HUNTER‐GATHERER COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

• Published date: 01 April 2011
• Author: Jeff Shushan,Lorna Bigsby,Kevin Scudder,Brad Lancaster,Billie Grissom,Laura Banks,Cynthia First,Maureen Conroyd,Celia Griffin,Deb Millar,Anne Perry
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01368.x
• Date: 01 April 2011

HUNTER-GATHERER COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

Laura Banks1, Lorna Bigsby, Maureen Conroyd, Cynthia First, Celia Griffin, Billie Grissom,

Brad Lancaster, Deb Millar, Anne Perry, Kevin Scudder, and Jeff Shushan

This article describes the development of a practice group based on a hunter-gatherer model, with the mission of providinghigh

quality collaborative divorce services, with an emphasis on protecting children and divorcing partners, and expanding access

to middle- and lower-incomefamilies. The practice group professional disciplines include law, mental health divorce coaching,

co-parent coaching, financial analysis, and case administration.These professionals have collectively associated their individual

practices to address challenges facing their collaborative practices. With common purpose, the practice group builds skills,

generates client base, nurtures trust, and lays a common knowledge base. Collaborativedivorce teams formed from its members

serve divorcing families with efficient, cost-conscious, interest-based negotiation processes that protect children and help

parties productively move on with their lives.

Keywords: Collaborative law;divorce;theory;practice;low-income families;increased access

WALKING DOROBO

Collaborative professionals gather.They tend to be “people” people. Collaborators like meeting.

Collaborative practice groups2emerge locally, most often with geographical roots, and then flower

into larger aggregations as county,state, and inter national organizations.3Ourindividual collaborative

skills have been deeply enriched by local practice groups. Nevertheless, we felt something missing in

ourselves, and in our collaborative work.fcre_1368249..256

The professionals of Cypress Collaborative Solutions, before we became Cypress, enthusiasti-

cally collaborated for divorce clients, helping them transition from distressed to binuclear families.4

We advanced our collaborative training. We hoped that more collaborative casework would follow.

And it did. But none among us engaged the number of collaborative cases desired or felt the public,

judiciary, or attorney bar was being adequately educated about the collaborative process. We hoped

that our efforts, combined with the efforts of others in our collaborative community, would main-

stream collaboration, making it as well known and accepted as mediation. We hoped the public

would come to consider collaboration a serious alternative to litigation. And we hoped that our

services would prove more transformative for our collaborating clients. Our individual efforts

proved insufficient.

We paused and took stock.We scrutinized our professional practice model. We asked, how can we

better carry the collaborative message to the public? We determined that we collaborated for others,

but resisted fully collaborating with one another. We negotiated parenting plans and asset divisions of

others, but resisted collaborating our business practices, personal quirks, and visions of the future.

When first forming, we had difficulty making decisions and reaching agreement on Cypress’s

organizational structure. We had differing visions of the meaning of collaboration. Emotions often ran

high. We suffered some strife and interpersonal rifts. We labored over whetherthere should be a period

at the end of our logo tag line. Pauline Tesler had warned and challenged us: collaborators resist

collaborating with one another.5The Cypress structure is our attempt to address the constellation of

challenges we unearthed in ourselves and in our separate practices. Through the Cypress vision and

Correspondence: laura.banks@renibanks.com; lorna@lbigsbylaw.com; moconroyd@comcast.net; cynthia@

everettlawyers.com; celia@celiagriffincpa.com; billieg@billiegrissomlaw.com; brad@lancasterlawoffice.com; paralegal@

wavecable.com; annekperry116@comcast.net; kscudderlaw@speakeasy.net; legacycounstrain@mac.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW,Vol. 49 No. 2, April 2011 249–256

© 2011 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts