WHAT EVERY PSYCHOLOGIST SHOULD KNOW ABOUT COLLABORATIVE LAW

by Norma Levine Trusch and Donald Royall

I. INTRODUCTION

Depending on where you practice, the term Collaborative Law (also known as Collaborative Divorce SM or Collaborative Process) may be part of your practice or a totally unfamiliar term. Although it first came into existence over 14 years ago, Collaborative Law has gained considerable momentum as a movement within the past five years, thanks to the organization and leadership of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP). It is a brilliantly-conceived process that is primarily used in resolving divorce issues between couples. In this process the husband, wife, and both attorneys agree to resolve all issues in their case without involving court intervention, except to approve the final papers and grant the divorce. Depending on the prevailing model, the process can be totally or partially interdisciplinary, involving mental health professionals as advisors, communication coaches, or ombudsman for the children, with divorce planners and other financial experts utilized to analyze and evaluate the property and financial interests of the parties. Collaborative lawyers and other professionals receive special training to assist clients in utilizing the techniques of interest-based negotiations to resolve the issues in their divorce. Trainers in the collaborative process can be found listed in the appendix attached to this article, and trainings are listed on the IACP website at www.collabgroup.com.

II. HISTORY AND FOREWORD

A. A Brief History and a Typical State

Collaborative law, began as an idea first outlined in 1990 by Minnesota family lawyer Stuart Webb in a letter sent to a Minnesota Supreme Court Justice describing the process generally, and seeking an opinion about its merits. In fourteen years since then, collaborative law has captured the imagination of family lawyers across the nation, not only for its efficacy as a dispute resolution tool but as much for its promise of extending the meaningful professional life span of its practitioners. In many jurisdictions it has evolved into an interdisciplinary practice involving mental health practitioners and financial advisors as members of a co-equal team with attorneys. Even in jurisdictions that have not evolved into a completely interdisciplinary practice, mental health practitioners are routinely utilized as consultants and allied professionals. Collaborative law has crossed our northern borders into Canada with astonishing success, and has adherents in Europe, England , Ireland and Wales , and even “down under” in Australia and New Zealand . Collaborative practice groups exist in most major metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada , and new groups are being added constantly. Interestingly, collaborative law has been slowly moving outside of the family law arena into probate and business law, is being taught in several law schools, and eventually could be a routine aspect of settlement in every area of legal disputes.

The Texas experience is typical of the expansion of collaborative law. In January 2000 two Dallas lawyers, John McShane and Larry Hance, brought collaborative family law to the state by inviting Stuart Webb and Pauline Tesler, a California attorney, to train 60 lawyers from Dallas and Houston. The potential power of the process was immediately recognized by the lawyers who attended, and Pauline Tesler was asked to return to Texas in August to present collaborative family law to a broader audience at the State Bar's annual Advanced Family Law Course, which regularly attracts over 1200 attorneys from across the state. In November of that same year, by popular demand, Webb and Tesler traveled to Houston , where they conducted both an “intermediate” training for those of the initial 60 who could attend, and another basic collaborative family law training for an additional hundred plus lawyers from all the state, as well as from surrounding states such as Louisiana and Oklahoma . Since that time, a number of other collaborative family law trainers of national reputation have been invited to the state to conduct training sessions, and full-day trainings were held at the Advanced Family Law Course in 2002 and 2003, with the result that currently there are hundreds of trained family lawyers across the state, and the statewide Collaborative Law Institute of Texas boasts 230 paid members. There have also been several trainings for mental health professionals and financial specialists interested in working in collaborative law in Texas , and more are on the drawing boards.

In 2001 a group of collaborative lawyers in Houston perceived that Texas could benefit from a statute both recognizing the efficacy of this new process, and creating an environment in which it could have its best opportunity to grow and flourish. The result was the first statutes sanctioning collaborative law in the world: Sections 6.603 and 153.0072 of the Texas Family Code, which are attached to this article. Several other states are now considering the passage of collaborative law legislation.

