Back in the day when as lawyer I first practiced family law in 1985 nobody and I mean nobody used the term “peacemaker”. Had anyone done so I suspect that he or she would have been drummed out of the scouts, become the butt of jokes for stand-up comedians, earned the senior partner’s displeasure et cetera.

In 1989, disillusioned I gave up on family law went into other aspects of law although latterly, for a time I worked as a family mediator.

I mediated or co-mediated a number of family/relationship breakups. Some were relatively straightforward with parties who were prepared to engage in the process and fair outcomes were achieved without too much difficulty. As for the rest they ostensibly fell into two groups: –

1. people who as well as perhaps not really getting what mediation was about, for whatever reason steadfastly refused to take the legal advice that they basically needed;

2. people who took the issue of taking legal advice to the nth degree, spending a disproportionate amount of time between sessions with lawyers. They would find themselves like a light switch; the “on” was mediation and the “off” was often costly, decidedly adversarial legal advice. It would be wrong to say that in such cases mediation was sabotaged but it was clear in some cases that the clients had difficulty adjusting between two mindsets. It was apparent that a number of the lawyers seem to think that mediation was something almost apart from the legal process. In a fair number of these cases it was also apparent that the process the clients are going through was anything but cost-effective because they were spending disproportionate amounts of time in the lawyer’s offices. It seemed at times that instead of the mediation dog wagging the tail, the adversarial, decidedly non peacemaking tail was still wagging the dog-something that bothered me deeply.

Fast forward ………In the last couple of years I picked up on articles on LinkedIn about reforming family law. Examples would be how cases involving abuse get overlooked by the system, looking at the way cases are dealt with in court, how attorneys/lawyers treat their clients and how they i.e. the lawyers, need to get out of the adversarial mindset that has beset the legal profession since the Battle of Hastings, the Pilgrim Fathers landing in America, the antics of Christopher Columbus (select the historical event of your choice).

Encouraged by some of the mainly excellent US material on LinkedIn I started contributing, providing giving anecdotes of what used to happen back in the mid/late 1980s. I did so thinking “well, things change, things are better now, these things don’t happen anymore, maybe a historical anecdote or two would be interesting” et cetera, et cetera. What shocked me was that I would repeatedly be assured by very eminent writers and practitioners not least in the US, that actually, my supposedly historical reminiscences were actually quite current. Fortunately, and peacemakers not least Woody and Lara are addressing matters.

In reading through chapter 1 I quickly realised that although the title of the book “Lawyer as Peacemaker” reigns supreme, “peace-making” is not some sort of one trick pony, an instantaneous combination of all the famous peacemakers in history for lawyers who just happened to have read the book to transform themselves into. The lawyer in all of this should not be seen as some sort of isolated figure. Of late I have seen contributions from quite a number of many North American family practitioners, unequivocally demonstrating that the legal culture as a whole (i.e. not just attorney culture) has to change.

However, the divorced, separated or abused person’s first port of call will more often than not be a law office. How the lawyers present themselves at day one can set the tone for the whole process. However inadvertently, the lawyer’s adversarial mindset can fuel rather than dampening the flames,

To me, the following extract which I also included in my introductory article sets the tone for the whole book: –

“As family lawyers, when we look into the eyes of clients who are confused or overwhelmed and reflect on what this family needs, we are already making a critical shift. Instead of rigidly categorizing their challenges into traditional practice areas framed by adversarial posturing, we recalibrate our approach to focus on process options. We move beyond thinking of a client as simply “needing more custody,” “paying less support,” or “needing adjustments for asset dissipation.” Instead, we look at the broader picture, considering the family as a whole and matching them with the process that best aligns with their unique situation. Some families may benefit most from collaborative, interdisciplinary teamwork that fosters holistic resolution; others may thrive in a mediated environment that emphasizes mutual understanding. For some, coaching and unbundled legal support may be the right path, empowering them to survive and even thrive through a pro se litigation process. By shifting our focus from outcomes to process, we tailor our guidance to each family’s distinct needs, offering a path forward that is as unique as their journey. With this in mind, we family law peacemakers have pivoted and our “list of services” has changed to a list of process options rather than practice areas…”

Following this extract there is provided including a whole this of options for resolving individual family disputes. This is yet another affirmation that peace making lawyers are not expected to act in some sort of isolated peace making idyll. The text includes a comprehensive list of tools to be used to help the peace making lawyer with the peace making process. The message is that although the lawyer is or should be a peacemaker, he/she is not an island peacemaker.

Instead this peace making lawyer is asked to consider a competitive list of resolutory options listed below and to decide which might be the best option for a particular case.

Mediation; Collaborative Law; Unbundled Legal Services notation the lawyer providing some specific services and client doing the rest; Coaching; Arbitration; Parenting Coordination; Negotiation/Settlement; Post-Judgement Modifications; Litigation.

“And so, the modern family lawyer’s services are packaged differently. Gone are the days” of “I will tell you what your process should be, what your strategy should be, what your position should be, and what deal you should accept.”

Let us move on to what is meant by “PEACE”

Lara in particular makes it clear that “Peace” is not an isolated 5 letter word to simply bandy about. Rather, there are “FOUR Ps OF PEACE” (including what I see as some key explanatory extracts)

1. PAUSE

“Rather than rushing into legal strategy or immediately offering a solution, we can offer

something far more valuable: a moment of emotional understanding and validation. A mere minute spent together in this space of shared pause often works wonders. “I hear you, and I will let you take a moment to realize that you’ve been heard and understood and accepted exactly as you are, right here, in this moment.” In just sixty seconds, we can provide them the relief of exhaling. The physical effects are powerful: lowered heart rate, reduced blood pressure, and a calmer, more open state of mind. This small gesture often helps them to begin digesting the complexities of their situation in a way they couldn’t before.”

2. PROCESS

The power of process is twofold. When we speak of “process,” we are referring both to thejourney the parties in conflict must travel (as a verb) and the framework through which they will resolve their disputes (as a noun).

As a verb, “process” refers to the personal work that parties need to do to digest what ishappening to them. It’s an opportunity to step back and truly understand the legal informationthey’re receiving, the options available to them, and the potential consequences of each choice. …..In building a peacemaking practice as a family lawyer, thorough process knowledge and the ability to clearly explain process options is key.”

3. PLAN

There are two major kinds of “plans” that we, as practitioners, are tasked with creating: Professional Plans and Subject-Matter Plans.

Professional plans help streamline a structured process – how do we manage meetingschedules and calendar meetings efficiently? How do we establish and maintain an appropriate agenda? How do we ensure that all necessary persons are participating in the process in all necessary ways?

Subject-matter plans, on the other hand, ensure that we address the heart of the dispute withprecision and thoroughness, ensuring that minimal loopholes remain. Planning is often where the greatest value of a family lawyer is realized. It’s not just about putting out fires in the present; it’s about preparing the family for a healthier, more stable future.

4. PREVENT (for me, Paul the absolute deal clincher)

Perhaps one of the most critical, yet often overlooked, aspects of our role as family lawyers isconflict prevention. While our clients are understandably consumed with their immediatechallenges—move-out dates, custody exchanges, and the details of day-to-day survival—our responsibility goes beyond just putting out fires in the present. We must look ahead. As family lawyers, we are called to think about the future with clarity and foresight. We need to consider the issues that may arise down the road—college decisions, new relationships, changes in living arrangements, and many other scenarios that may seem distant but are guaranteed to come into play. We must introduce these future topics calmly, with curiosity and an open invitation to prepare for the road ahead. While these conversations can be difficult, our role is not just to protect the family members in the present but to equip them with the tools to handle challenges as they arise. Conflict prevention is a delicate dance—one that requires empathy, foresight, and the ability to calmly guide families into a future they can feel prepared for. By preventing conflicts before they flare up, we help to ensure that families don’t just survive their current crisis but are positioned to thrive in the future.”

My Conclusion-

My Chapter 1 wise I will leave things here. I could go on dear readers. There is so much interesting material in this chapter I could happily spend the next month reviewing it and doing nothing else. Of course chapter 1 is not the end of the matter. There are 11 more to go and so much to tell you about.

Question: If you happen to be busy writing a book about peacemaking lawyers why write it all yourselves.

The short, rather offhand answer might be something like “it lightens the load”. A better answer could be –

“there are a number of chapters in this book written by experts other than Woody and Lara. By this means they draw on the experience and expertise of other leaders in their field. The already wide band of knowledge and ideas that they have disseminated becomes even wider. We have an opportunity to learn even more”.

An even better answer might be this –

“Woody and Lara unequivocally demonstrate that they are not two lone voices standing on a soapbox. Rather, they show that what is driving them forward is that all important thing collaboration. They show that there is such a thing as the lawyer as peacemaker community” which has a broad and impressive range of knowledge and experience. For me, this spirit of collaboration and cooperation is one of the book’s most important threads.”

So to chapter 2. This is written by Patrick Kalscheur who is referred to in his LinkedIn profile as “Divorce and Family Law Attorney Mediator and Collaborative Practitioner at Kalscheur Conscious Family Law LLC”

To learn even more about Patrick and his work why not read through some of his LinkedIn posts and articles (https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-kalscheur-1a5ba19/recent-activity/all/).

In this chapter Patrick demonstrates how he has built and has maintained a peacemaking law practice, the sort of exposition that should be at the heart of all family focused legal/mediation/ADR training worldwide but all too often is either conspicuously absent or dealt with cursorily.

