From my lawyer’s point of view, the ethical underpinnings of Collaborative Law are founded upon the accepted notions of “limited representation” and “informed consent”. Our Collaborative Participation Agreement limits the lawyer’s role to one of negotiator as opposed to litigator. When clients agree to resolve their marital disputes by way of the Collaborative Process, it is my understanding that they are consenting and agreeing to utilize their respective legal counselors for the limited purpose and express intent of helping them reach a negotiated settlement. How this is done varies from lawyer to lawyer and practice group to practice group. The process requires both couples’ consent and commitment. It also requires, at a minimum, the commitment of two lawyers. A joint venture is thus created by contract between husband and wife, and unless both clients’ interests are adequately met the venture will fail. I believe that my duty as a lawyer in the Collaborative Process is to see that the choices my client makes in coming to an Agreement are measured and informed. Our training calls for transparency, exchange of information, creation of options, consideration of consequences and a thorough negotiation.