B. THE PARADIGM SHIFT

For years mental health professionals have been telling attorneys that the adversarial approach is not necessarily the most rational approach to the resolution of family law issues. The movement towards a new approach for dispute resolution in divorce is also consumer-driven, as clients demand a more humane and less expensive method for sorting out the issues of the dissolution of their marriage. To provide that method, collaborative lawyers, unlike psychologists, must make a paradigm shift in the way their view their professional roles. Of course, the attorney's duty of loyalty to his client is fundamental and remains unchanged. But to be effective as collaborators, attorneys must realize that they do not have to automatically assume that, in all issues of life that include judicial recognition and confirmation of legal rights, the legal perspective must be the dominant lens through which to view the issue. For instance, they can revise their views of some of the most basic presumptions of family law. They can ask themselves, for example, if it might be possible that paying more than guidelines child support might be something other than an act of generosity on the part of the payor spouse for which he should expect gratitude? Could it instead reflect a practical recognition of the fact that child support guidelines are some third parties' largely irrelevant opinion on the subject, and that for this parent, the assurance that the children will have an equally appropriate standard of living with each parent, and the sense of emotional security and self esteem that provides, is a far more valuable objective to pursue?

The paradigm shift for attorneys involves accepting the possibility that at least some of the people in our society really do value honesty and integrity, dignity, privacy and discretion, more highly than silver and gold. If they ask, attorneys might find that there some individuals among their clientele who are smart enough to realize that a divorce may well end a marriage, but only an idiot would think it ends all the relationships that were created because of the marriage. They might take the time to discover just how important to their clients is the quality of the relationships they have helped create and may enjoy. Pre-school open house or high school graduation: just how important to the child are these memories, and how important is it to the parent that they be happy ones? Should grandparental influence enrich precious young lives, or conflict them further? Weddings? Funerals? Christenings and baptisms, bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah? The parties may want to divorce, but the attorney might ask himself what responsibility do professionals involved in that process have to mitigate the future impact of that decision.

Trained collaborative lawyers grant themselves permission to give divorce clients the opportunity to achieve their legitimate goals in an environment that honors their paradigms, not the attorneys', and encourages them to address the vital issues in their lives within their chosen environment, if indeed that is their choice. Collaborative lawyers know that all the clients may need is information, and the lawyers' example, in their role as mentors, to give them the first clues as to how they are supposed to act in this strange and stressful time.

III. THE COLLABORATIVE LAW CLIENT

In many jurisdictions it may be too early in the history of the process to expect clients to walk through an attorney's door asking for collaborative law. The process of educating the public about this new alternative to the traditional litigation model has just begun. Although there has already been some extremely positive press coverage, collaborative law is not yet a household word. Those who have been practicing in this area for awhile tell us that collaborative law clients self-select -- once they learn about the process. Mental health professionals can make a great contribution in this effort by learning themselves about the various routes that their own clients can take in pursuit of a divorce, so the client can seek out professionals who are willing to approach their representation in the matter most suitable for their needs.

A. Explaining Collaborative Law as an Option

Collaborative law should be presented to the potential divorce client as part of an entire spectrum of approaches to resolving family law disputes. At one end of the spectrum is the “kitchen table” approach, in which the parties resolve, between themselves, all of the outstanding issues that must be addressed, and the attorney is used as the drafter of documents that will effectuate their agreements. If the client uses this approach, it is the attorney's responsibility to inform him/her of his/her rights under the family law of their jurisdiction before they commit to any agreements with their spouse. The mental health professional involved with the potential divorce client should be aware of who the attorneys are in their locale who are most likely to encourage the clients to seek non-adversarial solutions to resolving their conflicts and guide them towards such attorneys.

Next on the spectrum to be explained to the client is early intervention mediation, a model in which the spouses attend mediation without their attorneys in attendance, and communicate with their attorneys between sessions, if needed. Most jurisdictions have individuals who are trained in early intervention mediation, and the most good family lawyers know the ones who practice in their locality. Not all are attorneys. Some are therapists, some financial planners, some are extremely well trained and skillful, and some have virtually no training or qualifications.

Moving up the spectrum in attorney involvement is collaborative law, and it is best explained by contrasting it to the traditional litigation model.

The Attorney's Role

In the litigation model, the attorney is the gladiator, going into battle on behalf of the client with the goal of “winning” as much as possible in the property division, or parenting rights, or support, or other such divorce “booty” as possible. In collaborative law, the attorney's role is that of counselor and guide, leading the client through the process while modeling behaviors and approaches that the client can emulate when problem-solving in the future. Although the attorney still advocates for the client as effectively as possible in the collaborative law process, there is no posturing, no threatening, and no deception utilized to reach the most satisfactory conclusion for the client.

