January 15, 2026 | by Beverly A. Williams

Introduction

A few years ago, I was exposed to the concept of collaborative law and immediately recognized its possible application beyond family law matters. As a labor attorney, I recognized the similarities between resolving potentially acrimonious family matters and tense labor-relations and collective bar-gaining disputes.

This article reflects what I have learned about collaborative law. Hopefully, it will generate discussions that lead to its increased use in other civil disputes, particularly labor law matters.

Collaborative Law

Ending a marriage is one example of a stressful life-changing event for couples. Divorce attorneys representing them often experience frustration, burnout, disillusionment, and exposure to persistent rancor from clients and/or adversaries.

Such emotions are not typically associated with positive personal outcomes in one’s chosen profession. The non-traditional collaborative approach to divorce, however, more often aligns positive client outcomes with professional satisfaction.

Collaborative divorce, which evolved into collaborative law,1 was conceived in 1990 by Stuart G. Webb, a Minnesota family lawyer on the verge of retirement because of the negativity and aggression that all too often characterized his divorce cases.2 Reportedly, collaborative divorce experienced “remarkable growth”3 and became a movement that attracted global media attention.4

Instead of resignation, Webb designed a voluntary, novel team approach to divorce outside the purview of the court. Pauline H. Tesler of California,5 an early collaborative law proponent, describes the interdisciplinary team collaborative practice as “coaching for adults.”

Webb’s model fostered a more harmonious exchange between the parties and resulted in a less acrimonious end to marriage.6 The key elements of the collaborative law process are (1) voluntary participation; (2) commitment to transparency with participants communicating openly and honestly; (3) a team approach including collaborative professionals and/or mediators and arbitrators; and (4) confidentiality.

Collaborative divorce requires that the team execute a participation agreement before parties embark on the road to settlement. The participation agreement, which may be the most controversial aspect of Webb’s process, provides, among other things,7 that parties, their attorneys, and other team members agree to work toward a mutually beneficial settlement for the parties in good faith and constructively, maintaining confidentiality.8 If settlement is not forthcoming, team members must withdraw from representing the divorcing couple who then proceed with litigation to end the marriage.

Collaborative Law Methodology

Webb developed an eight-stage collaborative process for the emotion-charged transition from marriage through divorce that takes place outside the judicial system.9

Effective communication and active listening are essential components of the collaborative law modality. “Active listening is when you not only hear what someone is saying but are also attune to their thoughts and feelings. It turns a conversation into an active, non-competitive, two-way interaction.”10

The Eight-Stage Collaborative Process

1. Find and retain collaboratively trained attorneys.
2. Commence the divorce process.
3. Immediate problems should be addressed and resolved cost effectively during a four-way meeting.
4. In addition to the participation agreement provisions, the parties are obligated to exchange voluntarily all relevant documents and information and agree that any information provided will not be used in an adversarial manner.11All team members are required to sign the participation agreement.
5. Use of experts. Only neutral experts may be used on the collaboration team.
   • . . . The lawyers combine their efforts with trained and licensed mental health professionals, neutral financial consultants and, if needed, child specialists. Each client receives coaches specific to their needs or issues during the collaborative process, retained and paid separately by the clients. . . . 12
6. Negotiate a settlement. Common interests and goals are identified, and active listening and problem solving are employed to maximize the likelihood of settlement.
7. Obtain a final divorce decree. There are no trials or hearings in the collaborative process. The final agreement is signed by both parties and filed with the court.
8. Post-divorce issues are rare because of the active participation of the parties in setting the ground rules of the collaborative process. If issues arise that the parties cannot resolve, they can reconvene a four-way conference with their attorneys.

Collaborative Mediation

A hybrid or derivative of the collaborative divorce methodology and traditional mediation, collaborative mediation combines adaptable elements of both worlds. Inasmuch as collaborative mediation is customizable,13 it is uniquely adaptable for the needs and finances of the divorcing parties, and particularly suited to parties seeking resolution of other civil disputes. Thus, parties may adopt the elements of collaborative law and mediation that suit their circumstances.

The collaborative approach to divorce may serve as a starting point for its adaptation as an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) option of collaborative or team mediation in labor matters.