Patrick’s path is not the path of the standard legal “get the lawyer more clients” adviser. Nothing about spending more time on LinkedIn, updating software, hiring a PR company or speaking at the local Chamber of Commerce. Such things are not dismissed out of hand but he goes much further. I guess that his approach will not be for everybody but having reflected for a good few days I can see exactly where he is coming from. I have the luxury of being in retirement but he certainly has got me thinking and I trust it does the same for ALL you out there.

So… Chapter 2: Building a “Successful” Peacemaking Practice from the Inside Out… an initial quote taken from the introduction theme in subheadings outlined below

“What better way to create peace for families in conflict than to:

• Communicate clearly with everyone in the room;

• Show curiosity in what each person has to say;

• Remaining calm amidst the storm of conflict;

• Modeling patience when clients feel distress;

• Projecting confidence where clients feel uncertain about outcomes;

• Showing clients that joy still exists at a time when they may feel their most unlovable.”

We follow on to 3 sections

1. Self-Awareness Practices as a Foundation for Peacemaking

2. Finding Your Why

3. Making Your Peacemaking Practice Sustainable (lawyers reading this-don’t be tempted to zip down to this section)

In the first section Patrick opens thus:

“Below we will explore a subset of tools that you may want to utilize in your practice. You may want to try one or all of these. The key is to develop a daily personal routine, outside of the presence of your clients, and to practice, practice, practice. Just as a lawyer wouldn’t espouse knowledge of the law without having done necessary legal research, peacemakers who want to cultivate peace in their clients must learn how to make peace first.”

Patrick makes the point that being a peacemaking lawyer means starting by looking at oneself. Hence in this section, he identifies a number of techniques to help peacemaking lawyer to be at one with themselves, at peace with themselves. Amongst a number of suggestions he places great emphasis on such things regular i.e. daily meditation and keeping a journal. If I understand correctly, his point is that the peacemaking lawyer needs to be at peace with them/herself thereby nurturing a backdrop in which peacemaking involving clients, other lawyers, judges et cetera will flourish. This is forward thinking and distinctly lacking in self-indulgence.

In the second section Patrick includes the following opening quote:

“Once you have begun to develop a practice for making peace internally, the next step is to identify why you want to be a peacemaker for others – why you want to work with families in conflict, and what purpose is driving you to this work. Developing clear answers to these questions will allow you to build a peacemaking practice to serve others that is aligned with your purpose.

When your work and your purpose are aligned, work may become more pleasurable, and you may become more attractive to potential clients and other professionals. You may begin to emulate the characteristics of successful peacemakers mentioned earlier in this chapter—passionate, joyful, curious, calm, and confident.”

Patrick goes on to expand on the advice and suggestions given in the first section. He makes the point that there are no easy answers the same time stimulates one’s powers of thought and assessment.

In the third section, Patrick’s opening comments are

“One of the biggest challenges for family lawyers making the transition from litigation to peacemaking are fears that this new practice may not provide ample financial rewards to support you and your family. That unease is what makes us slip back into old patterns. Those family lawyers still in transition take on clients and cases that keep them away from the practice they ultimately want to have. Old fears emerge and inaccurate limiting beliefs come back. Finding compassion for yourself and relying on your daily peacemaking practice(s) in these moments is essential. Check in with yourself to see how aligned your practice is with your purpose at these times of doubt. Perhaps there was a recent client or situation that moved you away from your purpose; see if you can honor this experience without making it bigger than it really is; see if you can recall other clients or situations in your practice where you were aligned with your purpose.

Working with families in conflict is hard work. Acknowledge that. Even when we are aligned with our purpose, there will be moments where the situations we are addressing sadden us. We are emotional human beings assisting other human beings during times of heightened emotions, trauma even; it is natural for that to impact us. That is why taking care of ourselves and balancing how much we are engaged with families in conflict with other activities is so important to sustainability.”

Patrick continues by setting out his daily routine. True, there is ample reference to mediation and quality time with the family. But equally, in the context of identifying six hours of billable working time per day he does demonstrate that whatever else, his practice is a commercial undertaking. What is very different about his schedule is that is billable hours are probably down to around 30 of 35 hours a week rather than the 70 by no means always productive hours that I used to work. Patrick does not specifically refer for instance to the important point made in chapter 1 about long-term solutions but such concepts are I think implicit in his approach. I suspect his point might be that having got himself into a good place, Patrick is well placed to get the best out of chapter one.

As mentioned previously I did a lot of family law work between about 1985 and 1989. Because a particular firm I worked, I was the junior litigator I got to deal with the cases that nobody else wanted to deal with many of them involving domestic violence and abuse of one form or another. It was stressful and it was very draining. I was meant to be the detached professional but it was very difficult to maintain that detachment when one saw and heard the things that I encountered. In hindsight, although my senior partner would not have been pleased, had I not been assessed with billable hours, I would have gone home happier and I have no doubt I would have done a better job. I therefore urge everyone, not least lawyers, to give very serious thought to Patrick’s views and suggestions.

Question: If you happen to be busy writing a book about peacemaking lawyers why write it all yourselves.

The short, rather offhand answer might be something like “it lightens the load”. A better answer could be –

“there are a number of chapters in this book written by experts other than Woody and Lara. By this means they draw on the experience and expertise of other leaders in their field. The already wide band of knowledge and ideas that they have disseminated becomes even wider. We have an opportunity to learn even more”.

An even better answer might be this –

“Woody and Lara unequivocally demonstrate that they are not two lone voices standing on a soapbox. Rather, they show that what is driving them forward is that all important thing collaboration. They show that there is such a thing as the lawyer as peacemaker community” which has a broad and impressive range of knowledge and experience. For me, this spirit of collaboration and cooperation is one of the book’s most important threads.”

So to chapter 2. This is written by Patrick Kalscheur who is referred to in his LinkedIn profile as “Divorce and Family Law Attorney Mediator and Collaborative Practitioner at Kalscheur Conscious Family Law LLC”

To learn even more about Patrick and his work why not read through some of his LinkedIn posts and articles (https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-kalscheur-1a5ba19/recent-activity/all/).

In this chapter Patrick demonstrates how he has built and has maintained a peacemaking law practice, the sort of exposition that should be at the heart of all family focused legal/mediation/ADR training worldwide but all too often is either conspicuously absent or dealt with cursorily.

Patrick’s path is not the path of the standard legal “get the lawyer more clients” adviser. Nothing about spending more time on LinkedIn, updating software, hiring a PR company or speaking at the local Chamber of Commerce. Such things are not dismissed out of hand but he goes much further. I guess that his approach will not be for everybody but having reflected for a good few days I can see exactly where he is coming from. I have the luxury of being in retirement but he certainly has got me thinking and I trust it does the same for ALL you out there.

So… Chapter 2: Building a “Successful” Peacemaking Practice from the Inside Out… an initial quote taken from the introduction theme in subheadings outlined below

“What better way to create peace for families in conflict than to:

• Communicate clearly with everyone in the room;

• Show curiosity in what each person has to say;

• Remaining calm amidst the storm of conflict;

• Modeling patience when clients feel distress;

• Projecting confidence where clients feel uncertain about outcomes;

• Showing clients that joy still exists at a time when they may feel their most unlovable.”

We follow on to 3 sections

1. Self-Awareness Practices as a Foundation for Peacemaking

2. Finding Your Why

3. Making Your Peacemaking Practice Sustainable (lawyers reading this-don’t be tempted to zip down to this section)

In the first section Patrick opens thus:

“Below we will explore a subset of tools that you may want to utilize in your practice. You may want to try one or all of these. The key is to develop a daily personal routine, outside of the presence of your clients, and to practice, practice, practice. Just as a lawyer wouldn’t espouse knowledge of the law without having done necessary legal research, peacemakers who want to cultivate peace in their clients must learn how to make peace first.”

Patrick makes the point that being a peacemaking lawyer means starting by looking at oneself. Hence in this section, he identifies a number of techniques to help peacemaking lawyer to be at one with themselves, at peace with themselves. Amongst a number of suggestions he places great emphasis on such things regular i.e. daily meditation and keeping a journal. If I understand correctly, his point is that the peacemaking lawyer needs to be at peace with them/herself thereby nurturing a backdrop in which peacemaking involving clients, other lawyers, judges et cetera will flourish. This is forward thinking and distinctly lacking in self-indulgence.

In the second section Patrick includes the following opening quote:

“Once you have begun to develop a practice for making peace internally, the next step is to identify why you want to be a peacemaker for others – why you want to work with families in conflict, and what purpose is driving you to this work. Developing clear answers to these questions will allow you to build a peacemaking practice to serve others that is aligned with your purpose.

When your work and your purpose are aligned, work may become more pleasurable, and you may become more attractive to potential clients and other professionals. You may begin to emulate the characteristics of successful peacemakers mentioned earlier in this chapter—passionate, joyful, curious, calm, and confident.”

Patrick goes on to expand on the advice and suggestions given in the first section. He makes the point that there are no easy answers the same time stimulates one’s powers of thought and assessment.

