Page 20 - Tacoma-Pierce County Lawyer Magazine - September October 2018

UCLA – RCW 7.77 – Five Years Later
“Cooperative Law” is NOT a Substitute for Collaborative Law
By Leslie Bottimore
The Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA) – RCW 7.77 - was enacted on July 1, 2013 in Washington State, the seventh (7th) state in the United States to adopt
the UCLA. A total of seventeen (17) states and Washington, D.C. have now adopted the UCLA. In 2018 the UCLA was introduced in three (3) additional states: Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Tennessee. See Uniform Law Commission – www.uniformlaws.org.
The UCLA de nes the Collaborative Law process as follows:
(3) "Collaborative Law process" means a procedure intended to resolve a Collaborative matter without intervention by a tribunal in which persons:
(a) Sign a Collaborative Law Participation Agreement; and
(b) Are represented by Collaborative lawyers. RCW 7.77.010(3).
Long before the UCLA, in 1990, collaborative law began in Minnesota with Stu Webb – the father of collaborative law. Stu Webb is revered as the founder of Collaborative Law and was widely celebrated in 2015 at the IACP Forum in Washington, D.C., and the 25th Anniversary Celebration of Collaborative Law.
As I write this article, I am inspired by having just visited
San Francisco and the bay area, California, the seat of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP), established in the late 1990s by Pauline Tesler. I recall my rst of eight IACP Forums and Institutes, in 2011, in San Francisco, California. is fall, the IACP Annual Forum will be held in our own backyard, Seattle, Washington. Come one – come all! IACP is an international community of legal, mental health and nancial professionals working in concert to create client- centered processes for resolving con ict. Today IACP has thousands of members from twenty-four (24) countries around the world, including the US, Canada, South America, Australia, Britain, Europe, Africa and Asia.
Collaborative law has been practiced in Pierce County since 2006, with the formation of the Collaborative Law Professionals of Pierce County (CLPPC). Past Presidents include the following: Felicia Malsby Soleil, omas A. Cena, Stephen W. Fisher, Tammis F. Greene, Teena Johnson, Leslie R. Bottimore, Lynn Johnson, Wendy E. Zicht, Wendy M. Rawlings (MS Psychology), and Peggy Fraychineaud Gross. Phyllis Duncan Souza (MSW, LICSW) is the current President.
Collaborative law has been practiced in King County, Washington, since 2003, with the formation of King County Collaborative Law (KCCL). With the assistance of CLPPC and others from all around Washington State, KCCL was instrumental in the passage of the UCLA.
e statewide umbrella organization – Collaborative
Professionals of Washington (CPW) was formed in 2007. All of these organizations require education in collaborative law to become a member, and continuing education in collaborative law to stay a member.
RCW 7.77.120 requires provision of su cient information about all options of dispute resolution - informed consent. Similarly, all of us lawyers – not just collaborative lawyers – are required by our Rules of Professional Responsibility to provide for informed consent. See RPC 1.0A(e), RPC 1.4, and RPC 2.1.
Collaborative law has no substitute. While many matters require litigation – and the court and judicial o cers are essential – and while other matters may be submitted to other forms of dispute resolution – such as arbitration, traditional negotiation, evaluative mediation, settlement conference,
or facilitative mediation – “cooperative law” does not exist.
e term “cooperative law” is not de ned by any statute, civil rule, or local court rule. e term “cooperative law” is also sometimes referred to as “collaborative-like” or “collaboresque.” Whatever the term or intention, “cooperative law” is not a substitute for collaborative law.
I am reminded of the tale of e Emperor’s New Clothes by Hans Christian Andersen – 1837 – with the moral of a falsehood accepted by all as true until an innocent and brave child points out the reality. We need to see the reality.
As collaborative lawyers, we are challenged to make a paradigm shi . “ e paradigm shi refers to the alteration
in consciousness whereby lawyers retool themselves from adversarial to collaborative lawyers.” See Collaborative Law by Pauline Tesler – 2001. With the recent Swearing In Ceremony with new lawyers being sworn into practice, it is tting to refer to a “new” way of practicing law – collaborative law. Traditionally, lawyers are associated with con ict – not with con ict resolution.
If they are not to be left behind in the change process, the legal profession as a whole needs to take seriously the changing expectations of service, especially demands for value for money, the open provision of information, and timelines that keep pace with real-life needs and deadlines, which are replacing traditional assumptions of deference to a professional advisor. If lawyers are to rise to the challenge of moving with the times, they must be willing to open up and reappraise some of the “sacred texts” of lawyering, including the devotion to zealous advocacy, the drift toward adversarialism, and the primacy of rights-based dispute resolution processes. It is not enough to change the structure
of con ict resolution processes nor to reorganize the business of lawyering to protect pro ts and growth. There is a need for a “new lawyer” with evolved beliefs and new habits of practice.
See e New Lawyer by Julie Macfarlane - 2008.
20 PIERCE COUNTY LAWYER | September/October 2018