Labor-Management Relations

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which was enacted in 1935 and last amended in 1974,14 establishes a framework for labor-management relations. Despite the “good faith” bargaining requirement,15 the process, like divorce, has too often ignited discord, acrimony, work stoppages and devastating economic losses.

Employing a more collaborative approach to labor-management issues and processes may provide earlier and less costly resolutions.

The Labor-Management Conundrum

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that in 2024, 271,500 workers were involved in work stoppages.16 In 2023, 458,900 workers went on strike.17

The economic consequences are significant. For example, early estimates place the economic cost of the strike by the Writers Guild, Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists in 2023 at more than $6 billion and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs.18 The financial impact on production-heavy states like New York, California, and Georgia, their commerce, residents, and transient nonresidents may even exceed the estimated $6 billion.19

According to IMPLAN, a leading provider of economic impact data and analytical applications,

2023 saw a considerable uptick in strikes, with 33 major work stoppages – the highest in over two decades. Notably, these strikes involved nearly 459,000 workers, resulting in approximately 16.7 million days of lost work. Among these, the SAG-AFTRA strike, involving 160,000 actors and lasting four months, stood out as one of the most significant. . . .

The economic impact of the four-month SAG-AFTRA strike was profound. With over 160,000 workers participating, equivalent to 53,333 person-years of employment, the indirect and induced effects led to a staggering loss of 42,700 jobs and $10.5 billion in GDP.20
In 2023, major strike activity increased almost 300%.21 The tumult and uncertainty associated with labor disputes and the financial losses from which neither labor nor management recover serve no one.

Strikes should be a nuclear option, the option of last resort. They should be deployed when all other options have been explored and exhausted in genuine good faith.

Why not craft a collaborative law solution that embraces the “good faith” requirements embedded in collaborative law processes and the NLRA? Why not include their common elements such as maximizing open, honest communications, problem-solving, the use of neutral, collaborative experts, and the importance of maintaining a positive long-term relationship?

Collaboratively trained experts can have a significant impact on resolving labor disputes. If the team agrees, experts may confer, share, explain, and defend their findings and reports, and arrive at a compromise.

How Collaborative Law Might Be Used To Resolve Labor Disputes

In a pilot program, a collaborative approach could be used to resolve labor disputes, including collective bargainingnegotiations, before there is an impasse that leads to a strike. Participation in such a pilot program would be voluntary, and attorneys representing the parties would be trained in the collaborative law process and hired on a limited scope basis (limited to settlement negotiation and not encompassing litigation).

Alternatively, if the limited scope representation by counsel is not feasible, one or more collaboratively trained professionals could be engaged. Such person(s) would work with the parties and counsel either through a traditional collaborative law process or act as neutrals in a collaborative mediation approach before the parties sought other avenues with their respective counsel.

Other collaborative approaches may be in the offing as well. Before the parties embark on their collaborative journey, however, they must execute an agreement that lays out mutually agreed ground rules and may provide, among other things:

1. Good faith negotiations will be conducted.
2. How unanticipated issues that may arise will be resolved expeditiously.
3. Virtual platforms will be used to address and resolve matters that come up unexpectedly and require prompt resolution.
4. In the exchange of information, written questions asked and answers provided will be set forth clearly and simply.
5. How experts will present their written findings and reports.

Collective bargaining negotiations and labor strikes affect workers and their families, the quality and continuation of commerce generally, and business relationships. A collaborative approach could benefit all parties.

The incentives are to (1) reduce lost wages, jobs and lost profits the parties suffer because of work stoppages; (2) minimize workplace disruptions on consumers, employees, and the economy; and (3) mitigate the impact of lost wages on families.

Elements of Webb’s collaborative law methodology are now used to resolve commercial and business disputes, work-place complaints, and other civil disputes.22 Whether or not a collaborative law approach would have a positive effect on the labor-management dynamic is unknown. Given the possibilities, it’s worth exploring.

