Divorce Arbitration in Oklahoma

Arbitration is not often used as a tool to resolve domestic cases in Oklahoma.  It is useful, though, when applied to the right case.  Consider the following advantages and disadvantages of matrimonial arbitration.

ADVANTAGES

Privacy – Arbitration usually takes place in a private office.  No one is present unless all parties agree.  Parties keep control over what makes the public record.  In contrast, Courtrooms are very public places to disclose the private facts that make up most family law cases.

Speedy and efficient resolution of your case – In litigation, the court sets the schedule for what happens when.  An arbitrator will have fewer scheduling conflicts.  You will not be on a docket with several other cases.  Expert witnesses also appreciate not having to sit at the courthouse waiting to be called.  The arbitration can even be brought to them!

A cost-effective process – Arbitration should cost less than litigation in court.  Court rules are cumbersome because they are designed to fit all needs in all cases.  Arbitration can streamline the process.  Examples include stipulations, relaxed rules of evidence and procedure, use of reports or affidavits instead of live testimony and careful use (or non-use) of court reporters.  The cost of an arbitrator should be more-than-covered through reduced litigation costs.

Specialized knowledge – Sometimes a couple will have thorny issues on the characterization, valuation, or distribution of property.  Specialized knowledge of family issues, such as business or personal finance, or family systems, can be useful in deciding family law cases.  Rather than taking an assigned judge who may or may not have such specialized knowledge, the parties can contract to give someone with such knowledge decision-making authority.

DISADVANTAGES

Custody concerns – there is no case-law in Oklahoma as to whether a mediator can make a binding ruling on a child custody matter.  Cases and court rules in other states are not consistent.  While custody matters may be subject to judicial review and approval, the parties can present their custody case to an arbitrator.  A good record in arbitration has a better chance of passing judicial review as being in the best interests of minor children.

Due process and fraud concerns – When considering the rules for arbitration, one must consider the level of trust between the parties to make full disclosure of relevant facts.  Lack of trust between the parties may require use of full disclosure affidavits, or keeping in effect the Oklahoma Discovery Code, which can be enforced in arbitration.

Arbitration has long been used in labor law and securities law.  It’s application to divorce cases is due.  Oklahoma has adopted the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act.  The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has adopted a Model Family Law Arbitration Act and Rules.  A carefully drafted Agreement to Arbitrate, and choice of the right arbitrator, can lead to a private, timely, cost-effective and thorough resolution to your family law problems

by David A. Tracy

Garth Brooks Verdict Highlights Risk and Reward in Litigation

Photo credit: KOTV, Tulsa

Country music superstar Garth Brooks’ victory in an Oklahoma state court should serve as a cautionary tale for anyone involved in legal action.  Most litigation carries the possibility for  reward, but at great risk.  Balancing the opportunity of risk and reward is how most cases settle, as this one should have.

On Tuesday, Brooks received a verdict for $1,000,000.00 in actual and punitive damages from the hospital in his boyhood hometown.  In 2005, Brooks donated $500,000.00 to Integris Canadian Valley Hospital in Yukon, Oklahoma.  Brooks claimed an oral agreement  that the hospital would name a women’s clinic after his late mother.  When the hospital indicated it would use the money for another purpose, Brooks asked them to return the gift.  The hospital countered that there was no written agreement, there was no meeting of the minds to make an oral agreement, and the donation was anonymous and unrestricted.

The hospital hoped to convince a jury that Brooks had turned his back on his hometown.  They wanted to paint an image of Brooks as someone who used his money to control others – and that he changed the conditions for his donation after the fact.  If the jury could be convinced that Brooks should not have entered into such a loose arrangement for such a large sum of money, then the gift should not be returned.  The hospital hoped to be perceived as a healing community victimized by a peevish popular culture figure with an outsized ego.

For his part, Brooks promoted the notion that he was motivated merely to help others while honoring his deceased mother.   The hospital took advantage of his good nature.  Brooks hoped to be perceived as a man whose handshake was as good as a written contract, and the hospital reneged.

