Question

Pam and Jim come to your office seeking a divorce. Pam and Jim are adamant that they do not want to proceed through traditional litigation, but instead want to use some form of alternative means to litigation. During your meeting with them, you notice that Jim does all of the talking. When you ask Pam a question, she usually doesn't answer before Jim will jump in and answer for her. However, Pam does not contradict Jim or state that his answer is incorrect, instead, she will agree with his statement. Pam and Jim have been married for 20 years and have significant property issues. Jim also states that Pam does not want spousal support, despite not working for 10 years, and Pam agrees.

Is this a good case for mediation or collaborative law? Including the rule.

Answer 1

This case seems like a good fit for both mediation and collaborative law, given the couple's preference for alternative means to litigation and the presence of significant property issues.

1. Mediation: In mediation, a neutral third party (the mediator) facilitates communication and negotiation between the parties. The mediator helps them explore their interests, needs, and concerns, with the ultimate goal of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. In this case, mediation could be beneficial since Pam and Jim have expressed a desire to avoid traditional litigation. However, it is important for the mediator to ensure that both parties have an equal opportunity to express their views and concerns during the mediation process. The mediator should be attentive to the dynamics between Pam and Jim to make sure that Pam's voice is heard and respected, and she feels comfortable expressing her opinions.

2. Collaborative Law: Collaborative law involves a collaborative approach, where both parties and their respective attorneys commit to resolving the issues outside of court. They work together in a series of meetings to find solutions that are mutually agreeable and sustainable. The collaborative process encourages open and transparent communication, allowing both parties to participate actively in decision-making. Given that Pam and Jim are both open to alternative dispute resolution methods, collaborative law could be an excellent option for them. However, in this case, the collaborative attorneys should also be attentive to the dynamics between Pam and Jim to ensure that Pam's wishes and interests are considered and respected throughout the process.

The Rule: Both mediation and collaborative law are consensual processes that require both parties' active participation and willingness to work together to find a resolution. In this case, since Pam and Jim are willing to avoid traditional litigation and appear open to alternative dispute resolution, either mediation or collaborative law could be effective. However, in both processes, it is essential to ensure that Pam's views and interests are taken into account and that she feels empowered to express her opinions without being overshadowed by Jim's responses.