Party Business!!
Official business began on a bittersweet note (no sorry, no chocolate this time)
Pamela owned that her loyal Bosun Leslie would soon no more hold the helm at Englettlaw. Upon her own designs to retire from her seat on the seven kingdoms of family law some day (and with knowledge that she could not possibly do so until her mate was well situated and safe from political backlash), Pamela had encouraged Leslie to seek employment in a new field well insulated from the upheavals of litigious larrikins.
Leslie will now be working as an assistant project manager at Dawson Construction. Her last day at the office is Friday April 17th.
And thus, Pamela declared thatApril 17th shall be a day of feasting and feting in the kingdom of Englettlaw. Between the hours of 1:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. all are invited to drop in and wish Leslie a fond farewell*
*Farewells are nice, but treasures and tributes will also be accepted... either by Leslie or by her soon-to-be-erst-coworkers. Did Adella mention she likes dark chocolate and money and generally sparkly things, and that she is registered atamazon.com's baby registry and really wouldn't Leslie's office just make theperfectnursery for her incoming infant... if the desk were just replaced with that amazingly awesome Graco Play yard with little monkeys and special sounds plus that little kick and play baby piano and shouldn't the office generally just sort of have more of a monkey theme??? Wouldn't that be just perfect!
As the members reeled at such a blow to their community, Patrick dangerously flashed his eyes, pointed his inquisition upon Adella and revealed the terrible secret he had learned from the oracle of Harris Street: Leslie and Adella were one and the same! Where were they going, he asked, chuckling at the turnabout and awaiting the gasp of such gravid reveal! If commercials were allowed, there would be a break about here...
But were they? Members regaled the hall with tales of Leslie's prominent past in paralegalling. Existing before time itself, she may well have started the LAW Advocates program before adopting the Englett office as her safe harbor home. Surely such vivid tales were not merely illusion concocted by a mad daughter of the Lady of Englettlaw! Surely memories could not be so manufactured in each mind. Surely Leslie had no reason to develop an alter ego in the form of Adella after several bouts of insomnia! Surelysomebody had seen the two together at the same time!
Clarification:Whilst each forms a vital part of the Kingdom of Englett, these ladies manifested from different origins (sometimes the Oracle plays April Fool's tricks) and only occasionally inhabit the same physical presence.
A few distinctions:
1. Leslie is a paralegal, a professional vocation which is sometimes confused with alegal secretarybut which is distinct.Adella isSecretary of the WCP.But not actually a paralegal. Some malicious calumny has even branded her as anattorney(shudder and gasp!).
2. Adella is enceinte (and possibly insane, but that's a different issue) with the spawn of Wright. Leslie's son is already in college and she'd not be thrilled to hear of any pregnancies on her part at this point.
3. Adella is sticking around to milk the nepotism for as long as she and the little incunabula can impose upon the aegis of her generous mom-boss. Leslie is flying off to new career in construction.
QuickMeetingBusiness:
1.
In-House Training:
Reminder thatthe training is September 25 and 26thand that we hope for maximum attendance.
We are asking group members to mark it on their calendars and put out their notices of unavailability for those dates.
The Training Committee will be called upon to reconvene in a few weeks and haggle over final bounties proffered to Sage Shaub. All agree that Joe rocks, we are so lucky to have him, and that he is giving us an amazing deal. Future details will be aired as they are revealed.
2.
Collaborative Law Brochures:Kathryn will be done affixing our WCP seal to the IACP brochures by the end of the week. She will bring them to the nextmeeting, but those who wish to have them sooner may contact her directly. She can either send them by Fourth Corner, or they can drop by and pick them up.
We reiterated our hopes that the mental health professionals would continue with their intentions to distribute these brochures in relevant doctor and mental health offices. We agreed that getting them into similar racks would be a great boon for our outreach.
Meatier Business (Soy-Based, But Very Convincing):Email Issues Part 1000
Rob asked us to revisit some of our prior discussions about email and our use of it in the Collaborative Process.
Consent for Inter-Team Communication:
He began by recalling a consent form, through which the clients granted consent forteam membersto communicate with each other about things generally considered protected by the confidentiality rules. Rob was concerned that this was no longer being used, but had not been thoroughly folded into the Participation Agreement. This is accurate.
While the participation agreement addresses confidentiality, it does not explicitly address this communication except as to how it is protected in future:
"The Parties understand that there is no individual confidentiality between a Party and any involved allied professional. No information will be shared outside the collaborative process.
If the collaborative process terminates, all allied professionals will be disqualified as witnesses. Work produced by any allied professionals may not be disclosed to anyone other than those party to this Agreement, unless explicitly authorized in writing by the Parties. Such work product will be inadmissible as evidence unless the Parties agree otherwise in writing. All allied professionals shall sign the Participation Agreement and be bound by its terms unless otherwise agreed between The Parties."
It may be that members wish to amend this to make a stronger consent to communication.
Emails With Clients:
Under the Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2, an Attorney may not"communicate about the subject of representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or court order."
In Collaborative Law, we often allow attorneys to communicate with both clients at once, but under delineated limitations. It is generally accepted that group emails that involve both clients may be exchanged (and are more efficient) forprocedural matters. It is further agreed that these emails generally should not be used for substantive issues.
In our practice, we may find that it is more efficient to deal with substantive issues by directly contacting the other party.
