My mission is to help the wronged, unhappy or injured get what is fair and right. This is the initial draft of my “Why” as I discovered yesterday when doing an exercise at the annual training of the New York Association of Collaborative Professionals. The “Why” can be tweaked and tested, but this is was what I came up with after working with others to search for it in the exercise. The exercise to find our Why was as suggested by Simon Sinek’s method through our trainer at the meeting. My understanding of what the Why is would be that which we can not help but doing because it is our natural inclination. On reflection, I get to do this as a matrimonial, family law lawyer and mediator on a daily basis. As a mediator, it is not my role to advocate for either side of the issue, but rather to facilitate the coming together to resolve their issues. When I look at the settlements as crafted between the parties from my mediated cases, I find that they are fair balanced agreements. It is my job as a review attorney to identify for my clients the fairness of the agreements that have been negotiated with a different mediator.
As previously mentioned, I am a big fan of alternative dispute resolution processes such as mediation and collaborative law, but the majority of my cases are and have been in the more traditional route as set up by the court system, which is the adversarial system. So, a lot of my clients are in battle, and as their lawyer, I fight hard for them. Since I am an experienced litigator, trained and certified mediator and collaborative law attorney, it allows me to help people with divorce and family law issues no matter what process they choose to use. It turns out though, that my chosen profession fits the why that I discovered. Invariably, people with matrimonial and family law issues either feel wronged, unhappy or injured in some way. It is my job as their lawyer to help them get what is fair and right.
There are many reasons that I recommend mediation or collaborative law over the traditional adversarial route for those that are willing and able to do it. To name a few of them, the adversarial method tends to foster bad feelings between the parties as the usual modus operandi of everyone involved is to emphasize the good for their side and the bad about the other. In other words there is mud slinging in litigation. Just because a relationship has ended, however, does not mean that people need to leave the relationship as enemies. Two parents are forever connected by their children even if they are no longer romantically involved. Continue reading ›