Nonverbal Communication in Collaborative Law Divorce

This past weekend I attended the annual retreat of the Bucks County Collaborative Law Group, an association of like-minded lawyers, financial planners and Collaborative Law divorce coaches to which I belong. In a workshop at the retreat, I was struck by the power of nonverbal communication at the negotiating table. I also took note of the pitfalls of misinterpreted nonverbal cues.

Married couples tend to develop a shorthand way of interpreting each other’s nonverbal cues. The words may actually say “Ok, dear, I’ll do that for you,” but the tone, or the rolling of eyes, or even too rapid a response can set off a whirlwind of reaction that has little to do with the actual conversation. Outsiders, such as attorneys and divorce coaches sitting at the table, may not even see the nonverbal cue that set one spouse off and derailed the negotiations.

So, this past weekend, we set about understanding how to read these cues and manage them in the context of Collaborative Law Divorce negotiations.

As always at these retreats, we work to improve our skills so that you, the client, can get the very best results when you choose the Collaborative Law process for your divorce. Role playing is a regular feature of the retreat. We practice putting ourselves in your shoes and analyze ways to better handle or manage difficult roadblocks in conversation. In one workshop I noted how misreading the nonverbal cues of anyone at the negotiating table can lead to complicated and sometimes disastrous results.

For instance, consider the eyes. Workshop director Gorman Ruggiero, a seasoned actor and communication skills specialist, pointed out that you can only make eye contact with one person at a time. In Collaborative Law, you may have six or even seven people at the meeting. If you are making a point you consider very important, and no one of the other five or six persons is actually looking at you while you speak, it may send an unintended message that your point is unimportant to them. In reality, they may all be studiously taking notes to preserve your point. For some, though, the lack of eyes on them may be seriously offputting. This is a moment where nonverbal cues trumps reality.

Here’s another situation. Professionals, particularly those who work in and around the difficult emotions of divorce, often develop a kind of poker face, a gestural neutrality in order to sort through the objective details of your case. Ruggiero pointed out that too much blandness can actually be detrimental to the client if he or she does not feel heard or validated.

Another workshop, led by mediator Brad Heckman of the New York Peace Institute, emphasized some key elements that have to be present in negotiations for them to have a successful conclusion. One of these is the ability of each party to visualize a future without conflict and to identify what will make them happy. This struck a chord with me, as I have noticed that some clients use divorce as a way of processing the pain of the present, while others are able to clearly grasp a post-divorce future.

For instance, Husband A may come to me still mired in the emotions of a recently unraveling marriage. Understandably, the process of accusations and counter accusations can take up a lot of time and money. In essence, the two individuals are still in an active relationship and try to change or influence each other using the divorce process. This complicates discussions at the table. It is a primary reason Collaborative Law includes a divorce coach and, if needed, a child specialist, to keep both parties focused and on track toward a resolution.

On the other hand, Husband B may come to me after a long separation, ready to map out the future. Negotiations may still be difficult if there is disagreement, but at least one party now has the focus and vision that will allow them to make choices or compromises to get to that future. Often, one spouse is at this point and the other is not, particularly if the choice to divorce was not mutual. Still, if one party has a clear purpose, talks will almost always go more smoothly.

As a lawyer, I cannot influence what stage of emotional processing or what method of communication one spouse chooses to use with another. My role is first to protect my own client, then to negotiate effectively. Collaborative Law makes this process three-dimensional and, in my mind, more humane. You’ve heard talk about following “the letter of the law.” This weekend made me think about all the layers of meaning that lie behind words, depending on who delivers them and in what context.

Human relationships are complicated. Collaborative Law acknowledges this and offers a structure that keeps the process in the divorcing parties’ hands and out of the public courtroom. I came away from this past weekend convinced more than ever that Collaborative Law is a worthwhile investment in keeping your dignity intact and your private life private. As always, feel free to contact me if our offices can be of service to you in this way.