The following was written by Kevin R. Scudder of the Seattle Collaborative Law Center, PLLC.

The Paradigm Shift presents one of the biggest challenges that we face in Collaborative Practice. We are introduced to the concept in our introductory trainings and continue to train on the topic in our Practice Group work, trainings, and in our cases.

The importance of the Paradigm Shift to our practices cannot be understated. You either get it or you do not. Or you lurch, or flow, in and out of the Paradigm Shift. As Stu Webb likes to make reference to, when you “grok” the Paradigm Shift, you exist within it every second of the day.

One of the mysteries of our work is to figure out how to teach others about this concept.

One way is Stu Webb’s Coming Home Short Form Exercise, a short, meditative process of leaving Home, and coming Home. 

Another way is to simply be observant, to be aware of what goes on around us. Evidence of the Paradigm Shift is all around us. Here is an example.

On a local list serv that serves Washington State a Collaborative Practitioner posted the following:

Because my practice is focused mostly on collaborative and mediated cases, I rarely have to deal with child support enforcement... so would love to hear the expertise from this group on the following question:

Dad is about $40k behind on child support. Mom has asked DCS to enforce, but she periodically has the enforcement suspended (e.g. Dad loses his license, says he has a new job but needs license to work, and he'll pay more on the past due amount if Mom will help him reinstate license).

Mom knows that Dad will receive an inheritance from his mom (Grandma) in the next 10 years or so (real property likely worth over $100k), and she wants the kids' back support to be paid with those funds. Mom and Dad are pretty amicable, despite Dad's inability to hold a job or support the kids, so we think Dad is likely to sign off on most any reasonable agreement. My first thought was a promissory note secured by a deed of trust against Grandma's property, but we're hoping not to have to involve Grandma if possible.

We're trying to find a creative solution that minimizes court action but provides some security for this debt. I welcome your ideas and assume that many of you have come up with some good approaches to similar situations? Thanks in advance, and happy Labor Day weekend!

Notice the invitation. Notice the vulnerability. Notice the honesty. Notice the desire to meet the clients where they are trying to find a resolution that met the goals and interests of the clients. This is a person existing within the Paradigm Shift.

And what response do you think she received from the larger legal community? Here is a sample post:

. . . . 

Put bluntly, "focusing" one's practice on "collaborative and mediated cases" is not an excuse for not understanding some basic principles. The case cited below has numerous "red flags" that every family law practitioner should spot immediately: 

1) Dad is $40K behind on child support! Taking into account the facts set out, Dad may not live long enough to pay off $40K. DCS is usually willing to enter agreements for as low $100+/- per month. Even at double that, it will take 200 months to pay off (without interest!) - well, anyone can do the math. Then it's said that Dad keeps losing his license (I assume due to DCS enforcement action after he loses a job). He then strings Mom along to help him out. She goes along with it. THIS GUY IS A DEADBEAT. HE BELONGS IN JAIL NOT IN A COLLABORATIVE OR COOPERATE ENVIRONMENT WHERE HE CAN MANIPULATE HIS WAY OUT OF A PROBLEM YET AGAIN. 

2) Mom is not on the same playing field as Dad. If she were, he would have been in jail, or threatened with it, long ago. THOSE WHO CAN "GET WITH THE PROGRAM" BY BEGGING OR BORROWING A SUBSTANTIAL SUM (OR REACHING INTO THEIR OWN POCKET FOR ONCE) TEND TO DO SO WHEN THE JAILHOUSE DOOR LOOMS, OR SHORTLY AFTER CROSSING THE THRESHOLD.** 

. . . 

Note how you feel after reading that response, which was one of several similar posts. Next, I dove in with two feet, and my heart, and wrote, in part

. . . .

What your post highlights for me is a perceived schism in our legal community on how to approach conflict / problems. 

. . . . . 

I side in the middle, that I wish the schism did not exist as life would be a lot more peaceful and knowing that there is not just one way to approach conflict.

. . . . 

