The Uniform Collaborative Law Act: Behind and beyond ABA approval

IF 0.7 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES
Andrew Schepard
{"title":"The Uniform Collaborative Law Act: Behind and beyond ABA approval","authors":"Andrew Schepard","doi":"10.1111/fcre.12852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 2011 the American Bar Association's (ABA) House of Delegates (HOD) voted against endorsing the Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL). In 2024 the ABA HOD reversed position and endorsed the UCLA. This article explores why and how the change came about and its implications for the future of collaborative law. Collaborative Law is a dispute resolution process in which lawyers represent clients for a limited purpose—to negotiate settlement of a dispute. Parties and their counsel sign a participation agreement which requires counsel to disqualify him or herself from representation in litigation if the collaborative law process terminates short of settlement. The purpose of the disqualification provision is to focus the parties and counsel on formulating solutions to problems rather than threatening adversarial proceedings to resolve negotiation impasse. Collaborative law was first developed and is most used in divorce and custody disputes where problem solving negotiations are particularly important to the welfare of parents and children. In 2011, when NCCUSL first presented the UCLA to the ABA's HOD for endorsement, opponents (mostly litigators) characterized collaborative law as “unethical” because it created an alleged conflict of interest between lawyer and client. Opponents also characterized the UCLA as a threat to the independence of the legal profession as it was regulation by legislation rather than court rule. In 2024, the ABA HOD reversed its 2011 decision and endorsed the UCLA. By then over a majority of the states adapted the UCLA despite the ABA's 2011 disapproval. State enactments reflected greater public and lawyer acceptance of ADR in divorce and custody disputes. Another essential factor in the ABA ‘s change of heart was dedicated advocacy within the organization by committed members of the Section on Dispute Resolution. This article makes recommendations for the future integration of collaborative law into the mainstream of dispute resolution including more state enactments for the UCLA, expansion of collaborative law to fields in addition to family law and integration into legal education.</p>","PeriodicalId":51627,"journal":{"name":"Family Court Review","volume":"63 2","pages":"305-323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Court Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fcre.12852","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2011 the American Bar Association's (ABA) House of Delegates (HOD) voted against endorsing the Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL). In 2024 the ABA HOD reversed position and endorsed the UCLA. This article explores why and how the change came about and its implications for the future of collaborative law. Collaborative Law is a dispute resolution process in which lawyers represent clients for a limited purpose—to negotiate settlement of a dispute. Parties and their counsel sign a participation agreement which requires counsel to disqualify him or herself from representation in litigation if the collaborative law process terminates short of settlement. The purpose of the disqualification provision is to focus the parties and counsel on formulating solutions to problems rather than threatening adversarial proceedings to resolve negotiation impasse. Collaborative law was first developed and is most used in divorce and custody disputes where problem solving negotiations are particularly important to the welfare of parents and children. In 2011, when NCCUSL first presented the UCLA to the ABA's HOD for endorsement, opponents (mostly litigators) characterized collaborative law as “unethical” because it created an alleged conflict of interest between lawyer and client. Opponents also characterized the UCLA as a threat to the independence of the legal profession as it was regulation by legislation rather than court rule. In 2024, the ABA HOD reversed its 2011 decision and endorsed the UCLA. By then over a majority of the states adapted the UCLA despite the ABA's 2011 disapproval. State enactments reflected greater public and lawyer acceptance of ADR in divorce and custody disputes. Another essential factor in the ABA ‘s change of heart was dedicated advocacy within the organization by committed members of the Section on Dispute Resolution. This article makes recommendations for the future integration of collaborative law into the mainstream of dispute resolution including more state enactments for the UCLA, expansion of collaborative law to fields in addition to family law and integration into legal education.

统一合作法:在美国律师协会的批准之后
2011年,美国律师协会(ABA)众议院(HOD)投票反对由全国统一州法委员会议(NCCUSL)起草的《统一合作法法案》(UCLA)。2024年,ABA HOD改变了立场,支持UCLA。本文探讨了这种变化的原因和方式,以及它对合作法未来的影响。协作法是一种争议解决过程,律师代表客户进行有限目的的争议解决谈判。当事人和他们的律师签署了一份参与协议,该协议规定,如果合作法律程序在解决之前终止,律师将取消自己在诉讼中的代理资格。取消资格规定的目的是使当事各方和律师集中精力拟订解决问题的办法,而不是威胁采取对抗性程序来解决谈判僵局。合作法最早是在离婚和监护权纠纷中发展起来的,在这些纠纷中,解决问题的谈判对父母和孩子的福利特别重要。2011年,当NCCUSL第一次将加州大学洛杉矶分校提交给美国律师协会(ABA)的HOD寻求支持时,反对者(主要是诉讼律师)认为合作法是“不道德的”,因为它在律师和客户之间造成了所谓的利益冲突。反对者还将加州大学洛杉矶分校描述为对法律职业独立性的威胁,因为它是由立法而不是法院裁决来监管的。2024年,ABA HOD推翻了2011年的决定,认可了UCLA。到那时,尽管2011年美国律师协会表示反对,但大多数州都采纳了加州大学洛杉矶分校的规定。各州的立法反映出公众和律师对离婚和监护权纠纷中ADR的接受程度有所提高。美国律师协会改变主意的另一个重要因素是争议解决科的忠实成员在组织内的专门倡导。本文提出了将协作法纳入争议解决主流的建议,包括加州大学洛杉矶分校更多的州立法,将协作法扩展到家庭法以外的领域,以及将协作法纳入法律教育。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
57
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信