The Psychologist's Role

Mental health practitioners are often brought into the litigation process as custody evaluators, frequently finding themselves being asked to predict future behavior of the parties involved or, if called as treating therepists, being asked to advocate the position of their patient in the guise of determining the “best interest of the child” – an uncomfortable role for any ethical therapist. In collaborative law, the mental health practitioner is a team member, assisting the couple and attorneys in determining a parenting plan that is optimal for the developmental and emotional needs of the children, addressing the children's special needs, acting as the child's voice in the collaborative process, or making recommendations regarding future treatment. Mental health practitioners may also serve as communications coaches, assisting the clients in dealing with the emotional barriers that prevent them from effectively communicating with their spouses in the collaborative process.

Gathering Information

In the litigation model, “hiding the ball” is often the unstated goal, with elaborate rules governing a discovery (information gathering) process that often fails to produce the needed information for the client. In collaborative law, the attorneys assist the clients in determining what information both sides need in order to be comfortable beginning negotiations, and then instruct them to gather it all together as quickly and expeditiously as possible. No requests for information are denied, no desire for documents is treated as unreasonable. Each party's questions and concerns are respected and addressed in a reasonable and dignified atmosphere. And since gathering information is the core activity of the litigation process, if the parties are unable to settle in collaborative law, the parties can insure that very little of the time and money expended in the collaborative law information gathering process is wasted in the event the process fails.

In this aspect of the process, financial professionals are frequently members of the collaborative team, helping the parties compile inventories of their property, assessing the tax consequences of different approaches to property division, tracking the cash flow needs of the parties and children after divorce, and tracing assets. As financial assistants to the “family” rather than to an individual litigant, they are freed to be open and creative as they explore, with the couple, the various options that are open to them in dividing their property and liabilities.

Experts

Although it is not unheard of for parties using the litigation model to agree on using a neutral expert, it is not the norm. In collaborative law, it is not only the norm, it is one of the requirements of the process. It is often shocking to the appraisers and other experts called in to the collaborative process to learn that they are working for “the family” to assist them in evaluating their estate for the purpose of settlement, but they quickly adapt, and often will adjust their fees when they find that they will not be required to produce elaborate reports and face cross-examination regarding their opinions. Clients should be told what a “battle of the experts” can cost, and how it is often resolved by a compromise that is often unrelated to market realities.

Privacy

One of the most attractive aspects of collaborative law for many clients is the fact that it is conducted in private. In the privacy of the professionals' offices, the parties can discuss issues of importance to them and their children that they might prefer not to air in the public arena of the courtroom.

Pace

Many family courts are under pressure to dispose of their cases as quickly as possible. There once was a time when attorneys controlled the dockets by waiting to set cases until they were “ready”, often giving the parties sufficient time to reconsider whether divorce is the best option, after all. Collaborative law allows the parties and attorneys to move only as quickly as the parties feel makes sense in their case, giving them time to emotionally deal with the divorce, or experiment with different periods of possession, or sell a home, or do whatever they feel needs to be done before they finalize their divorce. Interestingly, most of the collaborative law cases that I've heard about seem to be settling in three to eight months.

Future Relationships

It's almost a guarantee that an adversarial legal battle will further taint the already strained relationship of the parties. This is especially a problem when the parties are expected by the law or their own grudging agreements to work together in co-parenting and decision-making in the future. Collaborative law offers the parties an opportunity to learn interest-based negotiating techniques that will facilitate their ability to cooperate with each other in the future. Given the opportunity to craft more creative property and custodial arrangements than the adversarial process allows, the parties can address methods of resolving disputes as they arise that will keep them out of the court system and minimize the possibility of future conflicts.

Costs

Collaborative law is not bargain-basement law. The four-way sessions can last from two to four hours, often involving several collaborative professionals, and the average case involves at least three, and frequently four or more sessions. Of course, contrasted with highly-adversarial cases, costs still can be reasonable, but the client should not be misled to believe that costs will be minimal.

Flexibility

When parties are committed to settlement and litigation is not considered as an option, creativity and flexibility in problem-solving becomes the norm. In the litigation model, mediation is usually the only form of alternative dispute resolution utilized. In the collaborative law model, if the parties feel that bringing in assistance would be helpful, then can utilize the services of a mediator for a session, or bring in an arbitrator or case evaluator to break the logjam of a knotty issue that is blocking settlement. If there are schooling questions related to the children, an educational consultant can be utilized. Of course, in the multidisciplinary model a family therapist or psychologist is present to assist in dealing with the emotional issues that are interfering with communication as well as sorting out the issues related to the children, and a financial planner to assist in budgetary considerations for both parties. The possibilities for utilizing professionals to assist in the collaborative process are limited only by the imaginations of the parties and their commitment to settlement.

