You mentioned that sometimes when looking at a case you decide that they might be a candidate for collaborative law. What makes you decide that? What indicators are there that someone may or may not be suited for the process?
DiGIROLAMO: Well, there are two sides to that coin as well. The most important thing that indicates that it is a good case is that my client, when I first meet with them, and hopefully their spouse, is committed to a reasonable resolution of the issues and is trying to work toward a continuing relationship after the process is over, rather than, let’s say, getting revenge for some wrong that they have suffered. Because, let’s face it, a lot of bad things can happen in intimate relationships and I would say if revenge is your motive, then you’re probably not going to be satisfied with the collaborative process. And on the other side of that coin, if you’ve got an abusive relationship, a truly abusive relationship, where one person is dominate over the other to the extent that the dominated person can’t really function with that other person, then those are not going to be a good candidates for this process.

So what led you to collaborative law?
DiGIROLAMO: My experience was with litigation process, just as Stu Webb, who founded the collaborative process. He too was frustrated with it, again, not through any fault of the people who are in that system. They are doing the absolute best that they can. I just feel that the issues that are involved in these kinds of cases are more effectively dealt with when people can sit down and talk about them rather than being set up as combatants. They were a family. You can assume that at some point the husband and wife were in love. They might have wanted to have children. In most cases when they have problems, to set them up as combatants, to me, just doesn’t make any sense. As soon as I heard about Collaborative law , I got trained and immediately started doing it.

So, are you a happier attorney practicing collaborative law than you are doing litigation?
DiGIROLAMO: It’s much more satisfying and, in my opinion, is a better service to my client, so yes, I’m much, much, happier with it.

Skip ahead 5, 10 years. Do you think this field will grow– there will be more practitioners, maybe entire firms that are practice nothing but collaborative law?
DiGIROLAMO: That has happened in other cities already.

And does this make it important to the education system? Will Harvard Law be teaching collaborative law someday?
DiGIROLAMO: Well, just to back up, when a person goes to law school they generally learn a little about most aspects of law, so we have contracts, property, civil procedure, so by the time you get through with all of that to get to any specific topic is a little unusual. Generally, law school is three years. In your third year you might be able to “specialize” in something or take some classes that are of interest to you in terms of what you want to practice later on, so, to that limited extent I’m sure that there will be classes available. It will be unusual for someone today to have more than two or three classes on family law in their law school career and that includes, all kinds of different aspects.

Do you think that collaborative law will change the public’s perceptions of lawyers and litigators in divorce cases? Is it a perception changer?
DiGIROLAMO: I think collaborative law, along with other forms of alternative dispute resolution, such as arbitration, mediation, are absolutely the wave of the future, there’s no question in my mind, and people will, as time goes on, go to methods of alternative resolution first, before they file a complaint in the court system. As far as divorce itself is concerned, I think this process, in communities where the majority of cases are handled in this way, the whole concept of getting divorced is completely altered, for the better.

Collaborative law is now currently mostly used for divorces, yes?
DiGIROLAMO: Yes.

Can you see where this could be used for other types of disputes?
DiGIROLAMO: Definitely. We’ve talked at great length about inviting people who participate in what we call around here, orphan’s court, which deals with guardianship issues, and estate administration issues which are very similar as far as the emotional component, the family dynamic involved, as is family law. So that was the first thing our group thought about, and we’re actively trying to get involved with those kinds of practitioners. In other places, commercial litigation and employment cases, again, employment cases involve a great deal of emotional aspects. Anything like that, we want to deal with the emotional issues and maintain the relationship. For example, if you have contract disputes, and even though you have a dispute with your supplier, or with your customer, you want to continue to do business with that company moving forward, the collaborative process is perfect for that kind of situation because it doesn’t destroy the relationship by going through the process. As a matter of fact, sometimes it helps to build the relationship, it builds the communication, between the parties. So I think it would be an excellent alternative for many kinds of disputes.

If you had to pick one component, and I ask you which one that is, what’s the most effective component of the whole process of family collaborative law?Is it communication? There is an increased level of communication, that is less formal. Or is it something else?
DiGIROLAMO: Well, communication is connected with the fundamental respect that we show for one another, not only as the attorneys, but as the parties. It involves a level of trust. It involves a level of control. All of those things are reflected and the more open communication which then results in a better outcome. So you could say the communication is the central factor, but it also, in my view, involves a very fundamental respect for all of the parties involved.