In the third section, Patrick’s opening comments are

“One of the biggest challenges for family lawyers making the transition from litigation to peacemaking are fears that this new practice may not provide ample financial rewards to support you and your family. That unease is what makes us slip back into old patterns. Those family lawyers still in transition take on clients and cases that keep them away from the practice they ultimately want to have. Old fears emerge and inaccurate limiting beliefs come back. Finding compassion for yourself and relying on your daily peacemaking practice(s) in these moments is essential. Check in with yourself to see how aligned your practice is with your purpose at these times of doubt. Perhaps there was a recent client or situation that moved you away from your purpose; see if you can honor this experience without making it bigger than it really is; see if you can recall other clients or situations in your practice where you were aligned with your purpose.

Working with families in conflict is hard work. Acknowledge that. Even when we are aligned with our purpose, there will be moments where the situations we are addressing sadden us. We are emotional human beings assisting other human beings during times of heightened emotions, trauma even; it is natural for that to impact us. That is why taking care of ourselves and balancing how much we are engaged with families in conflict with other activities is so important to sustainability.”

Patrick continues by setting out his daily routine. True, there is ample reference to mediation and quality time with the family. But equally, in the context of identifying six hours of billable working time per day he does demonstrate that whatever else, his practice is a commercial undertaking. What is very different about his schedule is that is billable hours are probably down to around 30 of 35 hours a week rather than the 70 by no means always productive hours that I used to work. Patrick does not specifically refer for instance to the important point made in chapter 1 about long-term solutions but such concepts are I think implicit in his approach. I suspect his point might be that having got himself into a good place, Patrick is well placed to get the best out of chapter one.

As mentioned previously I did a lot of family law work between about 1985 and 1989. Because a particular firm I worked, I was the junior litigator I got to deal with the cases that nobody else wanted to deal with many of them involving domestic violence and abuse of one form or another. It was stressful and it was very draining. I was meant to be the detached professional but it was very difficult to maintain that detachment when one saw and heard the things that I encountered. In hindsight, although my senior partner would not have been pleased, had I not been assessed with billable hours, I would have gone home happier and I have no doubt I would have done a better job. I therefore urge everyone, not least lawyers, to give very serious thought to Patrick’s views and suggestions.

Secondly, I would like to give an additional mention to a Linked in article written by Erica Speraw ntitled “ What My Kindergarten Teacher and a Peacemaking Pioneer Taught Me (35 Years Apart)”. I commented on this article yesterday and it can be accessed at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-my-kindergarten-teacher-peacemaking-pioneer-taught-erica-speraw-hapcc/?trackingId=UMrSCrGxSyy%2FdW8QAom%2Bpg%3D%3D

Where are we at with Lawyer As Peacemaker? What have I learned so far?

A full response to these questions would take at least two articles so let me offer you a few things that I think really stand out and maybe reiterate a few earlier points

• The book really is well written. As well as being blessedly free of legal jargon, there are no highfaluting abstract concepts. The common sense of the book is expressed in terms of well written easily accessible common sense, straightforward to read without any dilution of the message.

• I am constantly discovering new ideas and reactivating old thoughts, possibly reframing them an almost continual basis. This book really has got me thinking and I am not alone in this.

• The importance of the concept of peacemaking lawyer is clearly underlined in chapter 1.

• Lara and Woody are decidedly not two voices crying out of the wilderness standing on soap boxes et cetera. They are part of a large, vibrant peacemaking lawyer community that is working effectively, helping with their relationship breakups and in so doing is helping to right some of the wrongs wreaked by the adversarial law system that prevails both in terms of adversarial lawyers/attorneys and legal systems in which they operate. 

• Equally, lawyer as peacemaker this is not some sort of uniquely American concept. The comments to my previous review articles from for instance the United Kingdom and India confirm that the ideas and guidances/practices explained in the book are proliferating and reverberating far and wide.

• The importance of peacemaking lawyers being at peace with themselves is underlined, not least in chapter 2, written by Patrick Kalscheur. 

• The whole business of becoming a peacemaking lawyer is not some sort of lightbulb moment instantly turning the adversarial attorney into a peacemaker. Some levels of rethinking and adjusting one’s existing practices, are certainly required. However as evidenced by Patrick and also by David Hoffman in chapter 3 the journey is not some sort of ephemeral concept honed by cultish philosophers. Erica’s article is but one piece of additional corroborative evidence of this.

• Also, and for me quite importantly, although peacemaking lawyers do not go down the adversarial litigious route the tools they use are already out there and readily available to be used. Mediation which features heavily in chapter 4 is a case in point.

So onto chapter 4 

In this context one thing that quite surprised me was that quite a high percentage of people go through the divorce process in the US are not represented. 

A distinction is drawn between two basic “types” of mediation namely one instigated by the court and private mediation.

In essence, the first type is portrayed in some instances at least as an example of late intervention aimed possibly at saving court time. I have seen this in the context of civil cases in the UK where parties expecting either a substantive hearing or even a trial are told in the immortal words of one judge I used to appear before “I won’t hear this case unless you go outside and talk about it first”. Not infrequently, this had a galvanising effect and but unfortunately, often wrong type of galvanising effect. Equally, I saw this in domestic violence cases where judges abetted by lawyers pushed parties into “agreeing” to accept undertakings when in truth, all concerned knew deep down that really was just a way of easing the court list.

I gather that in some US States, judges can order mediation and there is no suggestion judges as a whole are an unenlightened section of the community but my reading of the relevant section of the chapter suggests to that there are some reservations. I am tempted to jump in and outline my views about the need for changes in family judicial systems worldwide but perhaps these should be saved for another day.

Not altogether surprisingly, adversarial lawyers come in for criticism. Quite rightly, lawyers’ tendency to prefer litigation over mediation is deplored as is the fact that many of them lack the requisite training to get the best out of mediation.

Understandably private mediation is given more prominence in this chapter. Most of this aspect chapter is giving over to tips about how to get the best out of the process. As with everything else in the book, these tips are comprehensively, clearly and simply explained. They go well beyond the crammed guidance that I was given during my first family mediation training. There is considerable emphasis on parties involvement and their importance to the process. 

Dare I also suggest that so well explained are these tips that even arch adversarialists could read them carefully and may be over a little time, take them on board-perhaps this is a classic example of just how and at the same time how accessible the ideas in this book are-clear evidence that this book works on many levels. The subsections dealing with such things as selection of mediator, use of joint sessions and sequential sessions are cases in point.

In the remaining parts of the chapter there is considerable emphasis on collaboration being the gateway to peacemaking hence the subject heading, Collaborative Practice Values, hence the following bullet points: –

• Respect and dignity for the other party and other professionals

• Direct and open communication with the other party and professionals

• Voluntary and full disclosure of relevant information and documents necessary to make

agreements

• Commitment to the healing of the family

• Use of interest-based negotiation to try to meet the needs of both parties

Another thing that particularly stands out to me is what I see as a very enlightened sequence of references to interdisciplinary input. As a lawyer back in the 1980s I had been subliminally imbued with the notion at law school that all I had to do was pass the exams to become a knowledgeable lawyer. Of course my seniors to some extent disabused me of this but in truth, I think it proliferated their thoughts as well. Other than perhaps financial advisers, external experts e.g. psychologists, who in many cases are so patently needed were only called in exceptional cases. Similar thought processes pervaded my family mediation training-five days’ worth of training during which there was no mention of the potential benefit of using external input. 

As I rapidly learned and I now see reiterated both in this book and on LinkedIn, outside specialist input often is A, if not THE key to peaceful resolution. The standout among standouts in this section of the book is how well and how clearly and simply this notion is explained. Following on, the importance of synthesising mediation and collaborative practice is very clearly underlined.

After about an hour´s walking we thought we had reached the summit only to find that was more walking required, something that happened twice more. Did we care? No! We were happy to continue because the views got better and better and when we reached the summit we found ourselves in a state of exhilaration.

That is how I feel about this book. My first hour’s barely arduous walking that I got so much out of in terms of looking at the scenery, sketching, learning more about geography and dare I say, fun, was the equivalent of reading the excellently written chapter 1. You think you have reached the final summit of course you haven’t. So you get into chapter 2, chapter 3 and so forth. I continually find myself getting to hitherto anticipated and indeed very enjoyable peaks and I have only reached chapter 5! There are six more chapters to go and I have no doubt that the exhilaration I already feel will hit even higher heights.

So to chapter 5.

I recall that in my undergraduate days I read a decision of US Chief Justice Hand on the subject of copyright. I can no longer remember the case title but in the context of explaining what was meant by “copyright” the Chief Justice was considering it as an embodiment of an idea. But instead of using the word “embodiment” or “manifestation” he used the term “collocation” (not in the sense of Supreme Court judges shaking hands with one another). To me this comes up so more than the mere embodiment of copyright. One could argue all day about the classic meanings of this word that to me it connotes so much more than embodying an idea in written form. I see this conveying a richness with different textures and nuances, an embodiment in the true sense of the word.

This is exactly how I feel about chapter 5. The new ideas, brand-new radical thoughts, acknowledgements of the pioneering days of peacemaking lawyers, existing ideas refrained but so much better expressed and therefore much more accessible. Let us proceed….

As one might reasonably assume, the concept of collaborative law did not fall out of the sky. The idea was conceived of and formulated around 1990 by Dr Stuart Webb (aka Stu). One crystallisation of his concept set out in the letter he wrote in that year to a senior judge in the state of Minnesota. The judge in question had previously indicated an interest in mediation. This letter is reproduced in this chapter in its entirety and from it I have extrapolated what I see as the core notional values of Stu’s concept which I think are helpfully embodied in the following extracts

“One of the aspects of mediation that I feel is a weakness is that it basically leaves out input by the lawyer at the early stages (sometimes that’s an advantage!). By that I don’t mean adversarial, contentious lawyering, but the analytical, reasoned ability to solve problems and generate creative alternatives and create a positive context for settlement. Of course, these attributes of good lawyering are not utilized greatly in the usual adversarial family law proceeding either.”