B. Helping the Client Sell Collaborative Law

Your belief in collaborative law and your enthusiasm for the process can convince the right client to opt into the program. But it takes “two to tango”, as the old song goes. Unless your client has already told you that his or her spouse has already selected a trained collaborative lawyer and wants to participate in the collaborative process, your client must now be sent out to proselytize to the spouse. Although it is often possible after a case gets started in a traditional way to convert it to a collaborative law case, it's always preferable to start out that way, with a couple who are both committed to settling their differences with dignity, integrity and self-respect. Marriage and family therapists can help this process by recommending to clients that they both select attorneys who are trained in collaborative law. Collaborative lawyers, mental health professionals and financial advisors trained in collaborative law can be found through the website of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, www.collabgroup.com.

C. Who is the Target Client?

Collaborative law is not appropriate for every client who walks through the door. According to most experienced practitioners, approximately 25% of divorce are appropriate for this model. It is fairly safe to say that collaborative law is usually not possible when there is serious substance abuse or family violence, although there are practitioners in the interdisciplinary model who report using collaborative law in cases where there has been physical abuse in the marriage.

So who is the target client? An informal poll among the more active practitioners reveals a high level of education, psychological sophistication and relative affluence in the typical collaborative law client. Surprisingly what seems not to be a problem are a high level of anger over the divorce, adultery or a spouse perceived as being “controlling.” What is absolutely necessary for the process to be successful is a real commitment to settlement and a desire to make the divorce process as amicable as is possible under the circumstances. The welfare of the children and the parties' desire to successfully co-parent after divorce are often major considerations in making the decision to take the collaborative rather than adversarial route. It is imperative in presenting the concept of collaborative law to these clients to make sure that they are fully aware of both the advantages and disadvantages of the process, so they can make a reasoned decision.

IV. INTEREST BASED NEGOTIATIONS

The collaborative law process has clearly-defined steps to move the client from the beginning at the first four-way meeting to final resolution. The process is called "interest-based negotiations" and has been used successfully for disputes between parties as well as in international diplomacy. As one collaborative lawyer put it, "we don't just sit around holding hands and singing Kumbaya." It is extremely important that the collaborative team guide the parties in moving from one step to the other in the proper order to give them the full benefit and experience of using the interest-based negotiation process so they will finish armed with the tools to resolve future differences.

A. Step One - Factual Information Gathering

The facts are developed in a collaborative case in much the same way they are in a litigation matter, with one significant difference: this is accomplished informally and cooperatively, rather than through the formal discovery process, that can include the submission and responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Production, or Requests for Disclosure. Some attorneys require the parties to sign sworn inventories in divorce disputes, but this is normally the only formal part of the factual investigation. Otherwise, the parties freely exchange documents, or provide them to the attorneys. They may provide letters or affidavits from employers or other sources confirming certain information, if requested.

B. Application of the Law to the Facts - a Debate

There is a great deal of variation in the amount of attention which is paid to the law among collaborative lawyers. Many believe that a clear acknowledgment of the law is not only helpful in the collaborative process, but is essential for the attorney to carry out his ethical responsibility to his client. As such, there is little reason not to discuss it in the presence of everyone as part of this process. However, it is important that the lawyers are able to ignore the law in helping the parties craft a resolution which meets their interests (the law is unrelated to the interests of the parties), and to encourage the parties to ignore it as much as possible. It should be noted that to some attorneys discussion of how the law in their jurisdiction would effect the disposition of property or the provisions regarding the children is totally inappropriate in the collaborative process and should not even be broached as a subject for discussion.

Step Two - Development of Interests

This is probably the most difficult, and the most important, part of the settlement process, and the area in which mental health professionals can be most helpful. Some clients cannot understand the value of this step. However, without it, everyone is essentially just playing the positional bargaining game (each party wants as much of the pie as he/she can get). When parties are assisted in looking beyond their positions (“I want to get the family home”) to their interests (“I am concerned with providing stability for the children”), entirely new vistas of possibility open up for settlement. When interests are developed, many opportunities for win/win solutions are presented (see Mnookin, “Beyond Winning”). Clients must be coached in active listening so they can focus clearly on their spouses interests in order to determine where the “trade offs” can be found for settlement. They must learn to look behind opposing positions to determine the interests that motivate both themselves and their spouse in order to find alternative positions that meet the needs of both parties. The experience of the professionals is very helpful here if the parties are not stating their interests clearly enough. In fact, in the pre-meetings, clients should be encouraged to be assertive, as distinguished from aggressive, in outlining their interests. Otherwise, the resolution which will be crafted will not be an “honest” one, and will probably not be a lasting one.

