Collaborative Law Act in Pennsylvania needs Sponsor

The “Collaborative Law Act,” which would amend Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure) of Pennsylvania statutes, is currently searching for a sponsor in the state legislature. The Act has been endorsed by the Pennsylvania Bar Association, but still needs a state legislator to introduce it in Harrisburg.

While it is legal to practice Collaborative Law in Pennsylvania, the Act would regulate and specify Collaborative procedures, which in turn would make Collaborative Law more consistent across the state.

The result, when enacted, would hopefully increase consumer confidence in the relatively new manner of resolving divorces and other family law matters by agreeing to stay out of court.

Collaborative Law, as a general concept and international practice, has been around for about 25 years. State by state, legislatures have slowly begun to accept and codify this practice, which is unique in that it allows parties to legally settle domestic relations conflicts outside the typical rules of judicial procedure. For instance, the rules of Discovery, or the request of documents from the opposing party, would not apply. Instead, the Collaborative parties themselves would determine what documents or information is relevant to the discussion and how to obtain them.

The Pennsylvania Collaborative Law Act would also clarify the rules of participation in the process. A key component of Collaborative Law is the initiating contract, in which both sides and their lawyers agree to stay out of court. The Act clarifies that, if Collaboration fails, neither lawyer NOR ANY OTHER LAWYER IN THEIR FIRM can then represent either party in litigation. It also specifies what parts of domestic law still apply, in spite of a Collaborative contract, such as professional and ethical behavior of attorneys, reporting child abuse and criminal behavior.

The passage of the Pennsylvania Act would make into law the basic precepts that drive the Collaborative process: free will involvement of parties, freedom within the process to sidestep some aspects of judicial procedure, and built-in motivators to stay out of court (such as having to pay for an entirely new lawyer to begin litigation).