divorce mediator mediation attorney san francisco oakland east bay divorce mediator in San Francisco. separation mediiating larry rosen. attorney lawyer. mediator mediation
mediate san francisco expert in mediation and expert in divorce and attorney and lawyer who is in east bay and oakland and does divorce mediation with expertise and experience
san francisco and mediation and divorce and separtion and divorces in oakland and east bay. larry rosen as mediator and mediation expert as an attorney in divorces and
communities and divorce.
mediate san francisco expert in mediation and expert in divorce and attorney and lawyer who is in east bay and oakland and does divorce mediation with expertise and experience
san francisco and mediation and divorce and separtion and divorces in oakland and east bay. larry rosen as mediator and mediation expert as an attorney in divorces and
communities and divorce.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Some Things You Might Want to Know
How does this approach differ from other forms of Mediation or Collaborative Law?
Like some others, I offer both Mediation and Collaborative Law services. My approach is somewhat unusual in
that most practitioners seek to resolve the legal issues without necessarily addressing underlying, motivating
concerns. I believe that facilitating deeper understanding between the parties offers not only far better
solutions but relationships which can withstand further challenge.
Is this therapy?
No. While introspection is helpful to the process, personal growth is not the objective here. The goal is simply
to help the parties retreat from anger and better understand each other’s experience. This is achieved through
facilitated conversation about the specific issues that the parties are trying to resolve as well as other matters
which frame their views of each other. The scope is broader than traditional legal inquiry but far narrower and
less probing than therapy.
How can you just get two people to understand and care about each other when they clearly don’t like each
other? Can understanding be forced?
Asking a person who is either angry or hurt to understand the experience of one who has caused them
discomfort can be both fruitless and insulting. Understanding cannot be forced. However, when people who are
caught in dispute—particularly emotional disputes—receive a bit of understanding themselves, they are often
surprised by what hides just beneath the surface: a desire and ability to authentically understand the experience
and impressions of this other. The process does not begin with understanding, it ends there. It begins simply
with a need to be heard and sometimes also a need for clarity—How did the situation come to anger? Why does
this other see things so differently than I do? The process unwinds with hitches and difficulties and ah-ha's and
releases. Often deep understanding (empathy) is neither the objective nor achievable. But bitterness and
blame can almost always be left behind. And relationships can resume respect, if not outright warmth. (See
Philosophy of Understanding page.)
We already agree on many issues and aren't that angry with each other. What would the process look like for us?
Where the relationship is solid and the parties simply seek resolution of certain well-defined issues, the process
is less involved and is focused primarily on seeking solutions. At this stage it resembles Mediation and
Collaborative Law as typically practiced. However, if strong differences arise (which they often do), we will use
your already-existing foundation of understanding to bridge intellectual and emotional divides.
If seeking a peaceful resolution is so compelling, why do most people end up fighting it out in court?
This is the most important question I receive. That's because the answer can have a dramatic impact on the
lives of the people who contact me. Again, I believe that this is the most valuable information on the website...
I receive many calls and emails each week. Far less than half of those initial contacts actually end up seeking
mediation or collaborative law. Sadly, despite the initial conversation, the vast majority end up spending
enormous financial and emotional resources hiring lawyers and fighting in court. Why? Because the individual
who seeks me out cannot decide alone to seek a peaceful resolution. Initially, the other person is often quite
surprised and disappointed that any form of legal solution is even being considered. And so, the other person
(the person who does not contact me) often will consult with a litigation attorney. After all, having heard some
tough news recently, their trust is diminished. He/she has a natural need for clarity about the law and might
really desire protection.
