By ALLAN DRURY
THE JOURNAL NEWS
(Original publication: November 30, 2004)

Three decades of handling contentious divorce cases left Nyack lawyer Ronald Phillips fed up with a system that seemed designed to drain his clients' money, time and spirit.

When he gathered 25 lawyers from Westchester and Rockland last fall and asked whether they were interested in a different way he found he was not alone in thinking divorces should move more efficiently and with less acrimony.

"Most of the attorneys who do this work absolutely hate it," Phillips said. "We're truly gladiators and as such we have to battle each other. We don't have to battle outside the courtroom, but inside the courtroom there are clients who want us to fight."

"Every lawyer in that room said, 'I'm here because I can't stand what's going on inside that courtroom,' " said White Plains lawyer Neil Fredman, recalling the meeting. "They said, 'You fight until the last drop of blood. Half the time you don't get paid and nobody ends up happy.' "

The answer, Phillips thought, was collaborative law, a method that puts the divorcing husband and wife at the negotiating table until they reach a settlement, not at the courthouse watching their lawyers argue before a judge.

Phillips is a founding member of the Association of Collaborative Lawyers of Rockland-Westchester, a group of 30 attorneys who have each practiced matrimonial and family law for at least 10 years and completed a two-day collaborative training session.

The lawyers in the association have processed several dozen divorces using the collaborative process since forming their group last fall. They say the cases move faster, cost less and cause less pain.

Several people who have gone through collaborative divorces using the association's lawyers declined to talk about the experience for this story.

The concept was developed in 1990 by Stuart Webb, a lawyer in Minnesota and spread to the West Coast before lawyers in the Northeast got interested. Collaborative law associations like the one in Westchester and Rockland exist throughout the country, including New York City.

Webb said about 5,000 lawyers in the country practice collaborative law. Some lawyers want to apply the concept to other types of legal cases, such as employment cases, but that has not caught on.

In collaborative cases, the sides sign an agreement saying they will negotiate a settlement. The lawyers are barred not only from taking the case to court, but also from even threatening to go to court.

The couple and their lawyers meet once every two weeks to talk about alimony, dividing property and any other issues that need to be settled. The last item discussed at each meeting is the agenda for the next meeting. That way, neither side has to worry about getting hit with a surprise demand.

The parties also pledge to produce pay stubs, tax returns, credit card records and whatever other documents the other side may want.

"I would describe it by saying you put both hands on the table," said Fredman, a member of the association. "Nothing's held back. There's nothing cagey about what you do. You just say, 'Here are the assets, here are the issues, here are the problems we need to solve.' "

Fredman said in a recent case he represented a woman whose husband had an individual retirement account. He said he pointed out to the husband's lawyer that if the account were distributed in a certain way it could cause tax problems for the husband.

In a traditional divorce a lawyer might not bother pointing out something to protect the other lawyer's client, he said.

If the husband or wife decides the negotiations are not going well, that person can back out of the agreement and take the case to court. If that happens, the husband and wife must each get a new lawyer, since the original lawyers agreed they would not litigate.

But there's huge incentive for the sides to stick with the collaborative process. It saves time, and when lawyers are involved, time truly is money.

Margaret Tyre, a lawyer in Rye who is a member of the association, said she tells clients who are getting divorced in the traditional way that it may take two years for their case to grind through the courts. But under the collaborative method, the divorce is usually final in six months or so, she said.

In a non-collaborative divorce, lawyers make written demands for the records they want from the other side. They submit affidavits, take depositions and make appearances before a judge. With lawyers charging $200 to $500 an hour, the fees can mount quickly.

Each time a lawyer files a motion or other request with the court, the other side gets time to respond. Sometimes, the sides have to wait for the court to schedule a time when the lawyers can appear before a judge to make oral arguments. Then the parties wait for the court to make a ruling.

Though the cost of a divorce can vary greatly depending on factors such as the couple's assets, income and liabilities, the cost for a middle-class couple with a house and no child-custody issues ranges from about $5,000 to $15,000 per person, Fredman said.

"There are also the horror stories of people who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars," he said.

The parties can also save money because they don't have to hire "dueling experts" to appraise a business the couple owns, Tyre said. Instead of hiring two appraisers and letting the lawyers discuss which value is correct, they hire one appraiser.

Though lawyers are likely to make less money off collaborative law cases, they can use the time they save to take on more cases. Fredman said having nothing but collaborative cases would not reduce his income.

"If I filled up my practice with collaborative law cases, I filled up my practice," he said.

"It's a quality of life issue," Fredman said. "Do you want to spend your time in court yelling and fighting? If you do, don't do collaborative law."

Reach Allan Drury at adrury@thejournalnews.com or at 914-694-5069.Reach Allan Drury at adrury@thejournalnews.com or at 914-694-5069.