The letter continues……

The advantages of this collaborative-law model:

1. Each party is represented by an attorney of his/her choice. (This is usually not the case

in mediation until after the mediation has been completed.)

2. This allows the lawyers to be focused in the settlement mode without the threat of “going

to Court” lurking just around the corner. In the normal situation, settlement is often bypassed

initially while the parties posture and the lawyers work on discovery.

3. There is continuity between settlement and processing the final dissolution. (This is

usually not the case in mediation with the resulting problem of the lawyers not liking the

mediated settlement.)

4. With the focus on settlement and avoiding court, the lawyers and clients are motivated

to learn what works to achieve settlement; how to problem-solve without getting “plugged

in” to the emotional content (a la “War of the Roses”). Lawyers who participate in this

program will be motivated to develop win-win settlement skills such as those practiced in

mediation (just like they now focus on sharpening trial skills).

5. Lawyers are freed up to use their real lawyering skills, i.e., analysis, problem solving,

creating alternatives, tax and estate planning and looking at the overall picture as to

what’s fair.

6. Four-way conferences become the norm with positive energies being generated (because

that’s where the creative solutions lie) as all work collaboratively for a fair settlement. As

in mediation, the potential is high for the clients to have a lot of input.

7. Clients and potential clients get an orientation in which they are advised of the

advantages, including cost savings, of this approach and the kind of attitude and frame of

mind that is most likely to achieve fair, prompt, efficient and positive settlements that work

for both parties.

8. When cases don’t settle and new attorneys are retained for trial, the clients have had the

best shot both ways, i.e., a settlement specialist and a trial specialist (in my experience they

usually don’t come in the same package).

9. Settling matters on a collaborative basis is just more fun!

Since 1990 as more practitioners have become collaborative lawyers the notion of the collaborative lawyer has evolved a little hence there having been what are termed paradigm shifts – but very much on the shoulders of the original idea. Also, as ever the emphasis is very much on the well thought out practical, solving people´s problems with in my parlance, no hint of academic navel gazing. (1)

Although I am now looking at the chapter contents a little out of sequence, the first thing that grabbed me about Woody and Lara’s paradigm shift was the listing of the difficulties that lawyers have to encounter when acting for clients, family clients of course, but in my view, equally others.

• Clients rarely or never trust the other client

• Clients rarely or never trust or one or more professionals.

• Both parties show an extreme lack of empathy toward the other party

• One or Both parties have unrealistic outcome expectations of process

• One or Both parties have unrealistic outcome expectations of ultimate terms of settlement

• One or Both parties have unrealistic outcome expectations of process

• Clients attribute little or no value to the contribution of the other

Any practising lawyer with more than five minutes experience will recognise this list but who before has actually taken the trouble to give serious thought to making a list and addressing how to deal with it? This is exactly what chapter 5 does.

In the traditional adversarial approach, lawyers and other professionals perhaps cynically acknowledge these difficulties but they are seen as the norm, something to be acknowledged but in the sense of shrugging shoulders. The collaborative law approach advocated in this chapter suggests a number of very practical and implementable devices and stratagems including for instance: –

“Peacemaking Approach: Work to develop more empathy between the parties

Strategy: Explore ways to for parties to realize that they are dependent upon each other to

reach a settlement—cannot have a deal unless they both sign on

Intervention: Find a task in which each party is dependent upon the other”

or;

“Peacemaking Approach: Work to build trust between the parties

Strategy: Explore ways to have parties work together to meet each’s need

Intervention: Find a task requiring involvement of both parties that will be necessary to

meet the unmet nets of each party.”

Choosing the right lawyers-in the traditional way, the two parties involved in a divorce will choose their own lawyers without input from anyone else e.g. each other or the mediator that happened to have instructed.

Woody and Lara suggest that the parties working together can bring about very positive results and I am out the possibility that the appointed mediator could make suggestions as to suitable candidates. The option of online preliminary interviews is also highlighted so that using my words, the people concerned can see what they are getting. A protocol which will serve to keep the whole process within workable framework is also suggested.

In another section entitled Limited Scope Coaching (Unbundling), Woody and Lara make a list of the functions that a traditional lawyer or attorney might undertake gathering facts, advising the client, discovering the facts of the opposing party, researching the law, drafting correspondence and documents, negotiating, and representing the client in court.

The suggestion is made that the lawyers not need to do all of these. I know from personal experience that in many instances, lawyers do for clients that they with first-hand knowledge can much better do themselves. So developing this idea, the peacemaking lawyer might not commit to doing “everything”.

Rather, instead of being directly involved might to some extent sit on the sidelines (and subject to the stipulation that there should be “informed consent and excellent communication), that lawyer some extent at least sits on the sidelines and gives a guiding hand. Clearly this will not work in every case but at the very least from the costs point of view, I can see the attractions of this way of thinking for individual clients. By way of examples it is explained that the lawyer coach can “Teach Clients About Divorce Dynamics” or alternatively “The lawyer-coach can also help the client understand negotiation dynamics”.

Does this chapter need a clincher? Given its uniform excellence, no, but there is one anyway namely what I might term a sequel, a piece entitled “Utilizing Dialogue to Enhance Peace” by Canadian peacemaker Nancy Cameron. (2)

On first read I wondered why this was not included as a separate chapter and only later did the penny drop.

With reference to the whole notion of communication after an introduction in which she considers the role and the obligations of peacemaking lawyers she writes the following: –

“As peacemakers, we can help create the conditions for building peace. A key tool is to become skilled in different types of communication, with a deeper understanding of the purpose served by each type.

Following on, with reference to a book entitled Collaborating with the Enemy by Adam Kahane (3) she breaks down the concept of communication into four namely debating, dialoguing, and presenting. and identifies the important roles that each of these has and how to use them effectively.

I came to realise that as well as articulating her own very original peacemaking/communication focused ideas, what Nancy is doing here is elaborating on the all-important communication techniques that the peacemaking lawyer needs to adopt in order to get the best out of the ideas and notions formulated in the first part of the chapter.” Two for the price of one” might sound like a cheap trick but in the present context it most certainly is not.

To me this is communication taken to a much deeper level than was ever taught to me when I first went to mediator school. The text is detailed but immensely practical and very much versed in the real world with plenty of examples. She perfectly illustrates how one might strike the all-important balance between the subjective and the objective and in using examples from her own personal life, she is powerful and illustrative but never self-indulgent.

Mediators are not just family mediators should be devouring this book 3 times over. Instead of just saying “communication and listening are so important” those teaching mediation should be using Nancy’s text as a core part of their curriculae.

(1) You can also learn more from a book written by Stu and fellow collaborative attorney, Ron Ousky, called “The Collaborative Way to Divorce: The Revolutionary Method That Results in Less Stress, Lower Costs, and Happier Kids–Without Going to Court.”

(2) There is reference in Woody and Lara’s text to Nancy “for pioneering a modified new paradigm in her brilliant book, Collaborative Practice: Deepening the Dialogue (Society of British Columbia, 2004).

(3) Kahane, Adam M. “Collaborating with the Enemy, How to Work with People You Don’t Agree with or Like or Trust”

This brings us very neatly onto chapter 6 which is exactly that-an excellent example of interdisciplinary teamwork- hence this chapter having been written by Laurie Israel, a specialist in the field of pre-nuptial mediation or more correctly the formulation of what she terms the “Financial Plan for Marriage”. Given my past experiences which I will elucidate on below, I trust I will be excused for entering slightly outside of any remit and commenting on what I see some wider issues. I do so safe in the knowledge that Laurie has indeed addressed them.

I am also reminded one of the principles of peacemaking lawyering is to put viable, long-term solutions to place. The properly and indeed justly and fairly prenuptial agreement must surely be a prime example of this principle.

This chapter also reminds us that peacemaking is not something that just goes in hand with litigation or litigation avoidance. The peacemaking path is just as relevant to the non-contentious lawyers sitting at their desks drafting bills of sale, formulating leases, completing transactions, drafting a partnership agreement, preparing wills or of course, drafting a prenup. After all, non-contentious clients are people as well. Getting the noncontentious stuff right in the first place is a key way to avoid rancour, dispute, fallout, litigation, separation, divorce, et cetera.

As I have previously mentioned as a lawyer I practiced family law between 1985 and 1989 (this only just after the round wheel had been invented and the secret of fire had been discovered) before disillusionment set in. Prior to that at college I had received both undergraduate and postgraduate courses in family law.

Much later after I ceased legal practice I qualified as a civil mediator and started on the journey becoming a family mediator and mostly Esco mediator, did a fair few family mediations. As one would expect I had initial intensive training and a fair amount of CPD.

In all of this I think only came across a prenup once. The whole notion of such agreements was not even mentioned once during any of my undergraduate/postgraduate legal training. Certainly, in the UK if prenups and similar types of agreement were used at all they were regarded as being the preserve of the very rich, something that one had heard about on American TV sitcoms, a concept that really wasn’t quite but British” and signified a lack of trust.

