In 2011 the American Bar Association's (ABA) House of Delegates (HOD) voted against endorsing the Uniform Collaborative Law Act (UCLA) drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law (NCCUSL). In 2024 the ABA HOD reversed position and endorsed the UCLA. This article explores why and how the change came about and its implications for the future of collaborative law. Collaborative Law is a dispute resolution process in which lawyers represent clients for a limited purpose—to negotiate settlement of a dispute. Parties and their counsel sign a participation agreement which requires counsel to disqualify him or herself from representation in litigation if the collaborative law process terminates short of settlement. The purpose of the disqualification provision is to focus the parties and counsel on formulating solutions to problems rather than threatening adversarial proceedings to resolve negotiation impasse. Collaborative law was first developed and is most used in divorce and custody disputes where problem solving negotiations are particularly important to the welfare of parents and children. In 2011, when NCCUSL first presented the UCLA to the ABA's HOD for endorsement, opponents (mostly litigators) characterized collaborative law as “unethical” because it created an alleged conflict of interest between lawyer and client. Opponents also characterized the UCLA as a threat to the independence of the legal profession as it was regulation by legislation rather than court rule. In 2024, the ABA HOD reversed its 2011 decision and endorsed the UCLA. By then over a majority of the states adapted the UCLA despite the ABA's 2011 disapproval. State enactments reflected greater public and lawyer acceptance of ADR in divorce and custody disputes. Another essential factor in the ABA ‘s change of heart was dedicated advocacy within the organization by committed members of the Section on Dispute Resolution. This article makes recommendations for the future integration of collaborative law into the mainstream of dispute resolution including more state enactments for the UCLA, expansion of collaborative law to fields in addition to family law and integration into legal education.

Abstract This chapter proposes a planning process for family dispute resolution’s (FDR’s) integration into a community-based dispute resolution system for separating and divorcing families. FDR’s proven worth includes facilitating family self-determination, conserving family emotional and economic resources, and serving the best interests of children by encouraging parents to problem-solve rather than recriminate. FDR saves judicial resources by removing cases from the court and diverting them to more appropriate dispute resolution forums. It has gained wide acceptance in the legal community and with stakeholders, yet FDR activities remain isolated entities, underfunded and underutilized. This chapter gives examples of successful integrated planning for FDR at national, state, and local levels; describes the phases and objectives for the planning process to ensure that every family has access to high-quality FDR, and articulates the judge’s leadership role in facilitating its success.

Family Court ReviewVolume 62, Issue 2 p. 267-269 EDITOR'S NOTE Here's to you, Peter Salem! Barbara A. Babb, Corresponding Author Barbara A. Babb [email protected] University of Baltimore School of Law (Emerita), Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America Correspondence Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorRobert Emery, Robert Emery University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this authorJanet Johnston, Janet Johnston San Jose State University, San Jose, California, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this authorMarsha Kline Pruett, Marsha Kline Pruett orcid.org/0000-0002-1693-8373 Smith College School of Social Work, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Hofstra University Maurice A Deane Law School, Hempstead, New York, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this author Barbara A. Babb, Corresponding Author Barbara A. Babb [email protected] University of Baltimore School of Law (Emerita), Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America Correspondence Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorRobert Emery, Robert Emery University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this authorJanet Johnston, Janet Johnston San Jose State University, San Jose, California, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this authorMarsha Kline Pruett, Marsha Kline Pruett orcid.org/0000-0002-1693-8373 Smith College School of Social Work, Northampton, Massachusetts, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this authorAndrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Hofstra University Maurice A Deane Law School, Hempstead, New York, United States of AmericaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 28 February 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12777Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume62, Issue2April 2024Pages 267-269 RelatedInformation

Hofstra's Law School's Family Law with Skills Course (FLWS) incorporates experiential education into an introductory family law course. This article describes FLWS' recent experiential curricular innovations: (1) a transition to online learning; (2) the Navigator Program in which students provide legal information (in contrast to legal advice) to self-represented litigants in divorce actions; (3) a forum with leadership from the divorce bar nationwide that introduces law students to the nature and future of family law practice; and (4) a divorce representation simulation in which law students counsel a client with consulting help from a psychologist, asset valuator and dispute resolution expert. This article describes the contribution each of these innovations makes to the education of family law students and how they are organized. It concludes that experiential education should be part of the education of future family lawyers in the interests of improving the quality of the representation they provide and their commitment to the field.

Collaborative Law (CL) is a dispute resolution process increasingly used in family law and divorce designed to encourage problem solving negotiations by parties represented by counsel. Many states have adapted legislation to authorize and facilitate CL and thousands of lawyers have been trained in the CL process. CL lawyers and participants sign a Participation Agreement in which they agree that the lawyers will be disqualified if the CL process terminates without settlement. They also promise full and voluntary disclosure of information. The extent of the obligation of disclosure is, however, unclear. Through analysis of an extended hypothetical divorce settlement negotiation, this article advocates that CL lawyers and clients should assume an obligation to disclose material facts without a request from the other side. Traditional legal ethics, based on an adversarial framework, requires only disclosure of information when requested by another party. In addition, in traditional legal ethics, a lawyer cannot disclose information obtained in the course of the lawyer‐client relationship without the client's consent even if material to the negotiation. Some authority regulating CL, however, suggests that CL participants and counsel should disclose material information without a specific request even if a client does not want the information disclosed. In that situation, the CL lawyer should encourage the client to disclose the information but if the client refuses to do so, withdraw from the representation. This Article reviews the arguments for and against an obligation of affirmative disclosure in CL. It suggests that affirmative disclosure obligations should be the subject of discussion between CL participants and lawyers and that CL Participation Agreements should be drafted to establish a clear obligation. Finally, this article identifies key areas for further discussion and research on CL disclosure obligations.