Integris took the risk that they could convince a jury not to trust one of Oklahoma’s most popular native sons.  In the end, Brooks proved himself to be the classic sympathetic plaintiff.  Brooks’ storehouse of goodwill, and his testimony in support of his case, carried the day.

Despite the outcome, there can still be downside for Brooks’ brand.  He risks causing some fans to think less of him because of unfavorable testimony presented by the hospital.  Some fans may be disappointed with him just for bringing the lawsuit.  Of course, standing successfully on principle could actually enhance the Brooks brand.  Think Oprah Winfrey versus the beef producers in Texas several years ago.

Here’s the lesson for anyone thinking of taking a case to court – never buy into your own hype.  Sometimes it can seem neither side prevails, given the beating to all parties’ personal or professional reputation.  The financial and emotional toll can also be quite high, win or lose.  In litigation, there’s a time to take a stand, and a time to find a way.  Good lawyers recognize the difference.  Sometimes their clients do not.

What is collaborative law?

Collaborative attorneys assist in negotiating solutions to your legal problem and will not take the case to court. Since collaborative law rejects the backdrop of litigation, a substitute dispute resolution model is put in its place. This new model calls for face-to-face conferences  during which the parties and their collaborative attorneys:

  • Identify interests, goals and objectives of both participants;
  • Gather information necessary to the decision-making process;
  • Develop multiple settlement options
  • Evaluate all these options, and;
  • Negotiate a final settlement which best meets the needs of both parties.

Parties to a collaborative case sign a written participation agreement. The agreement includes a promise to make full disclosure of assets, liabilities, and facts which may affect their classification or value. Failure to make full disclosure can be grounds to set aside any agreement reached as a result. If experts are needed (such as child specialists, financial planners or appraisers), they are hired by joint decision, and the cost is discussed in advance.

If either party to the dispute decides to take the case to court, both collaborative counsel must withdraw. If your collaborative counsel cannot successfully assist you in creating a settlement acceptable to both sides, he or she loses a client. You must hire a new attorney to represent you in court. Experts hired collaboratively cannot be used in court absent written agreement by the parties.

This disqualification requirement is what adjusts the mind set of the participants and fuels the engine of collaboration. The collaborative process is not just attorneys who have agreed to act in a civilized manner. The collaborative process shifts the conversation away from what a judge might do, and focuses instead on the interests and goals of the parties. This alters the state of mind of everyone involved. Clients now find it in their interest to work together to obtain the best possible outcome for both parties given their circumstances. If the lawyers and the parties know they can fall back on a court-imposed solution, it actually stifles their creativity.

Your collaborative lawyer is a settlement specialist. Your collaborative lawyer’s role is to provide you with legal advice and negotiation assistance, and to make sure the collaborative process is honored. The long-term benefit of collaborative decision making, particularly in families with children, cannot be overstated.

Collaborative law practice does not make a difficult situation simple. It’s still hard work for lawyer and client. In most cases, handling your case collaboratively will produce the best possible outcome for both sides with the least emotional turmoil. Certainly, not every case should be handled collaboratively. For example, cases involving ongoing domestic abuse, and cases requiring forensic accounting (discovery of hidden assets or income), would not likely be candidates for collaborative case management. In most other cases, though, it should be considered as one possible means of handling your legal situation.

Collaborative law has quickly gained acceptance as a dispute resolution model, particularly in family law. There are collaborative law groups in almost every state in the USA, and in more than 20 countries around the world. Collaborative law is a growing movement because it is a logical alternative to litigation. To quote Stu Webb, the founder of collaborative law, “Collaborative law is a simple concept. Collaborative law is a profound concept. That’s the best kind of concept: simple and profound.”

If you are not receiving advice regarding the collaborative law practice option, you are not being presented with the full range of possible solutions to your legal problem.