I trust I will be forgiven from deviating from commenting purely on prenups because I think the whole underlying principle of the properly devised, possibly mediated prenup has very wide implications.

In my days as a trainee lawyer I came across two particular cases that intrigued me.

Case one concerned Mr and Mrs A, their adult son B and his wife C. The four of them decided to pool their resources so they could buy a nice big house. Mr and Mrs A who are in much better financial position put up the bulk of the money and it was explained that it had been informally agreed by all that when they retired, B and C would “look after them”. No thought was given to the possibility of B and C having children or what might happen if the living arrangements did not work.

My boss tactfully approached this with the clients and was very brusquely rebuffed. The clients were indignant- as if an upstart solicitor would suggest such a thing. The boss had the good sense to confirm the instructions in writing and clear notes were made on the file by both him and me..

The second case concerned the acquisition of the property by an unmarried couple. For reasons that I never really understood, the bank putting up the money for the mortgage insisted the property should be purchased in the man’s name only, this despite the venture clearly being a joint-venture with each party contributing more or less equally towards acquisition costs, mortgage repayments, household expenses et cetera.

What would happen if things went wrong I thought? I mentioned my concerns to my boss who brushed them aside with a comment to the effect of “it’s difficult enough to get them to do their ***»»»### wills.

Later, as a family mediator with a civil mediation background I encountered a number of cases where informal living arrangements of one form or another had gone wrong. Maybe not a classic prenup between them but all of them resonating with Laurie’s abiding principles.

This sort of frankly bad practice highlight of the flies in the face of established English and Welsh case law (and very probably many other jurisdictions). There are a plethora of High Court decisions all of which show what can go wrong when people enter into property related agreements without properly formulating them.

Laurie Israel’s Chapter 6 debunks a lot of all of what I would term the “malarkey”, the misconceptions and examples of downright bad practice referred to above. Rather, it looks at the whole process of formulating agreements simply + methodically.

However at the same time the rest of the book the notion of the turgid textbook is conspicuously and thankfully absent. The text is engaging and demonstrates how boys involved in this type of work can be engaging and get the best out of it – not so much “the devil is in the detail” as empowering clients, ordinary people to regulate their affairs in a just and fair way. We are reminded that documents such as a prenup can help to form the basis of trust rather than being evidence of mistrust.

Back to the lawyers. Anyone who reads this chapter and thinks that because it is written by an expert and therefore is for experts only is seriously wrong. I have no doubt that are experts out there that despite their expertise will benefit from reading it. However, I think the people that will most benefit are those lawyers, possibly noncontentious practitioners, who are more than likely schooled the adversarial tradition. This chapter which has practical implications for all aspects of noncontentious practice will help each and every one of them to do a better job and in drafting meaningful, empowering documents, to do the very best for their clients and help avoid disputes, disagreements, litigation whatever, in both the short and long terms.

Can the lawyers do it alone? What about mediation? Yes in some cases the lawyers should be able to do it alone and do a pretty good job at that. However, as this chapter makes abundantly clear, there is a very significant role for mediation. It is entirely conceivable that the context of negotiating sale, a prenuptial agreement the parties will disagree, maybe reach deadlock, maybe be the victims of lawyers advocating their respective interests into adversarial manner et cetera. Accordingly, as the chapter states there is a very real, very practical and very well explained role for mediation.

The only real way to do justice to this chapter is to read it in its entirety but let me remind you of your absolute need to buy “Lawyer As Peacemaker” by highlighting a few short excerpts from this chapter

The Disconnect Between a Loving Relationship and a Prenuptial Agreement

Attorneys commonly experience many challenges in representing clients during prenuptial-agreement negotiations. However, lawyers’ challenges are dwarfed by the challenges experienced by the future spouses themselves.

A couple is engaged to be married. Like most engaged couples, they are excited about the prospect of marriage and spending their lives together. At that moment, they are experiencing a “high” of deep fondness and affection for each other. Then one partner informs the other that a prenuptial agreement must be in place before they marry. The request is typically unilateral, made by only one of the future spouses. It’s not actually a request but a demand, without which the already-planned marriage cannot proceed.…..

Standard prenuptial agreements undermine these fundamental marital principles by tearing at the very fabric of financial security implicit in marriage itself. By design, such agreements prioritize individual financial protection over mutual economic well-being. The inherent emotional pain of being part of such negotiations, and the ensuing marriage based on these terms, reveal the deep relational harm these documents can inflict. When the subject of a prenup arises, early attorney involvement often transforms prenup negotiations into adversarial proceedings….

Alternative solutions can and do exist. Prenuptial agreements can address genuine concerns equitably, protecting both parties’ needs and interests in regard to security and fairness. While prenup lawyers typically fail to address the potentially harmful personal consequences of their legal advice, a more collaborative process can transform these agreements into constructive, healing experiences. This alternative process generates a more balanced prenup and leads to a better marriage, in which having a prenup makes sense and may serve a particular couple well. In a good prenup, the deeply held concerns of both spouses should be adequately addressed. In the traditional lawyer-driven process, this is frequently not the result….”-

The Mediator’s Role

“As a prenup mediator, I identify four interconnected interests in every prenup mediation that I need to be aware of: Each party individually, the couple as a unit, and—critically—the marriage itself. It’s this last interest that gets left out in the usual attorney-led process. The mediator’s challenge is to correlate these concerns into a constructive prenup plan. During the process, in my view, one of the roles of the mediator is to provide marriage guidance for the couple. This approach might appear to impose the mediator’s perspectives on marriage. However, mediators can ethically share insights drawn not only from legal expertise but also from practical experience. Like traditional “counselors,” mediators can offer guidance that transcends pure legal information and dispute resolution. This can provide a holistic perspective that helps clients navigate complex personal and legal decisions related to their upcoming marriage”.

A Framework for Mediating Prenuptial Agreements

“I structure the “Financial Plan for Marriage” document to contain four main sections:

1. During Marriage

2. Marriage ends in divorce

3. Marriage ends in death (my highlighting of something that may not be found in a classic prenup but is both innovative and very important)

4. General Provisions, including alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provisions.)

“The foremost benefit of mediating prenuptial agreements is the facilitation of face-to-face three-way discussions between the mediating clients and the mediator within the safe setting of the mediation process. There, the mediator can help clients express their thoughts, fears and goals about the upcoming marriage’s financial terms. The couple becomes part of a team with the mediator. Collectively, the team will (hopefully) explore all perspectives to find solutions to address any concerns regarding all aspects of the prenuptial agreement.”

Why Add the Extra Cost of Mediation to the Costs of Generating a Prenup?

“It should be recognized that a prenuptial agreement is often the most significant financial contract a person will ever sign in their life. Not only that, but it goes to the very heart of the marriage, which is one of the most primary relationships a person has in life. It’s important to get it right. Embarking on mediation as the first step makes this crucial outcome of a beneficial contract much more likely to happen …… mediation tends to provide a more effective beginning for the process. In addition, it provides a great deal of work product that replaces the time and cost of the attorney-led paradigm as the process unfolds. Much of an attorney-led process (which usually starts with a draft of a prenuptial agreement) consists of back-and-forth negotiations about the terms of the agreement. Aside from creating corrosiveness between the marrying couple, due to the adversarial nature of the positions taken, this negotiation takes significant attorney time at much potential emotional cost. The attorney costs for this segment of the process are often quite significant. In the mediation-first process, decisions about the terms of the agreement are accomplished in mediation, saving the cost of dual attorney representation. The attorneys will, of course, provide input to their clients in their review of the terms. But mediation has the benefit of peacefully accomplishing this crucial first step in the prenup construction. When done by opposing attorneys, this step usually results in an unpleasant (and memorable) negotiation.

And, of course (at least in my view), prenuptial agreements are only appropriate when there’s significant wealth involved – either accumulation of prenuptial assets, family money or inheritances, and also if it is a second marriage, or a situation where a spouse is actively involved in a business. It doesn’t make sense to me to try to save money by foregoing the best process option, when by doing so could likely create a negative the effect on the resilience of the upcoming marriage.”

As noted above, Laurie does not just sign off here. Demonstrating completeness in the best possible way she follows up with sections headed:-

• The Challenges and Opportunities of Second Marriage Prenups

• Mediating Postnuptial Agreements

• Using Collaborative Practice in Prenuptial and Postnuptial Agreement Creation; and

• Mediating Cohabitation Agreements for Unmarried Partners”

My sequel-writing as someone who has not come within 10,000 miles of drafting, overseeing or assisting with the type of agreement that for Laurie is quite commonplace but as someone who has experience of adversarial agreements where there are lots of niggles, doubts, resentments et cetera

The classic type of prenup where there is adversarial input will often lead to resentment even if it is postponed resentment. People reluctantly agreed something rather than agreeing with something. Insofar as there is an additional mediation cost in formulating the print in the first place (and looking the bigger picture I don’t think there is) the long-term gains of benefits as opposed to costs of such an agreement is much likely to get near to the “watertight” agreement that clients love is much greater.

However — the final word is most certainly not mine. Let me leave you with Laurie’s very wise concluding words but with a bit of my highlighting-if only to emphasise the fact that she writes what she writes so well.

