NJSBA Family Law Section

When you agree to take on a mediation case, in many instances, not all, you agree to represent a party who is angry, ready to blame, and cynical about the efficacy of any and all court related solutions. Many of these litigants have already spent all of their money on the failed adversarial process. The best way to avoid these collection problems is to not accept them or at least to perform a much more rigorous screening of potential clients. Maybe you should not accept mediation divorce cases where one or both of the parties exhibit virulent psychiatric problems. One has to reconsider the practice of accepting cases where there is no evident way for the party to pay the mediator.  The proponents of Collaborative Divorce Law claim that it is much less expensive than traditional approaches. As a new member of the IACP Research Committee, I plan to investigate this claim. I think many New Jersey divorces are vastly over priced and that this circumstance contributes to collection problems among other things.

Chris, I agree with you and Hanaan that it may be best not to participate in court appointed mediation.  In private mediation, I can accept a retainer upfront to avoid this.

I don't think my non-paying party has virulent psychiatric problems.  :)  I screen for domestic violence and other mental health issues in the first session.  If I thought a mediating party was mental, I wouldn't mediate

I'm not sure collaborative divorce or ADR is less expensive than divorce.  When you engage mediators and accountants and other professionals, you still should have an attorney to advise you on the legal aspects.  I don't see this as a way to reduce the cost of divorce, but as a way to forge a settlement that sticks because the parties are invested in it.

I think it is a generalization to say NJ divorces are overpriced.   I work with my clients to keep costs down and I know there are others on this list who do the same.  My hourly rate is very reasonable.  I do understand that parties in this position are going through financial hardship.  But I have clients who pay me on a monthly basis until their bill is paid and I don't have to chase them to do it.  I also have clients that accumulate large balances and where I am not able to leave the case because of court rules and these clients make absolutely no effort to pay.  No offer to do monthly payments, nothing.  In the mediation of my original post, I would accept monthly payments from this party, but she just ignored my billing.  That is offensive.  I should be paid for the work I do.  If these people who do not pay heard their bosses say, "Times are tough, I'm going to skip this week," that would not be acceptable.  So it is not acceptable for clients or mediating parties to say, "Times are tough, I'm not going to make any effort to pay you at all, I'm just going to ignore you."

By the way, this is not just a problem in family law.  I do appellate work for other attorneys and they stiff me, too.  I have a case I am going to take to court to collect on.

Happy New Year to all.

Clara
-------------------------------------------
Law Office of
Clara S. Licata, Esq.
55 Harristown Rd.
Suite 302
Glen Rock, NJ 07452
201-612-1170
Fax 201-612-1179
-------------------------------------------






Original Message:
Sent: 12-30-2011 15:43
From: Christopher Barbrack
Subject: Getting payment as a court-appointed mediator

When you agree to take on a mediation case, in many instances, not all, you agree to represent a party who is angry, ready to blame, and cynical about the efficacy of any and all court related solutions. Many of these litigants have already spent all of their money on the failed adversarial process. The best way to avoid these collection problems is to not accept them or at least to perform a much more rigorous screening of potential clients. Maybe you should not accept mediation divorce cases where one or both of the parties exhibit virulent psychiatric problems. One has to reconsider the practice of accepting cases where there is no evident way for the party to pay the mediator.  The proponents of Collaborative Divorce Law claim that it is much less expensive than traditional approaches. As a new member of the IACP Research Committee, I plan to investigate this claim. I think many New Jersey divorces are vastly over priced and that this circumstance contributes to collection problems among other things.