D. Step Three - Generating Options

Once the interests are identified, the parties can generate all possible settlement options, and see how they are supported by the relative interests listed by each party. In this process, it quickly becomes apparent that some settlement options just do not serve the party's interests well. For example, if one of the interests agreed upon by both parties is to provide a consistent routine for their child with severe ADHD, an option which has him moving back and forth to each party's house to spend the night during the school week is probably not a viable option. It should be apparent that it is important to have each party confirm his or her interests before settlement options are discussed so that the interests will not be crafted to fit a settlement position instead of the other way around.

E. Step Four - Reaching Agreement

Once the options which have been developed have been narrowed down to the terms which most closely meet the interests of the parties, the terms of an agreement are negotiated. This is the culmination of all the work which preceded it in the collaborative process. Many attorneys are most uncomfortable with this stage of the process, because it necessitates letting the clients make the proposals and decisions, with the attorneys acting as consultants who can make suggestions as to possible approaches, but do not "advocate" a particular solution as they would do in the adversarial process. This is also the stage that can generate the most emotional heat and where the mental health professional can be extremely helpful for all of the parties involved.

F. Step Five - Formalizing the Agreement

Once the agreement has been reached, it is formalized in a final decree or order just as in any other family law process.

V. JOIN THE CLUB

At the moment, collaborative lawyers are enthusiastically working to spread the word that “there is a better way” for families to restructure after divorce. Their obvious allies in this crusade are the professionals who deal with the damage done to families in the adversarial process - the therapists who are faced with the task of helping the combatants heal their wounds and go on with their lives. We hope that the mental health professionals who are reading these words will take the time to educate themselves about collaborative law by visiting websites and reading the available literature, and then will join their colleagues in the legal profession who are dedicated to bringing peace and sanity to the divorce process by taking collaborative law or Collaborative Divorce SM training themselves and joining us in the effort.

Websites of Interest :

International Academy of Collaborative Professionals - www.collabgroup.com

Collaborative Divorce - www.collaborativedivorce.com

Renaissance Lawyer - www.renaissancelawyer.com

Collaborative Law Institute of Texas - www.collablawtexas.com

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OTHER RESOURCES

Collaborative Family Law Training

Rose, Chip, Collaborative Law Training. See www.mediate.com/crose

Chip Rose offers basic and advanced collaborative family law training courses; See web page for specific dates and locations. He is also author of Collaborative Family Law Practice (Media Center Inc. 1999). Available through Mediation Center Resources for $29.95

Tesler, Pauline, 555 California Street, Suite 4350 , San Francisco , CA 94104 ; Tel: (415)

781-5600; Fax (415) 781-4224 Pauline H. Tesler offer lectures, seminars, and training in the theory and practice of collaborative law. Programs are presented in the San Francisco Bay Area or can be arranged for your locale. For information contact Pauline Tesler at the above number and address or email her at: pht@lawtsf.com . See web page for details. www.divorcenet.com/ca/tesler.html

Collaborative Divorce SM , 21685 Granada Avenue , Cupertino , CA 95014 , East Bay (925) 253-0700,

South Bay / Peninsula , (408) 973-8372, San Francisco/Marin (925) 253-3603, Toll Free (888) 973-8372; email: cd@collaborativedivorce.com; website; www.collaborativedivorce.com

Webb, Stuart, Collaborative Divorce Training Institute, Inc. , Minneapolis , Minnesota ,

www.collaborativedivorce.com .

The Collaborative Law Center ™ , 8 West 9 th Street , Cincinnati , Ohio 45202 ; www.collaborativelaw.com . This seminar provides the opportunity to learn about, discuss and actively practice collaborative law. See web page for details.

Negotiation Workshop: (Fisher & Richardson) Harvard Law School , 1563 Massachusetts Avenue , Room 207, Cambridge , MA 02138 , Tel: (617) 495-3187; Fax: (617) 496-2869, www.law.harvard.edu/programs This week long workshop (focuses on negotiation, not collaborative law) is usually offered for two different weeks during June each year. The cost is approximately $2,300.00 and is worth every penny. For more information see the web page or email inquiry to: pil@law.harvard.edu

Collaborative Law Organizations

International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. See www.collabgroup.com for an application to join. Annual dues are $120.00.