“Marriage is generous, helpful, affirming and kind. Married couples share with each other and support each other’s aspirations. Negotiating a prenup is often an incongruous way to begin their commitment to a life together. Prenup negotiations at the inception of marriage, for most people (especially in first marriages of relatively young people), are felt as a jarring disconnect from mutual feelings of love and their goals and values for their upcoming marriage. hen a prenuptial agreement is necessary, crafting it judiciously, sensitively and thoughtfully through a client-centered process will foster continued peace and goodwill within the marriage. This is achievable only when the proposed solutions are perceived to be fair and equitable by both parties (and are so in reality), and when the process itself has been peaceful and collaborative. For this reason, mediation is often the most suitable approach to initiate discussions and facilitate the creation of terms that will establish the financial framework of a successful, resilient, long-term marriage.

“Peace is not built in conference rooms. Peace is built in classrooms, in clinics, in communities. Peace is built when people have hope, opportunity and a stake in their future.”

My friend confirmed his unequivocal agreement with this and when I amended the second line of this post to read “Peace is built in classrooms, in clinics, in communities and law offices”. I think he saw the point.

There may be more of my cynical friend in later reviews but for now-onto chapter 7.

Suffice to say that for me, as with mediation, one of the greatest challenges for the peacemaking/collaborative lawyer is to reach out beyond the confines of a liberal there a single class outlook to reach cynic such as my friend who can be commonly encountered both in and outside of the legal communities.

We have seen thus far the lawyerly change from adversarial to peacemaking requires a bit more than changing a lightbulb. In this regard the earlier chapters written by Patrick K and David Hoffman are cases in point. They are amongst many others who have made the journey successfully and thrive.

We have also seen that “Lawyer as Peacemaker” is not a static concept, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. As this chapter clearly demonstrates it has to be worked on, maintained, nourished. The personal journey that Patrick K described is an ongoing process and as this chapter equally demonstrates, requires more than the processes that are maintained in what I term a conventional law office.

The standard more of this approach is something the effect of “case closed, let’s get on the next one and sending the final bill”. Obviously one hopes clients will come back but, those dazed and confused by adversarial litigation invariably don’t. Sometimes they go to other lawyers who might take a different approach and there is always a danger that such good work that has been done will be undone.

However, chapter 7 is about much more than keeping clients in the sense of keeping them sweet hence this extract from introduction: that

“The notion that “the file never closes” marks a philosophical shift in family law practice. It reflects the reality that families do not end after court rulings or signed agreements. They evolve and change. They grow. They encounter new challenges. The needs may be continuous, or periodic. As Zora Neale Hurston said, “there are years that ask questions and years that answer.” Relationships are a two-way street, and committed preventive peacemakers do not hesitate to reach out. You can maintain meaningful, long-term relationships with former clients through intentional and thoughtful outreach that extends beyond case closure. This kind of contact not only fosters trust and goodwill but also reinforces the lawyer’s role as a steady presence in the life of the family. Simple gestures like sending a birthday card to a client’s child, congratulating them on a graduation or milestone, or acknowledging a former spouse’s remarriage can be surprisingly powerful. You might also send periodic reminders about reviewing child or spousal support agreements, especially around predictable transition points like when a child turns 18 or graduates from high school. These small acts demonstrate empathy, attentiveness, and continuity.”

One suggestion that follows from this is the annual check in, not a cynical process to extract more fees but rather to see how things are and to see if anything needs to be done to maintain what has been achieved. The above-mentioned suggestions of sending congratulations or perhaps a birthday card and do indeed as is stated above demonstrate “empathy, attentiveness, and continuity.

This whole idea of the file never closes is looked at in the context of four lifecycles being

·         children reaching majority,

·         remarriage

·         retirement,

·         death of a spouse

The following extracts from the chapter will help to elucidate.

Children reaching majority

“This is a critical moment for a preventive family peacemaker to step in— not because conflict has emerged, but to prevent confusion and missteps that could lead to emotional rupture or legal complication down the road. By providing education, clear documentation, and space for intentional conversation, you can support families through this tender, sometimes disorienting shift.

The legal implications of a child reaching majority are often misunderstood. You can help clarify these boundaries in a way that is accessible and reassuring. This might involve reviewing the formal end of child support obligations, particularly where state laws or prior agreements define different cutoff points for support based on age, education status, or disability. This might involve explaining how a child’s new legal status affects parental access to information. [Laws like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) grant adult children control over their educational and medical records.] Many parents are surprised to learn they can no longer call a college registrar or a doctor’s office for updates without the student’s express permission. You can assist families in preparing advanced healthcare directives, durable powers of attorney, and HIPAA waivers—particularly important if the child has special needs, a chronic illness, or will be living far from home.”

Remarriage

 “Remarriage can be a hopeful new chapter for one or both parties in their postdivorce lives, but it is also one of the most legally and emotionally intricate transitions in family life. It involves not just the merging of two individuals, 10/17/25   10:38 AM mos57146_Peacemaker.indd   120Chapter 7: Family Peacemaker as Life Cycle Lawer  121 but often two extended families, different parenting styles, financial obligations from previous relationships, differently entangled estate plans, and unresolved emotional dynamics. For those who’ve gone through divorce or widowhood, remarriage can surface complex feelings: vulnerability, guilt, protectiveness over children, or fear of repeating past mistakes. In these moments, you can play an essential role—not simply drafting documents but helping families anticipate challenges and develop the foundation for healthy integration. Whether the remarriage involves young children, adult children, or no children at all, there are critical questions to be addressed: What responsibilities will stepparents have? How will financial assets be protected or shared? How can this new union avoid legal or emotional landmines that weren’t visible the first time around? Do merging families need to re-evaluate life insurance beneficiary designations, talk about relocations and merged household logistics, or hold multiparty blended family co-parenting meetings? Yes, and more.”

“By holding space for both legal clarity and emotional honesty, you can help transform what could be a volatile moment into one of grounded optimism. You can help clients affirm their new commitments while honoring past relationships and future obligations. In doing so, you can protect not only their legal rights—but the fragile, hopeful promise of new beginnings.”

 Retirement

 “One of the most immediate impacts of retirement is the reduction or reallocation of income. For divorced individuals paying or receiving spousal support from a former spouse, this often raises critical legal questions: Can alimony be modified based on a retiree’s new financial situation? For some, retirement may bring conflict with a former spouse who relies on support; for others, it may offer an opportunity to renegotiate outdated agreements in a spirit of fairness. You can guide clients through this process early, helping them proactively revisit support obligations as retirement approaches rather than waiting for tensions or nonpayment to spark legal action. “

“For clients still in the workforce but nearing retirement, you can include terms in divorce agreements that anticipate these future changes, adding clarity and preventing emotional escalations later on. Warren Buffett famously opined, “Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago.” Retirement doesn’t just change income—it often shifts the dynamics within a household. For couples, spending more time together may expose unresolved tensions that were previously obscured by work schedules. Preventive peacemakers, especially those who maintain long-term relationships with clients, can serve as trusted advisors during this adjustment period, offering mediation, revisiting co-ownership agreements, or even helping draft postnuptial agreements if needed.”

Death of a Spouse

The death of a spouse is one of life’s deepest ruptures. It is both a private, emotional loss and a public, legal event. On paper, it marks the triggering of a will probate or estate administration, the transfer of assets, or the dissolution of a marriage contract by death. In lived experience, it often marks the collapse of an entire world. For families who have maintained long-term relationships with their peacemaking professional—with their “lawyer for life”—this moment can be met with compassionate understanding. When a peacemaker has been part of the family’s story across decades, they may be one of the few professionals in a position to understand not just the legal documents but also the intentions behind them. They remember why a certain trust was structured a certain way, what values the couple prioritized in raising their children, or how they once resolved a conflict over inheritances. This depth of relationship allows the peacemaker to serve not merely as a legal executor, but as a witness to the family’s history. In practical terms, the peacemaking lawyer helps the surviving spouse or family navigate probate or trust administration. “

 “Peacemakers also play a vital role in protecting the relationships that remain. The death of a spouse, especially the second parent, can reignite unresolved tensions among adult siblings. “Why did she leave this to you?” “Who should stay in the house?” “Why weren’t we consulted?” In these moments, you may act as a peacemaker and mediator—not just explaining what the documents say but helping interpret what the deceased likely intended. You may convene family meetings to foster understanding. You may reframe accusations as grief in disguise. And you may help family members remember their parents’ values—not just through what was written in the estate plan, but through stories and patterns observed over years of representation. In some families, a thoughtful lawyer’s involvement during estate settlement can be the difference between a family that stays connected and one that falls apart.”

Chapter 7 could very well end here. The role of the peacemaking lawyer context of these very significant lifecycles very well made and in my view demonstrates that only caring peacemaking but the very highest standards of professional care advice, something that clients have every right to expect and not always receive. Thus the peacemaking lawyer is hoping to maintain peace and doing an excellent job all at the same time.

However, at the risk of repeating myself I entirely understand that notions like this do not happen organically which is why concluding part of the chapter were provided with tools and suggestions providing a framework to help ensure that both the ideals and the practicalities of what is set out above are maintained. I think it fair to say that in the suggestions there is a good deal of biological out-of-the-box thinking. Deep-seated and thoughtful ideas that go well beyond making a diary and sending people routine form letters.

Hence-

“Practical Tools for Deepening Your Role  as a Life-Cycle Lawyer and Preventive Peacemaker”

“1. Create a Personal Legacy Plan“

2. Interview a Long-Term Client – Select one or more clients you’ve worked with for over five to ten years. Conduct a short, reflective conversation: • What did they value most about your support? • What did they need that wasn’t provided? • What surprised them about life after divorce, remarriage, or loss? Think About: “What assumptions do I make about long-term service? What might I do differently in the next ten years?”