Example 1:Patrick raised the example of a post-dissolution retirement matter in which he is drafting the papers and the other client has all the information. In this case, it is faster to communicate directly with the other person. The other attorney is cc'd and would have a chance to review all communications, and has given consent for this contact.
Two issues arise from this scenario:
1. Is it a violation of the RPC?
2. Is it a wise policy?
These are intertwined in many ways, since we are lawyers and know that there are never clear answers when it comes to interpreting rules.
Technically, in this case, TPC 4.2 should be satisfied by the consent of the other attorney. Technically. But things go wrong. How long does consent last? May the scope of communication broaden outside of that consent? Clients may have different memories of a situation. There may be conflict of interest implications as communications come into areas in which legal interpretation may insinuate itself into a theoretically fact-finding inquiry. Email is subject to misinterpretation (and discovery quite possibly in the future!)
On the slipperier slope of good old fashioned "ought we do it?" there are issues surrounding the long term impression of collaborative law. Even if we think the action does not violate the RPCs, it may cause trouble along the road if interests compete or communications are taken the wrong way. Unlike a scenario in which both lawyers are present and the representing attorney can intervene at any time and read his/her clients' body language, email is much harder to manage or contain. Further, clients have a sense of alignment and safety with their attorney actually present. Perception is as important as rigid adherence to a set of codes. And the impression of Collaborative Law in particular will have direct impact on us moving forward.
Some are comfortable with this exchange, while others would not do it this way, and feel it would take little additional time to pass this communication through attorneys first as a safeguard for both clients' interests.
Laura, who is currently scared beyond all laxative capacity by the Bar, is wary of anything like this. She promised that she would be pressing speed dial to ask her ethics attorney what his impression was.
E
xample 2:Sometimes Collaborative Attorneys will attempt to negotiate with the other client on a matter. This can arise innocently from a series of clarifications onmeetingminutes, or could be more direct for efficiency's sake. Even where the other attorney and client are involved in the emails, this raises concerns about containment. There is very specific process that's put in place because it works. That includes forestalling negotiations until after stages of information gathering and clarification. It includesmeetingswith participation of full teams and carefully staged rooms. These all lend towards an emotional containment that helps clients hear each other, communicate effectively, think clearly, and brainstorm. Email is a minefield of misinterpretation and emotional implosion. There are concerns about the issues raised in the prior scenario, but also about derailing a case or getting a misunderstood sense of false agreement.
Example 3:It's common practice to send out scheduling inquiries andmeetingminutesin group email. These are generally considered procedural. However, when others respond with "clarifications," such conversation can sprawl rapidly into substantive matters.
Even further, clients may take advantage of a routine communication to spew emotions on the entire group. It is hard to resist the reply all button and email carries less gravitas than face-to-face conversation. Most attorneys have experienced this and agree that it's important to contain this quickly.
Even in the guise of conveying a piece of information,
emotionally vulnerable clients can read substantive implications. A simple agreement that some action of a client will "take care of that" may well send a client off into a spin of anger based on implications she reads into that statement.
Quasi Collaborative Issues:
1. Sandy raised the situation in which he is separately engaged by a client, but is sharing information with the attorneys involved. The clients often do not want to be billed for having their attorney receive and review these communications. It may be that this is not adequately addressed in our Collaborative Participation Agreement, but it would require a specific consent from a client in a case that is not officially collaborative.
Collaborative-Lite
remains
an ongoing issue of ill-defined roles and agreement.
At 12:45 p.m. - Pat Henderson
led
the Professional Development Portion.
Pat Henderson decided to address a topic of particular concern and aversion for attorneys: self-care and the risk of compassion fatigue in our fields.
As Eric Weight is currently hiding in exile after being tormented and harried by the Powers of Bar Fury, he was unable to comment on any Kumbayosity, but we assure him that no group hugs were exchanged (self-hugs maybe) and that the singing was minimal.
She drew from many sources and articles, but one of the primary was
Dennis Portnoy, from OVEREXTENDED AND UNDERNOURISHED: A SELF-CARE GUIDE FOR PEOPLE IN HELPING ROLES
from which she drew a very helpful self-assessment. A link to this assessment is providedHERE!
What is Compassion Fatigue?
Typically associated with mental health, medical and disaster relief workers, compassion fatigue is also highly represented in the lawyering profession. Particularly for family law attorneys. But it's well known that attorneys have a staggeringly high rate of depression, burn out, and substance abuse issues. This compassion fatigue may play a part in that.
Definitions:
1.
An i
nevitable process of change that happens because you careaboutand have empathy for thepeople you serve.Over time change results in
psychological,
physical,
neurological
and spiritual lives impacting you, your family and your clients.
2.
Impact on self occuring when you care about others who are suffering in distress or have been hurt and feel responsible to help them. Over time have cumulative effect of negative changes... well-being.
We may shrug at the concept of "caring too much" or we may - as attorneys who have been trained to be the rational voices in emotional situations and are trained to minimize taking on the emotional states of our clients lest it compromise our ability to help them - shudder at the thought. Either way, it is a real and powerful thing. It may hit attorneys harder than similar helping professions, because it is not recognized and attorneys are not typically encouraged to talk about the stress, emotional impact, and what we take at home tonight. There may be a pressure among some attorneys to deny that such things impact us, and a pressure to appear strong at all times.
In family law, w
e listen day after day to stories of pain and conflict, developing long term relationships with
our
clients and see how they are impacted.
It is a c
hallenge for Legal Professionals is the assumption that they won't be impacted by this work