by RICH CASSIDY on AUGUST 8, 2011
I am disappointed to report that today, the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates rejected Resolution 110B, which would have added ABA approval to the Uniform Collaborative Law Rules and Act. The vote was 294 No and 158 Yes.
The House cut off debate on the subject after hearing fewer than 10 speakers.
Opponents, led by Larry Fox, made two basic arguments: that UCLRA would tend to undermine judicial regulation of the practice of law, and that many vulnerable parties might be taken advantage of by litigants having more wealth. In particular opponents argued that women might be victimized by their wealthy spouses who might use Collaborative Law to deprive them of counsel by exhausting their financial resources.
There arguments are not persuasive to me. The fact is that as a Uniform Act, the UCLRA had to be in form appropriate for adoption in all the states (and there are a number of them where a legislature is firmly in control of the practice of law). And our Model Rules of Professional Conduct clearly rest on the fundamental idea that properly counseled clients can give informed consent.
Debate was cut off before I could speak, but I would have argued that collaborative law will go forward with or without ABA adoption of the Uniform Act and the critics of the collaborative law should have been glad to see its practice brought within well defined perimeters.
I must admit to being a bit perplexed by the result. As my previous posts on this subject reflect, the Uniform Law Commission listened to critics of the Act and revised it to meet the major criticisms. Still the revisions failed to convert — or even to silence — the critics.
Frankly, much of the opposition to the Act struck me as more reflexive than reflective.
In any event, this long saga is over, at least for now. In the end, I am afraid it will be the American Bar Association and not the collaborative law movement that will be harmed by the Houses’ action.
Rich