I think what [the poster] is laying out for us to consider is a different scenario, that I admittedly am creating a narrative for:

While the money is important, it is more important for Mom to maintain an amicable relationship with her ex. Perhaps this is for the children’s benefit so they do not see their Mom having their Dad thrown in jail as a deadbeat Dad. Perhaps she does not want to create that legacy for her family now and future generations and she wants the children to see their Dad as imperfect, and still their Dad.

Perhaps the family is religious and their faith helps them with their understanding that we are all imperfect, that we all make mistakes, and that money is not as important as treating a human being as a human being, rather than as an enemy to be forced to be something they are not.

Perhaps the Mother is independently wealthy, does not really need the money, and the need for her is for the Dad to eventually live up to his obligations so that the children will know that their Dad thought enough about them that, though late, he lived up to his obligation.

Perhaps Mom does not trust the court system. Maybe she, a friend or family member went to court and experienced injustice.

And so on.

Thinking there is only “one way” to address conflict is limiting, not liberating.

….

Again, notice how you feel when you read my post. What does it feel like to let go of the constraints of limiting your thinking? And to be curious?

Let’s go back to the listserv and find out what happened next. Here was the response to my post, again in part:

I have to agree with [the first responder] on this one. . . . . For the guy to be $40,000 in arrears is the very definition of a deadbeat dad. The solution suggested is good for dad, but does little for mom, or, more importantly, the kids. Dad, who obviously hasn't paid support for a while, wants to put off paying even longer. How does that benefit the kids now? And if grandma wants to help, she can pay now. If she doesn't, that shows she wants her son to take responsibility for his own problems, or she believes she might need her assets for herself in the future. Either way, dad needs to come up with a way to pay now, not later. Mom would be compromising by not asking that he be put in jail so long as he agrees to pay a reasonable amount, and so long as he fulfills that agreement. No excuses should be accepted. And I agree with {the first responder’s] assessment that dad has manipulated Mom. If not, how did he become $40,000 behind without going to jail in the past?

Again, check in with what you are feeling. How do you feel when you read the poster’s use of words of war like “deadbeat dad”, “No excuses”, “dad has manipulated Mom”, and so on.

Does the truth matter? I think it does as we need something to measure those reactions in ourselves to what we experience so that we understand the internal language inherent in Collaboration. Our responses to what we experience in our work. Returning to the person who posted the original query, the answer is:

Thanks to everyone who shared ideas on this. To clarify, for those interested… Mom absolutely would never seek to have Dad put in jail, as he is close to the kids and a good dad in other ways; he has some learning disabilities and other challenges that prevent him from holding down a job so is “self-employed” and living for free with HIS mom. Mom, my client, is remarried and has plenty of assets to provide for the kids; she is pursuing this more as a matter of principle, in the event that Dad does inherit funds down the road. She is hoping to come up with a creative reasonable approach, not a judicial / punitive one. This is not a collaborative case, as Dad has no attorney, so we’re simply exploring some options in a pretty un-winnable situation.

One reason I appreciate collaborative law is that, instead of using court action as the default, collaborative lawyers tend to think of court as the last resort – only justifying the time, fees, and adversarial approach when we cannot come up with other solutions that meet the parties’ goals (or when one party will not commit to using a collaborative process and lawyer). In my experience, we almost always can reach fair agreements, usually well within the norms of expected court outcomes. We spend far less time on court process, and the clients (with their lawyers’ support and advice) work together to address both of their needs and goals. In my experience, it’s not touchy-feely or kumbaya; it’s a high-powered conflict-resolution approach, rooted in the principles developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project and used in all sorts of diplomacy and negotiation around the world. All good collaborative lawyers I know are well-versed in the law and judicial options, we just choose not to rely on those primarily. In this case, if my client had wanted to bring out the big guns with threats to toss dad into jail, I would’ve quickly referred the case to another lawyer who has more expertise and interest in that approach.

I’m glad to have this resource and connection with so many lawyers working hard to serve clients well, albeit in different ways! Thanks for the good conversation.

CONCLUSION

We can read, study and talk all we want about the Paradigm Shift and still it remains elusive. My hope is that reading this post, and the exchange of professionals contained herein, helped you to FEEL the Paradigm Shift. A difference of experiencing the concept in your head, and in your heart. Once you know how it feels, you know it when you are there. Do you grok?