Imagine if you could play a key role in drafting your own divorce settlement without spending a day in a courtroom fretting that your fate lies in the hands of a judge.

This approach, advocated by lawyers from a movement called collaborative law, aims to resolve marital disputes instead of girding the parties for bruising custody battles and costly paper chases.

If the spouses and their lawyers agree beforehand to resolve all financial and custody issues in a series of candid, carefully planned four-way meetings, couples can save money while crafting creative solutions to disputes over alimony, child support and shared custody.

		Collaborative divorce by the numbers Who uses collaborative divorce? The answer appears to be college-educated professionals. Gay G. Cox, a Texas lawyer, belongs to the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals. Between last October and July 15, the California-based nonprofit collected data on 255 cases. Based on that sample, the average cost of a collaborative divorce was $19,630, but the median cost, which can be more meaningful because it's right in the middle, was $14,000. "Exceedingly expensive cases drive up the average," Ms. Cox said. Based on the case data, couples are likely to have met eight times for an average of two hours and concluded their divorce in less than seven months, Ms. Cox said. Usually, people who use collaborative divorce have a college education and are in their mid-40s. "Typically, the men earn at least $75,000 and the women earn $50,000. Typically, their marital estate is over $200,000," Ms. Cox said. Out of the sample, Ms. Cox said, "Eighty-eight percent of the total number of cases ended in a settlement agreement, while an additional 4 percent actually reconciled. The remaining cases were referred to lawyers who do traditional divorce litigation." In the sample, jurisdictions that reported more than 10 cases were British Columbia in Canada, California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, New York and Texas. Pennsylvania reported four cases. -- Marylynne Pitz

"It's revolutionary. You can resolve conflict without exacting revenge by working through the pain and the conflict. Collaborative law allows an opportunity to sit down and brainstorm," said Paula Hopkins, a Downtown lawyer who is president of the Collaborative Law Association of Southwestern Pennsylvania.

Her association, a 20-member group of lawyers trained in this technique, opened an office in March in the Frick Building.

Collaborative law began in 1990 after a Minnesota divorce lawyer, Stuart G. Webb, fed up after an especially ugly case, founded the movement. Among other places, collaborative lawyers practice in Canada, California, New York and Washington, D.C. The approach is also popular in Rochester, N.Y.; Cincinnati; Texas; and Arizona.

A survey of 255 recent cases conducted by the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals showed that the average cost of these divorce settlements was $19,630, and the median $14,000.

It's hard to compare these numbers to a traditional divorce because costs and laws vary by state. But, on average, a couple can spend $25,000 in legal fees alone, says attorney Alan Feigenbaum, author of "The Complete Guide to Protecting Your Financial Security When Getting a Divorce."

Collaborative lawyers strive to solve problems, not stir the pot.

They also pledge, in writing, not to represent their clients in traditional divorce litigation, creating a greater incentive for them to effect a resolution.

When this approach works, couples usually retain their privacy because the only legal documents that are filed with the court are a standard complaint and a formal divorce decree.

Even before a couple sit down with their lawyers, the four-way meeting is planned with a specific agenda. The first session is a kind of Divorce 101.

"We explain what the legal model is and what has happened in cases similar to theirs. We generate ideas. You can handcraft your own solution, and you don't have to wait two years," Ms. Hopkins said.

At that first meeting, a husband and wife sign an agreement where they pledge to be honest about their assets.

"Some people have adjourned and gone to marriage counseling," Ms. Hopkins said, adding that other couples have even reconciled.

But what's to prevent people from abusing this forum as an easy way of obtaining information, then reneging on their promise and shifting into full battle mode?

"Most people who invest emotional energy in the process and their time don't want to abandon the process in favor of litigation," Ms. Hopkins said.

Couples who use collaborative divorce set their own timetables and can tailor solutions to their individual circumstances.

James E. Mahood, a Downtown divorce lawyer, is not convinced that this new approach possesses any magic. He and another lawyer are settling a case that involves a $10 million marital estate, and the parties have never gone to court.

"Is collaborative law more successful in settling a case than two clients going to traditional lawyers in and of itself? No. If the parties want to reach an agreement, they will do it. Is there uncertainty in reaching an agreement? Sure. But there's also uncertainty in going to trial. You have maximum control when you reach an agreement," Mr. Mahood said.

Success stories

Constance P. Brunt, a divorce attorney in Harrisburg who has practiced collaborative law for five years, watched as one man, who wanted to divide the couple's assets equally, realized that split would not be fair to his wife.

The husband, a successful retired businessman, had owned a major company. His wife, a teacher, had not handled the couple's finances or worked outside the home in years but managed to land a job. Her husband agreed to pay a certified public accountant to analyze each of their financial needs.

"The financial person was able to give a presentation to all four of us with spreadsheets. He showed, very dispassionately, that she would run out of money when she was 72. You could just see the light bulb go on in the husband's head. He was able to see that 50-50 just wasn't a workable solution" and paid additional alimony, Ms. Brunt recalled.

In another case, a couple had a severely disabled adult child.

"They wanted to do some joint estate planning for the benefit of that child. The child was 23, living at home and had a lot of support services."

If this couple had engaged in a fully litigated divorce, Ms. Brunt said, the divorce court would have had no jurisdiction to deal with the child's needs except through a support order.

The couple hired two estate planning lawyers and used their joint assets and life insurance proceeds to fund a trust for their child.

Ms. Brunt concedes that this approach is not for everyone, especially when domestic abuse has occurred or there is an extreme power imbalance.

"In one case, the client would come in and talk to me, seem to be assertive and turned into Jell-O in the conference. I felt it was not in her best interests to stay in the process."

In addition, Ms. Brunt said, "If you've got someone who has mental health issues, that can make it very challenging and sometimes impossible to conclude a case."

Nattering naysayers

Plenty of lawyers reject this approach; Ms. Brunt believes she knows why.

"Lawyers aren't really good at change. Most law school training is geared toward ... attorneys acting as advocates for their clients and presenting cases to third-party decision makers and arguing about what the law should say about a particular situation."

To divide a couple's assets, judges weigh 11 factors. These criteria include the length of a marriage and whether either person was previously married. Judges also consider each person's age, health, skills, debts, sources of income and employability. Judges also look at each person's needs, contributions to the marital property, whether a person will take care of any dependent children, and the standard of living established during the marriage.

In collaborative divorce, lawyers are not bound solely by those criteria. It "really focuses on the participants themselves defining what issues are important to them and how they want to resolve them in a way that feels fair to them," Ms. Brunt said.

In some instances, wives might accept less support if their husbands offer help with transporting children to various activities.

"It's not something you can quantify -- maintaining a friendly relationship with the other parent," Ms. Brunt said, adding that the support guidelines in Pennsylvania are really a "one-size-fits-nobody formula."

One of the local group's members is Lawrence Kaplan, a senior judge and 29-year veteran of Allegheny County Common Pleas Court's Family Division. He believes collaborative law offers a better way to settle disputes about money and how much time parents see their children.

"Divorce, like anything else, is a trade-off. ... Someone may not end up with all that they think they want but obtain a resolution which they think is fair," the judge said.

In the end, Ms. Brunt believes, this approach is more efficient, far less confrontational and allows both parties to walk away from a marriage without suffering major wounds to their privacy, dignity or wallets.

"I always tell my clients that when the dust settles and you walk away from the table, you should walk away with more of your assets than the lawyers do."