“3. Host a “Life-Cycle Legal Checkup” – Seminar Offer an annual workshop for former and current clients (and their families)11 and others either by yourself (even online) or affiliated with a church, senior social agency, or other organization on how legal needs evolve:”

“4. Develop a Client Transition Journal – Design a simple workbook or PDF with guided prompts for clients facing major transitions: • Divorce, remarriage, empty nesting, retirement, or a spouse’s death • Reflection questions like: • “What am I most afraid of right now?” • “What do I want to protect?” • “What legacy do I want to leave?” “

“5. Create a “Milestone Outreach”

“ 6. Write a Letter to a Future Client Take 20 minutes and write a heartfelt letter to a future client going through divorce, loss, or major change. “

“7. Team Reflection on Long-Term Relationships Gather your legal team or colleagues and discuss: • Who are the “clients for life” in our practice? • What systems (or gaps) do we have for staying connected? • How can we better serve the emotional journey, not just the legal one? “

“8. Ritualize Endings and Transitions When a legal file closes, especially after divorce or death, consider marking the moment with intentionality: • Send a closing letter that honors the client’s resilience • Include a brief note with a quote, reflection, or invitation for future contact • For long-term clients, consider a certificate or note celebrating their “new chapter” “

Are Once a year, choose a book that illuminates life’s transitions from a personal, human view—memoirs about caregiving, blended families, divorce recovery, or grief. Think About: “How might I show up differently in a client’s life if I held their emotional story alongside their legal file?”

“10. Design a Family Timeline Template Offer clients a “Family Life Timeline” worksheet.”

I practised law as a qualified lawyer from 1985 until 2007 and continued as a judge and in a sense in the swing of the legal profession until 2019 and I effectively retired. In all those years plus of course my years as a trainee, student et cetera and all sorts of contexts although I encountered many law firms that said they were “established family firms” that maintained familial connection for their clients over the years, in truth many did not. I see now, terrible, terrible lost opportunities all round. Perhaps it is time not just for peacemaker lawyers to expand their practices and their vision but for the legal profession as a whole and whatever jurisdiction to take the opportunity provided to a radical rethink and look beyond billing, hours in the office and “case closed on to the next one”

The other day I suddenly found myself casting my mind back to a late 70s NME review of a Rolling Stones vinyl LP (shows you how long ago this was) written by Charles Shaar Murray (CSM), who was undoubtedly the best rock journalist of his generation. It was apparent from the outset that CSM liked the record and as he described it, track by track, his superlative adjectives became even more superlative and then suddenly, he seemed to run out of them. At that point he simply wrote “boy I love this album”.

Why that smidgen of a recollection should suddenly come back to me after 50 years or so I cannot fathom but it certainly did and I guess that little CSM phrase sums up how I feel about this book.

When it comes to peacemaking lawyers my aforementioned cynical friend remains cynical. His latest criticism (coming from someone who has obviously not had the opportunity to read the book or indeed any of my reviews) is that it is all entirely theoretical. Well, as I explained to him if ever there was any such notion to be entertained, at the very least, chapter 6, written by Laurie Israel and chapter 7, blow his unsubstantiated theory out of the water. In taking a very well scrutinised and the practical look at what is meant by “compassion” this chapter 8 is yet another case in point.

In the few years that I practiced family law solicitor I saw some heartrending, quite dreadful things, some of which I have shared in other LinkedIn posts. Bearing in mind that in those years I was the junior litigator in the office I got to deal with domestic violence work that nobody else wanted to do. Certainly, in those days in outer London when for instance the police “didn’t get involved in domestics” there was a lot of it.

At the time, and of course in the adversarial context of the age, my stock in trade advice which came from senior colleagues was something to the effect of one or more of the following “don’t get involved”; “if you lose your objectivity you are no good to the client”; “don’t take sides, remain detached”; et cetera.

In one sense this is good advice. However at the same time, if taken literally or too literally it can be a recipe for a superficial appraisal, not looking beyond the surface and seeing what is really going on, confusing empathy with sympathy and possibly leaving clients bereft. However at the same time, because the system was so adversarial, one necessarily did take sides with lawyers taking their clients instructions to literal extremes and to the point that they themselves i.e. the lawyers were in a state of denial. The net effect was that cases that really could and should have been dealt with justly, fairly and sensibly in weeks rumbled on, sometimes even for years.

Had my bosses but thought a little they would have seen surely that files ´that were getting ever larger” and attracting relatively modest interim payments with disgruntled clients were bad for business. Equally they might have said “all of this is bad for our clients- we must do better” but of course like the rest of the profession they didn’t. Had they gone a bit further and “put two and two together”, the bosses might even have realised that the two concepts of turnover and client satisfaction are quite compatible with one another.

Compassion is not some abstruse, subjective concept that one sees self-indulgently scripted in TV soap operas with lots of platonic but nonetheless intense hugging. Rather, inspired by what Woody and Lara and indeed the other contributors to the book have written, I see that compassion and its close cousin “empathy” can and should be tools of the lawyer’s trade.

So, onto some extracts from this chapter. Bear in mind what I say in my housekeeping notes that my soundbites are just that but I trust they will give readers a flavour of what this chapter is about. Those professionals (NOT JUST LAWYERS-see my housekeeping notes at the bottom) who heed and indeed implement Woody and Lara’s guidance in this chapter can change professional landscape for the better.

The Presence of Presence

“There is a kind of listening that changes a room. Not the listening that waits to respond, but the listening that leans in as if the speaker’s words are water, and you are parched. That is the presence of presence. It doesn’t take more time. But it does take more of you. More stillness. More courage to let the silence stretch. More willingness to be affected by what you hear. In this kind of presence, clients begin to unfold. Not because you have asked better questions, but because they feel that you are there….”

“….. A place where someone begins, maybe for the first time, to believe that their story matters to you and to the next step in their uncomfortable legal journey. We cannot do this if we are scattered, depleted, or guarded. Compassionate presence begins with resourcing ourselves—not as an act of self-indulgence, but as professional necessity. A lawyer running on fumes cannot hold space for a client’s grief. A lawyer too defended cannot recognize their client’s unspoken fear. ……. Our internal peace creates space for compassion, and compassion is integral to family healing. Yes, this is real lawyering!”

Listening for What Is Not Said

“Because beneath the custody dispute, there is often a cry for connection:

Will I still matter to my child when everything changes?

Will my family respect me if I compromise with her? Will they still need me?

Beneath the struggle over who gets which assets, there is a wound of betrayal: How did we end up here, strangers dividing up a life we once built together?

And beneath the silence—perhaps the most painful of all—there could be the heavy presence of shame: What did I do wrong? Am I the reason it all fell apart?

As compassionate healers, our task as lawyers is not merely to extract the facts but to attune to the full texture of the person sitting before us.

We listen not just for the content of the story but for the pulse beneath the words—the tremble in the voice when they mention their daughter’s name, the catch in their breath when recalling the last holiday before separation, the way their eyes dart away when they speak of their former partner, and the sigh that escapes when they think no one is paying attention. These moments—these micro-revelations—are not distractions from the legal process: They are the heart of it.”

“Compassionate Advocacy: Power with, Not Power Over

“Compassion does not mean pandering or giving in. It does not mean being meek or retreating from difficult conversations. It means advocating with someone, rather than over someone. It is power exercised in the service of healing—not dominance. It is clarity without cruelty, firmness without control or hurt. A compassionate family peacemaker knows how to speak directly but not harshly. To say no without shutting.”

The Quiet Revolutionary Act of Language

“Our profession is built on language. Words are our instruments, our shields, our currency. Yet so often, we wield them unconsciously—out of habit, out of tradition, out of the inertia of a system that has long favored confrontation over connection. We talk of battles and strategies, of “waging” and “winning,” as if we are preparing for a war rather than navigating the fragile terrain of human relationships. We speak of “taking the other party to court,” of “fighting for custody,” of “losing the house,” as though families are empires to be conquered. But what if we started to choose different words?

What if, instead of “taking the other party to court,” we said we were “having a neutral experience judge make the decision that we cannot seem to make ourselves”? Instead of “visitation,” we spoke of “parenting presence”— an affirmation that love does not vanish with time or distance. Instead of “custody battle,” we called it “family reorganization”—a recognition that while the structure is shifting, the family remains, and the relationships within it are still. Family Lawyer as Peacemaker sacred, still worth tending. Instead of “win,” we asked, “What brings wholeness?” Instead of “loss,” we asked, “What can be preserved while some things change?”

Helping as Holding, Not Fixing

“Compassionate helping does not require us to have all the answers. “I don’t know; I will need to research that question” is not only honest and transparent, but it builds client trust. In truth, it helps us to release that very burden. …. We are trained, almost reflexively, to fix. To respond. To solve. To construct airtight arguments, airtight plans. But in the landscape of suffering, that kind of certainty can feel hollow, even violent. When someone is grieving the collapse of their family, or navigating the shame of a mistake, the last thing they often need is a ten-point plan for efficiency. Such a plan may be misleading and creates a false client dependence. Sometimes, even good news requires quiet presence.”

