Getting a divorce without going to war
KATHLEEN HOPKINS/STAFF WRITER
Asbury Park Press

For many people, divorce is synonymous with warfare. There's battling over children, and haggling over personal belongings. And in the end, all the parties often have to show for their turmoil are huge bills from their attorneys.
But a consortium of divorce attorneys practicing in Ocean and Monmouth counties is doing things differently.
Its clients agree not to battle in court. Instead, they sit down with a group of professionals to work out amicable settlements beneficial to both parties and their children.
The professionals may include counselors for the divorcing couple and their children, and accountants and financial planners to recommend how to split their assets and determine any alimony.
The result: The divorcing couple, instead of a judge, have control over the settlement and often walk away friends instead of bitter enemies.
In fact, an attorney who co-founded the group, Linda L. Piff of Wall, even had a divorcing couple reconcile during this process something she said she has never seen happen during more than 20 years of practicing traditional divorce law.
Close to two years ago, Piff was just finishing a bitter, protracted divorce battle when she and her adversary came to a realization.
"We didn't really help these people," Dover Township divorce attorney Jeff J. Horn said of the couple he and Piff had just represented in their divorce.
So, Horn and Piff put down their swords and embarked on a venture to change the way divorce is done in New Jersey.
They formed the Jersey Shore Collaborative Law Group a consortium of attorneys that, with an interdisciplinary team of professionals, helps divorcing couples forge amicable agreements without going to court.
The process, known as collaborative law, was developed in 1989 by Stuart Webb, a divorce attorney in Minnesota. Only in recent years has it been gaining momentum throughout most of the United States, according to the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals.
Although it has been practiced in California for about 10 years and was introduced in New York about six years ago, collaborative law is new to New Jersey. The New Jersey Judiciary's Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics just issued an opinion in December allowing divorce attorneys to participate in it something that Piff and Horn spent about 18 months lobbying for.
Quicker, less expensive In collaborative law, the divorcing couple must first agree to settle their case without going to court.
Collaborative law differs from mediation, in which an impartial person is brought in to forge a settlement. In collaborative law, the divorcing parties have their attorneys and other professionals working together toward a settlement.
Those who give them advice during settlement discussions may include accountants, financial planners and mortgage brokers, as well as mental health professionals who help them and their children through the process.
The process is usually quicker about three to six months, compared with 18 months to several years for a traditional divorce, Piff says. As a result, the collaborative process is less costly than a traditional divorce because the parties are not wasting countless hours of attorneys' time fighting over things sometimes as mundane as a Farberware pot (the object of much contention and cost in one of Piff's traditional divorce cases), Piff says.
Piff estimated that her clients may save about 35 percent of the cost of a traditional divorce by going through a collaborative divorce, although other attorneys say the savings can vary on a case-by-case basis.
But more importantly, say the professionals involved in the process, the divorcing couple and their children are less likely to come away harmed because they are not pitting themselves against each other in all-out warfare.
"Litigation is polarizing. It's like war," Point Pleasant Beach divorce attorney VincentDeLuca, a member of the Jersey Shore Collaborative Law Group, said of the traditional divorce process.
Susan Hansen, a Milwaukee divorce attorney who is president of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, said of the collaborative process, "It focuses on the emotional aspect of divorce and how to lessen the damage of the process itself."
The International Academy of Collaborative Professionals is a group of some 2,500 lawyers and other professionals practicing collaborative divorce law.
"It assists parents in learning how to co-parent, and it gives the children a voice," Hansen said of the process.
Manasquan counselor Mary McCarthy, who is a member of the Jersey Shore Collaborative, said children of divorcing parents often suffer in a traditional divorce.
"A child, in the litigation process, is alone . . . and also feels he's very shamed by it," McCarthy said.
Mental-health professionals available in a collaborative divorce can advocate for the child, McCarthy said.
Meanwhile, forensic accountants and financial planners can help determine the value of property and businesses and work out agreeable alimony arrangements, Piff said.
The only time a divorcing couple goes to court during the collaborative process is to finalize the agreement they have forged with the assistance of their attorneys and the other professionals.
Successful outcomes "It's one of the sanest ways of going through this," said Maryann Ker, 57, of Neptune, a client of Piff who recently ended her 27-year marriage through the collaborative process.
"There is a tremendous amount of emotions and psychological feelings when you're going through this," said Ker, who has two grown children from her recently dissolved marriage.
The professionals involved in the collaborative law process "make it so much easier because you're looking at the big picture instead of nitpicking," said Ker, a retired schoolteacher.
The agreement reached between Ker and her ex-husband has allowed her ex-spouse to stay in their marital home, while she received a partial financial settlement and holds a mortgage.
Ker said she opted for the collaborative method because "I did not want it to be a battle," she said.
"If you want to fight, you're not going to want to go collaborative," Ker said. "But certain people who want their lives sane will go this way."
Sandra Morgan Little, an Albuquerque, N.M., divorce attorney who is a former chairwoman of the American Bar Association's family law section, said she is a big supporter of collaborative law because it allows attorneys to be problem solvers instead of adversaries.
"This is a whole new paradigm that allows creativity from the lawyers, as well as the (divorcing) parties," Little said.
Such creativity has left John Biruk, 59, an Oyster Creek nuclear power plant worker who lives in Manchester, with enough resources to purchase a home and continue his hobby of working on antique cars after divorcing his wife of 28 years.
The divorce agreement between the Biruks through the collaborative process called for a disproportionate distribution of assets to his wife, and lower alimony payments by him so that he can meet his bills and continue his hobby.
It was individually tailored to meet their needs, said Horn, John Biruk's attorney.
"If they left their case to the court, the judge would have hurt both of them," Horn said. "The judge is not going to give him money to work on antique cars."
Said Biruk: "If you go to court, the judge is making the decisions instead of you. It's better if the two of you (the divorcing parties) are making the decisions."
The day after Biruk's divorce was finalized, he went out to dinner with his ex-wife to celebrate his birthday, he said. They remain friends, he said. In fact, she accompanied him when he was interviewed, although she declined to comment.
Some see disadvantages The professionals warn, however, that the collaborative process is not for everyone, especially divorcing couples bent on a fight.
And some divorce attorneys, while not highly critical of the process, say they would not be comfortable giving up their right to go to court for a client if a settlement couldn't be reached.
"I find it difficult to imagine saying, "I will never go to court on this case,' " said John DeBartolo, a Red Bank divorce attorney who is a past president of the Monmouth County Bar Association and former chair of the state Bar Association's family law section.
"I like to know I can offer to my client the option of going to court if all else fails," he said.
A pitfall of collaborative law is that if the parties cannot reach a settlement and wish to go to court, their attorneys must withdraw from the case and be replaced by new attorneys, which some say would pose an unexpected, added cost. The collaborative attorneys would be required to withdraw in the event of a stalemate, under court guidelines, so that any information garnered through the collaborative process could not be used against either of the parties in an adversarial process.
"It seems to me it's a double expense," said Ivette Alvarez, present chairwoman of the state Bar Association's family law section, who added that divorce attorneys for the most part already try to forge settlements out of court.
But Horn of the Jersey Shore Collaborative Group said the collaborative process, instead of seeking to settle only after a lengthy battle, starts the settlement talks at the beginning of the process.
"Literally, one percent of cases are tried to conclusion," Horn said of divorce cases in the state. "They start litigating, they do battle, and right before they are about to kill each other, they put their swords down and settle. We try to settle your case while you still have some life in you."