HCBA Lawyer Magazine Vol. 28, No. 6 | Page 28

tHougHtS oN proFeSSioNaLiSm iN CoLLaBorative praCtiCe
Collaborative law Section
Chairs: Tina Tenret - ProVise Management Group & Ellie Probasco - Probasco Law
A
A client’s decisions
According
must be informed
to Rule 4-1.1,
by both legal and
competent
non-legal
representation
considerations.
“requires the
Collaborative
legal knowledge,
clients also deserve
skill, thorough -
to have their
ness, and
representation be
preparation
afforded the speed
reasonably
only
by
delivering
and diligence
necessary for the
required by Bar
representation.”
collaborative legal
Rule 4-1.3. The
The challenge
representation
with
comments to Bar
for the collabora -
Rule 4-1.3 note
tive practitioner
the highest level of
that “[p]erhaps
often lies at
professionalism, will
no professional
the intersection
we succeed.
shortcoming is
of these two
more widely
concepts — legal
resented than
knowledge and
procrastination.”
non-legal
Collaborative lawyers must guard
considerations – which, ideally,
against devoting less attention to
meet and merge when a competent
collaborative matters because they
attorney takes them together to
have no court-imposed deadlines or
advise a client in a manner that
hearings. Client satisfac tion requires
enables the client to make legally
providing clients with at least the
informed decisions in an interest-
timely attention and preparation
based process.
provided to matters with deadlines.
But there are risks in both
For the collaborative process to
directions: excessive focus on the
thrive, collaborative clients must not
law in a vacuum, without regard to
have to choose between traditional
its application or the client’s non-
representation that delivers profes -
legal interests on the one hand, and
sionalism and collaborative represen -
relaxing one’s knowledge of the law
tation that delivers lawyering “lite.”
or loosening legal drafting skills on
Only by delivering collaborative
the other. Unbridled advocacy and
legal representation with the highest
“positioning” is inconsistent with
level of profes -
the highest levels of professionalism
sion alism, will we
because it ignores the client’s non-
succeed in making
legal interest in a less adversarial
it the kind of
process and unnecessarily risks
practice that we
impasse. Focusing only on a client’s
know it can be.
non-legal interests, rationalizing
that collaborative clients require a
lesser degree of legal knowledge
Author: Ellen E.
and advice, similarly lacks the
Ware – Ware Law
professionalism every client deserves.
Group, PA
© Can Stock Photo / designer491
s we celebrate the
one-year anniversary of
Florida’s Collaborative
Law Process Act,
collaborative attorneys should
pause to consider how our role as
practitioners can influence public
perception of the collaborative
process. For the process to flourish,
we must vigorously maintain and
attend to our professionalism.
We risk damaging public perception
if we relax and enjoy the benefits
of the Act without thinking about
our responsibilities.
The Act brings with it a new
ethical rule: Bar Rule 4-1.19.
But we should not disregard
our preexisting professional
responsibilities — they continue
to be our guiding principles no
matter the process — and several
deserve special attention.
For example, Bar Rule 4-2.1,
which governs the lawyer’s role
as an adviser, reminds lawyers
that in rendering advice, they may
“refer not only to law but to other
considerations such as moral,
economic, social and political
factors that may be relevant to the
client situation.” This should be
second nature to collaborative
practitioners. But how does that
interface with Bar Rule 4-1.1
regarding competence?
Get social with the HCBA on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Instagram!
26
SUMMER 2018
|
HCBA LAWYER