Jennifer Moshier
3001 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 130
Phoenix, AZ 85016
[email protected] I am overwhelmingly in favor of this. I am a practitioner in both Arizona and California. Collaborative law holds more popularity in California because of its accessibility. My clients living in California are usually aware of the option. Many people in Arizona are not aware of this option. Without uniformity, attorneys may not suggest this option to clients for a number of reasons. Society benefits from an informed consumer. To adopt the rule serves the public, because lawyers who advise clients would begin to be on notice of this option since it is a part of the rules. Lawyers would be more likely to have some burden of advising their prospective and current clients about this option. This would increase the numbers of lawyers who train to practice as collaborative lawyers. It also fosters more goodwill among attorneys. This would in turn would provide more available options for parties seeking to use this process. The process reduces the burdens on the courts, reduces the expenses of the parties and likely reduces overall legal fees. My view is that the reduced expense of the process will increase the public confidence in attorneys and make legal representation more accessible to the public because the fees are not so overwhelming. To advance the legal profession by increasing public confidence means more people will retain attorneys because there is greater trust in lawyers.
I have represented a number of clients in this process and their satisfaction level is high, even in very complex cases. I have also had a number of opposing parties reject the process, and this is nearly always when the opposing party has retained counsel who cannot practice collaborative law. To adopt the rules streamlines current processes and provides a clearer framework while also making it more likely that more attorneys will provide this valuable service.