Endnotes

1. Katie Robinson, The Uniform Collaborative Law Act “regulates the use of collaborative law, a voluntary, client-driven form of alternative dispute resolution.”American Bar Association House of Delegates Approve Four Uniform Acts, Uniform Law Commission (Feb. 5, 2024).
2. Stuart G. Webb & Ronald D. Ousky, The Collaborative Way to Divorce, xv-xvi (2006).
3. Id. at xvii.
4. Id. See also, the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and the Global Collaborative Law Council.
5. Pauline H. Tesler is a family law specialist certified by California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization since 1985 and the author of Collaborative Divorce: The Revolutionary New Way to Restructure Your Family, Resolve Legal Issues, and Move on with Your Life (2006).
6. Stuart G. Webb & Ronald D. Ousky, The Collaborative Way to Divorce at xvi.
7. Id., Appendix A, at192.
8. Id. at 12
9. Id. at 196. After settlement is reached, the parties agree to file a joint petition with the court to commence a dissolution of the marriage proceeding.
10. Amy Gallo, What Is Active Listening?, Harvard Business Review (Jan. 2, 2024).
11. Wells and Ousky, supra n. 6 at 17-18.
12. Judges Love Collaborative Law – Here’s Why, American Bar Association at 3 (July 2018).
13. Adam B. Cordover, What Is Collaborative Mediation? Family Diplomacy, Family Diplomacy – A Collaborative Law Firm (Feb. 22, 2017) https://familydiplomacy.com/what-is-collaborative-mediation/.
14. The NLRA was amended in 1947 by the Labor Management Relations Act (Taft Hartley Act), in 1959 by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (Landrum-Griffin Act), and the 1974 Healthcare Amendments. National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § § 151 et seq.
15. Employers have a legal duty to bargain in good faith with their employees’ representative and to sign any collective bargaining agreement that has been reached. NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169; Section 8(d) & 8(a)(5).
16. Margaret Poydock and Jennifer Sherer, Major Strike Activity Increased by 280% in 2023, Economic Policy Institute (Feb. 21, 2024), https://www.epi.org/publication/major-strike-activity-in-2023. “The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines ‘major work stoppages’ as those involving at least 1,000 workers and lasting one full work shift between Monday–Friday, excluding federal holidays.
17. Id. A work stoppage is a strike or lockout.
18. Jake Coyle, Hollywood’s Strikes Are Over, But a Painful Industry-Wide Transition Isn’t, Associated Press (Nov. 10, 2023); Dawn Chmielewski, Danielle Broadway and Lisa Richwine, Hollywood Strikes Sap Economy as Industry Readies for Revamp, Reuters (Nov. 15, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/hollywood-strikes-sap-economy-industry-readies-revamp-2023-11-15/.
19. Ivana Saric, Hollywood Strikes Cost Cities and States Billions, AXIOS (Aug 3, 2023). https://www.axios.com/2023/08/03/hollywood-writers-actors-strikes-economic-impact.
20. Bjorn Markeson & Chandler West, While the Iron Is Hot: Examining the Economic Impact of 2023 Strikes, Implan Blog (Apr. 18, 2024). https://blog.implan.com/strike-analysis.
21. Poydock and Sherer, supra n. 16.
22. Johannah O’Connell, Don’t Settle for the Devil You Know: The Benefits of Using Collaborative Law Rather Than Litigation To Resolve Employment Disputes, 49 Ind. L. Rev. 533 (2016); David A. Hoffman, Collaborative Law in the World of Business, The Collaborative Review, vol. 6, no. 3, 1-10 (Winter 2003); Mary J. Juetten, Why Are Only Family Lawyers Using Collaborative Law?, American Bar Association Journal (Mar. 22, 2021), https://www.abajournal.com/columns/article/evaluating-collaborative-law-outside-of-matrimonial-matters.

Reprinted with permission from the New York State Bar Association © 2025.

About Wong Fleming

Wong Fleming is a nationally recognized, AV-Rated law firm that represents Fortune 500 companies and other corporate clients in the areas of Commercial Law, Corporate Asset Recovery, Creditors’ Rights and Bankruptcy, Employment and Labor Law, Environmental, Insurance Defense and Coverage, Intellectual Property, Immigration, Real Estate, and Premises and Product Liability. The firm maintains offices in the New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, California, Texas, Washington, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Canada, Mexico, and Germany.