The problem is that any consultation with a litigator normally leads to full-scale litigation. That’s because the
litigator will tell his or her prospective client exactly what the client most wants to hear: (1) you are in the right;
(2) I will try to resolve this peacefully; (3) I will vigorously defend you if need be. Once this litigator is hired, the
side who was initially seeking a more peaceful resolution will likely also hire a litigator (for protection). Now, the
process of litigation might start out peacefully, but since a judge (a third party) is the person who is making the
decisions, each side has an strong incentive to convince the judge that the other side is in the wrong. And so,
eventually a little bomb is dropped by one side, the other side goes into protection mode, and full-on war
develops. In the end, neither person will end up with any peace or financial security, and the attorneys will end
up with a large percentage of their clients’ assets. It’s not that litigators are bad or selfish people. To the
contrary, the are normally sincerely interested in protecting their clients. It’s more that the judicial advocacy
system is not designed to preserve relationships. It is designed for war.
If you are visiting this website, you are likely the person in the relationship who is interested in a seeking a
peaceful resolution. And you may be discouraged by what you just read. Please don't be. You can avoid the
terrible trajectory I've described. This is what I recommend.
First, despite how you may presently feel about this other person or their intentions, be as cooperative and open
as you can. That means not taking any legal steps (such as filings) without first informing the other party.
Those types of surprises almost always direct people toward litigation. That also means, when you do discuss
your intentions with the other party, completely rule out litigation. Share what you have learned -- that litigation
frequently ruins lives, and almost always destroys relationships. If possible, try to develop a plan together. If
you both have a need for clarity about the law, schedule a consultation with a lawyer or mediator together. This
openness sets the tone for cooperation. Now, about 50% percent of the time, if you approach the other party
with this openness, they will also be interested in mediation or collaborative law.
Second, in the other 50% of cases, don't give up. That is, in my experience, even where the other person is too
angry or scared or hurt to presently agree to a 'peaceful' process, your intention will make all the difference. If
you decide that you will get through this peacefully and that you will not be drawn into a legal conflict, you will
likely avoid it. Suggest to the other person that they speak alone with me or another mediator or collaborative
attorney or visit this website. If they are still not interested, consider involving a friend or family member or
clergy member or therapist who understands the costs of litigation and the life-enhancing benefits of seeking
understanding. Be gentle with your recommendations and allow for progress to be slow. The other side may
still seek out a litigator (for advice), and so your intention must be strong, constant and gentle. Despite break-
downs in trust, unless you believe imminent legal or physical harm will come to you, I recommend resisting the
temptation yourself to hire a litigator/warrior. Like anything else in life, if you firmly and deeply decide on the
trajectory you will take, your life will normally follow. Of course, you cannot force the other person to join you
along this path. However, in my experience, patient and peacefully-made calls for peace are eventually headed.
After all, ease is something all people are seeking.
Like some others, I offer both Mediation and Collaborative Law services. My approach is somewhat unusual in
that most practitioners seek to resolve the legal issues without necessarily addressing underlying, motivating
concerns. I believe that facilitating deeper understanding between the parties offers not only far better
solutions but relationships which can withstand further challenge.
Is this therapy?
No. While introspection is helpful to the process, personal growth is not the objective here. The goal is simply
to help the parties retreat from anger and better understand each other’s experience. This is achieved through
facilitated conversation about the specific issues that the parties are trying to resolve as well as other matters
which frame their views of each other. The scope is broader than traditional legal inquiry but far narrower and
less probing than therapy.
How can you just get two people to understand and care about each other when they clearly don’t like each
other? Can understanding be forced?
Asking a person who is either angry or hurt to understand the experience of one who has caused them
discomfort can be both fruitless and insulting. Understanding cannot be forced. However, when people who are
caught in dispute—particularly emotional disputes—receive a bit of understanding themselves, they are often
surprised by what hides just beneath the surface: a desire and ability to authentically understand the experience
and impressions of this other. The process does not begin with understanding, it ends there. It begins simply
with a need to be heard and sometimes also a need for clarity—How did the situation come to anger? Why does
this other see things so differently than I do? The process unwinds with hitches and difficulties and ah-ha's and
releases. Often deep understanding (empathy) is neither the objective nor achievable. But bitterness and
blame can almost always be left behind. And relationships can resume respect, if not outright warmth. (See
Philosophy of Understanding page.)
We already agree on many issues and aren't that angry with each other. What would the process look like for us?