Publications

Alan Reid, Seeing Law Differently: View from a Spiritual Path , (Borderland 1992).

Available at www.amazon.com for $10.95

Benjamin Sells, The Soul of the Law , (Element Books 1996). Available at

www.amazon.com for 14.95

Deborah Tannen, The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War on Words

(Ballantine Books 1999). Available at www.amazon.com for $11.20

Pauline H. Tesler, Collaborative Law Achieving Effective Resolution in

Divorce without Litigation ( ABA Publishing 2001). A vailable at www.ababooks.org

for $119.95

Robert H. Mnookin et al., Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals

and Disputes (2000). Available at www.amazon.com for $20.85

Roger Fisher et al., Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In

(2d. ed Penguin Books 1991). Available at www.amazon.com for $11.20

Steven Keeva et al, Transforming Practices: Finding Joy and Satisfaction in the

Legal Life (Booklist 1999). Available at www.amazon.com for $11.87

William Ury, Getting Past No – Negotiating your Way from Confrontation to

Cooperation (1993). A vailable at www.amazon.com for $10.47

Other Internet Resources

www.anchovypress.com/tcd/ , Texas Collaborative Divorce, general information regarding a

collaborative law divorce.

www.collaborativedivorce.com , The master website for the collaborative divorce. Their

“links” will connect you to a wealth of information about collaborative divorce.

Collablaw@yahoogroups.com , Group on YahooGroups for discussions with other lawyers

practicing collaborative law for the advancement of collaborative law. To join go to

Collablaw-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Sec. 6.603. COLLABORATIVE LAW .

(a) On a written agreement of the parties and their attorneys, a dissolution of marriage proceeding may be conducted under collaborative law procedures.

(b) Collaborative law is a procedure in which the parties and their counsel agree in writing to use their best efforts and make a good faith attempt to resolve their dissolution of marriage dispute on an agreed basis without resorting to judicial intervention except to have the court approve the settlement agreement, make the legal pronouncements, and sign the orders required by law to effectuate the agreement of the parties as the court determines appropriate. The parties' counsel may not serve as litigation counsel except to ask the court to approve the settlement agreement.

(1) full and candid exchange of information between the parties and their attorneys as necessary to make a proper evaluation of the case;

(2) suspending court intervention in the dispute while the parties are using collaborative law procedures;

(3) hiring experts, as jointly agreed, to be used in the procedure;

(4) withdrawal of all counsel involved in the collaborative law procedure if the collaborative law procedure does not result in settlement of the dispute; and

(5) other provisions as agreed to by the parties consistent with a good faith effort to collaboratively settle the matter.

(d) Notwithstanding Rule 11, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, or another rule or law, a party is entitled to judgment on a collaborative law settlement agreement if the agreement:

(1) provides, in a prominently displayed statement that is boldfaced, capitalized, or underlined, that the agreement is not subject to revocation; and

(2) is signed by each party to the agreement and the attorney of each party.

(e) Subject to Subsection (g), a court that is notified 30 days before trial that the parties are using collaborative law procedures to attempt to settle a dispute may not, until a party notifies the court that the collaborative law procedures did not result in a settlement:

(1) set a hearing or trial in the case;

(2) impose discovery deadlines;

(3) require compliance with scheduling orders; or

(4) dismiss the case.

(f) The parties shall notify the court if the collaborative law procedures result in a settlement. If they do not, the parties shall file:

(1) a status report with the court not later than the 180th day after the date of the written agreement to use the procedures; and

(2) a status report on or before the first anniversary of the date of the written

agreement to use the procedures, accompanied by a motion for continuance that the court shall grant if the status report indicates the desire of the parties to continue to use collaborative law procedures.

(g) If the collaborative law procedures do not result in a settlement on or before the second anniversary of the date that the suit was filed, the court may:

(1) set the suit for trial on the regular docket; or

(2) dismiss the suit without prejudice.

Sec. 153.0072. COLLABORATIVE LAW .

(a) On a written agreement of the parties and their attorneys, a suit affecting the parent-child relationship may be conducted under collaborative law procedures.

(b) Collaborative law is a procedure in which the parties and their counsel agree in writing to use their best efforts and make a good faith attempt to resolve the suit affecting the parent-child relationship on an agreed basis without resorting to judicial intervention except to have the court approve the settlement agreement, make the legal pronouncements, and sign the orders required by law to effectuate the agreement of the parties as the court determines appropriate. The parties' counsel may not serve as litigation counsel except to ask the court to approve the settlement agreement.