Models of lawyering in separation and divorce disputes are evolving to emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration, problem solving, alternative dispute resolution, and changes in legal education that reflect these changes in practice. At the University of Denver's Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families (Center), supervised law and mental health graduate students worked as a team to provide assessment and service planning, mediation, therapy, and agreement drafting to parents. Evaluation results showed client satisfaction, and that students acquired new knowledge, skills, and values in line with a collaborative, problem‐solving orientation. Strengths and weaknesses of the model are considered.

Family Court ReviewVolume 56, Issue 4 p. 626-650 New York Matrimonial Summit Report Changing Matrimonial Practice in 21st- Century New York: A Report of the 2017 Matrimonial Bar Summit† J. Herbie DiFonzo, J. Herbie DiFonzoSearch for more papers by this author J. Herbie DiFonzo, J. Herbie DiFonzoSearch for more papers by this author First published: 21 October 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12381Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume56, Issue4October 2018Pages 626-650 RelatedInformation

Family Court ReviewVolume 56, Issue 1 p. 13-14 Special Tributes to J. Herbie DiFonzo Herbie DiFonzo—Mensch Extraordinaire Andrew Schepard, Andrew SchepardSearch for more papers by this author Andrew Schepard, Andrew SchepardSearch for more papers by this author First published: 30 January 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12317Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume56, Issue1January 2018Pages 13-14 RelatedInformation

Family Court ReviewVolume 56, Issue 3 p. 434-436 Siben & Siben Symposium Introduction to the Siben & Siben Lecture and Commentary: Interdisciplinary Teamwork in the Family Practice Andrew Schepard, Corresponding Author Andrew Schepard Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Correspondence: Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.eduSearch for more papers by this author Andrew Schepard, Corresponding Author Andrew Schepard Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Correspondence: Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.eduSearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 July 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12359Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume56, Issue3July 2018Pages 434-436 RelatedInformation

The Interdisciplinary Resource Center for Separating and Divorcing Families at the University of Denver described in the Honoring Families Initiative's Family Law Bar Report provides a suite of holistic services tailored to the individual needs of families with children. Services provided include assessment and service planning, legal education, dispute resolution (mediation), agreement and order drafting, therapeutic services, and financial planning. As established by a rigorous empirical evaluation, parents and children appreciate and benefit from these coordinated, holistic services. The Center experience gives evidence of the value of interdisciplinary collaboration. It is our hope that the Family Law Bar will be inspired to promote the development of Centers throughout the country and promote changes in legal regulation and education to facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations for the benefit of separating and divorcing families.

Family Court ReviewVolume 54, Issue 4 p. 543-546 Editorial Note October 2016 Andrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Editor Emeritus, Family Court Review Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York 11549Search for more papers by this author Andrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Editor Emeritus, Family Court Review Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York 11549Search for more papers by this author First published: 19 October 2016 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12240Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume54, Issue4October 2016Pages 543-546 RelatedInformation

Family Court ReviewVolume 53, Issue 2 p. 199-202 Editorial Notes April 2015 Andrew I. Schepard, Andrew I. Schepard Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law, Editor [email protected] Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, 11549 Family Court Review, Hempstead, New York, 11549Search for more papers by this authorRobert E. Emery, Robert E. Emery Professor of Psychology, Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law, Associate Editor [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904 Family Court Review, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904Search for more papers by this author Andrew I. Schepard, Andrew I. Schepard Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law, Editor [email protected] Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, 11549 Family Court Review, Hempstead, New York, 11549Search for more papers by this authorRobert E. Emery, Robert E. Emery Professor of Psychology, Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law, Associate Editor [email protected] Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904 Family Court Review, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904Search for more papers by this author First published: 17 April 2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12141Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume53, Issue2Special Issue: Parenting Time and Co‐Parenting for Unmarried ParentsApril 2015Pages 199-202 RelatedInformation

Family Court ReviewVolume 53, Issue 1 p. 1-5 Editorial Notes January 2015 Andrew I. Schepard, Andrew I. Schepard Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law, Editor, Family Court Review Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Maurice A. Deane Hofstra University, School of Law, 121 Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, 11549Search for more papers by this authorRobert E. Emery, Robert E. Emery Professor of Psychology, Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law, Associate Editor, Family Court Review ree@services.virginia.edu Department of Psychology, University of Virginia PO Box 400400, 102 Gilmer Hall, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904Search for more papers by this author Andrew I. Schepard, Andrew I. Schepard Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law, Editor, Family Court Review Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Maurice A. Deane Hofstra University, School of Law, 121 Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, 11549Search for more papers by this authorRobert E. Emery, Robert E. Emery Professor of Psychology, Director of the Center for Children, Families, and the Law, Associate Editor, Family Court Review ree@services.virginia.edu Department of Psychology, University of Virginia PO Box 400400, 102 Gilmer Hall, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22904Search for more papers by this author First published: 16 January 2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12125Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume53, Issue1January 2015Pages 1-5 RelatedInformation

Family Court ReviewVolume 53, Issue 3 p. 355-356 Editorial Notes July 2015 Andrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Director, Center for Children, Families and the Law Editor, Family Court Review, 121 Hofstra University Hempstead, New York 1159Search for more papers by this author Andrew Schepard, Andrew Schepard Andrew.I.Schepard@hofstra.edu Max Schmertz Distinguished Professor of Law at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Director, Center for Children, Families and the Law Editor, Family Court Review, 121 Hofstra University Hempstead, New York 1159Search for more papers by this author First published: 14 July 2015 https://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12155Citations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume53, Issue3July 2015Pages 355-356 RelatedInformation