Where the relationship is solid and the parties simply seek resolution of certain well-defined issues, the process
is less involved and is focused primarily on seeking solutions. At this stage it resembles Mediation and
Collaborative Law as typically practiced. However, if strong differences arise (which they often do), we will use
your already-existing foundation of understanding to bridge intellectual and emotional divides.
If seeking a peaceful resolution is so compelling, why do most people end up fighting it out in court?
This is the most important question I receive. That's because the answer can have a dramatic impact on the
lives of the people who contact me. Again, I believe that this is the most valuable information on the website...
I receive many calls and emails each week. Far less than half of those initial contacts actually end up seeking
mediation or collaborative law. Sadly, despite the initial conversation, the vast majority end up spending
enormous financial and emotional resources hiring lawyers and fighting in court. Why? Because the individual
who seeks me out cannot decide alone to seek a peaceful resolution. Initially, the other person is often quite
surprised and disappointed that any form of legal solution is even being considered. And so, the other person
(the person who does not contact me) often will consult with a litigation attorney. After all, having heard some
tough news recently, their trust is diminished. He/she has a natural need for clarity about the law and might
really desire protection.
The problem is that any consultation with a litigator normally leads to full-scale litigation. That’s because the
litigator will tell his or her prospective client exactly what the client most wants to hear: (1) you are in the right;
(2) I will try to resolve this peacefully; (3) I will vigorously defend you if need be. Once this litigator is hired, the
side who was initially seeking a more peaceful resolution will likely also hire a litigator (for protection). Now, the
process of litigation might start out peacefully, but since a judge (a third party) is the person who is making the
decisions, each side has an strong incentive to convince the judge that the other side is in the wrong. And so,
eventually a little bomb is dropped by one side, the other side goes into protection mode, and full-on war
develops. In the end, neither person will end up with any peace or financial security, and the attorneys will end
up with a large percentage of their clients’ assets. It’s not that litigators are bad or selfish people. To the
contrary, the are normally sincerely interested in protecting their clients. It’s more that the judicial advocacy
system is not designed to preserve relationships. It is designed for war.
If you are visiting this website, you are likely the person in the relationship who is interested in a seeking a
peaceful resolution. And you may be discouraged by what you just read. Please don't be. You can avoid the
terrible trajectory I've described. This is what I recommend.
First, despite how you may presently feel about this other person or their intentions, be as cooperative and open
as you can. That means not taking any legal steps (such as filings) without first informing the other party.
Those types of surprises almost always direct people toward litigation. That also means, when you do discuss
your intentions with the other party, completely rule out litigation. Share what you have learned -- that litigation
frequently ruins lives, and almost always destroys relationships. If possible, try to develop a plan together. If
you both have a need for clarity about the law, schedule a consultation with a lawyer or mediator together. This
openness sets the tone for cooperation. Now, about 50% percent of the time, if you approach the other party
with this openness, they will also be interested in mediation or collaborative law.
Second, in the other 50% of cases, don't give up. That is, in my experience, even where the other person is too
angry or scared or hurt to presently agree to a 'peaceful' process, your intention will make all the difference. If
you decide that you will get through this peacefully and that you will not be drawn into a legal conflict, you will
likely avoid it. Suggest to the other person that they speak alone with me or another mediator or collaborative
attorney or visit this website. If they are still not interested, consider involving a friend or family member or
clergy member or therapist who understands the costs of litigation and the life-enhancing benefits of seeking
understanding. Be gentle with your recommendations and allow for progress to be slow. The other side may
still seek out a litigator (for advice), and so your intention must be strong, constant and gentle. Despite break-
downs in trust, unless you believe imminent legal or physical harm will come to you, I recommend resisting the
temptation yourself to hire a litigator/warrior. Like anything else in life, if you firmly and deeply decide on the
trajectory you will take, your life will normally follow. Of course, you cannot force the other person to join you
along this path. However, in my experience, patient and peacefully-made calls for peace are eventually headed.
After all, ease is something all people are seeking.
| Offices in San Francisco and Oakland 415.356.9834 |
| Resolving Conflict through Understanding |
larry rosen , j.d.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|