When Collaborative Law came to Charleston more than twenty years ago, it offered families a fundamentally different way to divorce. Instead of beginning with a lawsuit, formal discovery, hearings and competing demands, divorcing spouses and their attorneys committed themselves to solving problems together outside the courtroom.

Today, that same basic philosophy continues through Cooperative Law and the Charleston Cooperative Family Law Association (CCFLA).

So what is the difference?

Surprisingly little.

The Big Difference: What Happens if Negotiations Fail?

Traditional Collaborative Law contains what is sometimes called a disqualification or exclusionary provision. The spouses and their attorneys agree that the lawyers are retained solely for the Collaborative process. If negotiations break down and either spouse decides to litigate, both Collaborative attorneys must withdraw and the spouses retain new litigation counsel.

That remains a defining feature of Collaborative Practice as described by the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals (IACP).

Cooperative Law removes that requirement.

If Cooperative negotiations fail, the spouses aren't necessarily required to start over with new lawyers. Their existing attorneys may continue representing them if the dispute ultimately goes to Family Court.

That's an important distinction—but perhaps not the most important part of either process.

The Process Is What Matters

Look past the withdrawal provision and Collaborative and Cooperative Law are remarkably similar.

In both approaches, the objective is to resolve the family's problems rather than prepare immediately for battle. The parties commit to honest disclosure of relevant information, respectful communication and good-faith negotiation. Instead of relying automatically on expensive formal discovery and competing experts, information can be exchanged voluntarily and neutral financial, mental-health or other professionals can be brought in when appropriate.

Most importantly, the clients remain directly involved in creating the solution.

The current CCFLA Cooperative process specifically emphasizes open disclosure, respectful negotiation, privacy, protecting children from conflict and making a genuine effort to resolve disputes without unnecessary litigation.

Those principles will sound familiar to anyone who has practiced Collaborative Law. They are largely the same principles upon which Collaborative Practice was built.

Maybe the Label Isn't the Important Part

For years, considerable attention was paid to the Collaborative requirement that lawyers withdraw if negotiations failed. The theory was that removing litigation from the lawyers' toolbox changed the dynamics of negotiation.

There is considerable logic to that idea.

But experience with Cooperative Law suggests something broader: perhaps much of the success comes from the process itself.

Get the spouses and their lawyers into a room committed to solving problems. Exchange the financial information needed to make informed decisions. Identify everyone's real concerns. Bring in neutral professionals when they can help. Protect the children from the conflict. Negotiate solutions instead of threats.

And give the family every reasonable opportunity to resolve its own problems before asking a Family Court judge to make extraordinarily personal decisions for them.

Whether we call that Collaborative Law, Cooperative Law, mediation, negotiation—or something else—is less important than the objective.

After decades of handling family-law cases, my philosophy has become pretty simple:

Whatever works to avoid the harm that can be caused by family court conflict.