“A client may come to you after receiving a surprising message from the other party—an offer to reimburse a parenting expense, to split costs more fairly going forward, or even just a kind acknowledgment of shared effort. No judge ordered it. No one demanded it. And still, it happened. Your client is caught off guard—not joyful exactly, but disoriented by the sudden absence of hostility. She’s holding her breath, afraid to trust it. You could leap in to analyze, to define next steps, to draft a response that locks it all in. But instead, you pause with her. “It’s okay to just take that in,” you say. “It doesn’t have to mean everything is fixed. But it means something. Let’s stay with that for a moment.”

The Neuroscience of Compassion:

“The Brain’s Pathway to Connection Compassion is not only a moral choice or a learned skill—it is a biological imperative, encoded in the very architecture of our brains. Emerging research in neuroscience reveals that compassion lights up neural pathways that calm our stress responses and deepen our capacity for connection.”

“When we enter a family dispute with this embodied compassion, we create a contagion of calm. The lawyer’s regulated nervous system serves as an anchor in turbulent emotional seas. This is not soft idealism—it is hard science, offering a road map for transforming conflict through presence. In this light, compassion is a practice of neuroscience-informed lawyering; one where awareness, intention, and biology converge to open pathways toward healing and justice.”

Training the Heart: The Ongoing Inner Work

“To practice law and further peace compassionately is to practice differently. It is not a performance, a mask to don in the courtroom or the conference room. It cannot be faked or outsourced. It must be lived from the inside out, woven into the very fabric of who we are—our thoughts, our breath, our intentions. This requires inner work. Not once, but constantly. A lifelong cultivation.”

“… there is one enduring truth: You must train your heart as diligently as you train your intellect. Your client will not only feel the precision of your legal mind, they will feel the presence of your heart. And that presence—the kind that calms, steadies, and holds—is shaped by the work you have done daily, by yourself, in silence. The hours spent far from the mediation zoom or courtroom, when no one is watching, when only your own honesty and courage bear witness. As a wise voice of spiritual compassion reminds us: You cannot be kind to others if you have not first been kind to yourself.”

Cross-Cultural Compassion and Humility: Meeting the Other in Their Fullness

“In family law, the stories we encounter are as diverse as the families themselves. Each narrative is woven not only from personal histories but also from the rich tapestry of culture, tradition, and identity. To practice compassion here demands more than kindness—it requires humility, a willingness to meet the other not as we expect, but as they are in their full complexity. We need to be full-time committed students of diversity and culture. This humility calls us to recognize our own cultural lenses—the invisible frames through which we interpret words, behaviors, and emotions. Without this awareness, even the most well-intentioned efforts at compassion risk misunderstanding, misreading, or unintentionally imposing our values on those we seek to help.

“One lawyer shared a story that still lingers in the way she talks about it. During what appeared to be a routine divorce mediation, she noticed the husband, a man who had worn stoicism like armor, arms crossed tightly, jaw clenched, kept glancing repeatedly toward a photograph resting on the edge of the table. It was a simple snapshot: a sun-dappled beach, two laughing children running ahead of their parents. The tension in the room was palpable, the air heavy with years of unspoken grievances and fractures. Yet something in that small, quiet image called to her. With gentle care, she paused the meeting and softly asked, “Would you like to talk about that picture?” What followed was not in the mediation plan. It was not on any agenda or checklist. It was 30 minutes of unplanned, tender conversation in which both parties allowed themselves to step out of their legal roles and back into their shared humanity. They spoke of that vacation long ago, before the cracks appeared, when hope was still a given and laughter flowed easily. They spoke of their children’s small triumphs and first words, of dreams once dreamt together. The room changed. Tears came—surprising, unguarded. The husband’s arms unfolded slowly, as if unshackling old grief. The wife’s eyes softened…”

Compassion Fatigue

“Let us name something honestly, without shame or avoidance: Compassion has a cost. To sit with suffering day after day, to hold the raw edges of human pain with tenderness and steadiness, is an act of courage and grace, but it is not effortless or without a price. It requires energy we cannot always summon on command. It requires vulnerability in a profession often trained to armor itself against vulnerability. Even with the best of intentions, even with rituals that ground us and support systems that sustain us, we are not immune to depletion.”

“The term compassion fatigue is familiar in clinical fields—therapists, nurses, caregivers—but for lawyers, it often remains elusive, unnamed, slipping quietly beneath the surface like a slow leak in the soul’s reservoir. It shows up as a creeping numbness, a subtle thinning of patience, a quiet pull toward cynicism and detachment. There are reasons why so many lawyers succumb to alcohol and substance abuse. You may find yourself rolling your eyes internally at a client’s tears—tears that once stirred your empathy now triggering irritation. You dread returning calls that feel like yet another invitation into conflict. You stop believing that resolution, or peace, is even possible. This is not failure. It is a signal that you should not ignore. It is your body and soul whispering, and sometimes shouting, that it is time to return to yourself.”

Shaping a Practice Culture of Care

“Imagine, if you will, a law office where the day begins not with the frantic rush of deadlines, but with a collective breath—a moment of stillness. Not as a performance for clients or management, but as a genuine pause to reset nervous systems, to remind everyone present that beneath the roles and responsibilities, we are human beings first, interconnected and vulnerable.

Picture team meetings that open with this shared breath, where the air softens and the usual undercurrent of stress eases, if only for a moment. Where a staff member feels empowered to say, “I need five minutes before I return that client’s call,” and this is met not with impatience or judgment, but with understanding and respect. Where taking a pause is recognized as strength, not a failure. Where having the office close daily for lunch makes professional and financial sense.”

The Future We Are Building (for me the reviewer, the most poignant and relevant of all these extracts)

“Family law is undergoing a quiet revolution. Not one sparked by legislation or technological disruption, but by something deeper—by a shift in conscience. A growing number of us are stepping forward to say, with clarity and conviction: Enough. Enough dehumanization masked as efficiency. Enough war metaphors masquerading as strategy. Enough treating pain as leverage and suffering as a point to exploit. We are laying down the weapons of adversarial lawyering and picking up the tools of healing: listening, language, presence, courage. We are building something quieter, yes, but more enduring. A way of practicing that leaves less collateral damage and more space for dignity. A way that honors our clients not as problems to solve or opponents to defeat, but as people—hurting, hoping, afraid, unfinished, just like us. In this emerging future, collaboration is no longer seen as weakness, but as wisdom. It becomes a mark of maturity, of discernment, of strength. In this future, clients are not pawns, and outcomes are not measured solely by judgments or settlements, but by more sacred metrics….”

So…

in my work as a judge, one of the oft used phrases when applying law, making decisions et cetera was “subjective but with an objective background.” Sometimes this would be turned around to read “objective but with the subject of background”. Plus and minus, provided that one did not get too formulaic or bound up in semantics, when making decisions, the concepts behind these two statements helped me and the colleagues I sat with to reach what I trust were just and fair decisions.

Woody and Lara go one better, in fact in truth, 1000 times better. The approach that they so powerfully advocate helps compassionate lawyers achieve a BALANCE between the objective and the subjective on a case-by-case basis. Thus far in my reviews I have seen a lot of game changes but hypothetically, if I was ever to make a list of them all I suspect that this would be very near the top. Old guard adversarial family lawyers whom I used to work with and indeed was one-“eat your hearts out”

t also seems to me that when reviewing a book such as “Lawyer as Peacemaker” the golden rule must be “start at the beginning and work your way through it rather than dipping into the bits that take your immediate fancy.”

I must confess that during my very first perusal of the book I was tempted to dip into bits that immediately caught my eye. The lawyer in me certainly picked up on the word “profitable” that crops up in Patrick K’s chapter 2. Having been a judge myself, I was even more tempted to jump straight to this chapter. However, disciplined reviewer that I am, I resisted all such temptation. All in the best interests of you, my devoted readers.

As an aside – what of my cynical friend? In the interim at least, I have regaled him into silence by citing any number of examples of court cases that got nowhere, civil as well as family. He was particularly struck by David Hoffman’s reference in chapter 3 to Abraham Lincoln in his pre-presidential lawyer days exhorting people to avoid litigation-Actually it turns out that said friend’s first marriage culminated in what sounds like a very messy divorce with his ex being represented by a a decidedly adversarial solicitor and him representing himself. Surprisingly perhaps, he clings to the notion that adversarial is best but perhaps as we draw ever nearer to culmination by the time of my final Chapter 11 review I trust I will have been able to shine a bit more light into his perception. As it happens he is not a LinkedIn subscriber any comments that you readers see fit to direct to him on this medium can easily be passed on by me.

Like mediation, compassionate, peacemaking lawyering aims to keep people out of court. The idea is that lawyers, possibly in tandem with the mediator or financial adviser or maybe both will all work together to achieve a settlement. The lawyers may not have “pride” of place within the context of the overall structure, the emphasis is on avoiding costly litigation and reaching a settlement that is just and fair for all – spouses, children and presumably others who might be classified as dependents.

However, not all cases will go down this route. For all sorts of reasons parties to family disputes will find themselves in court, whether represented or otherwise in front of a judge who ultimately has the responsibility of making potentially life changing decisions.

It may be there is a genuinely important piece of law that requires judicial determination, mediation or collaboration may have failed, and adversarial lawyer or two may have failed to advise about these options, some people refuse to mediate or collaborate-whatever the buck has to stop somewhere and as often as not, that buck will be a judge.

In the traditional adversarial sitting the judge listens to the evidence and bases his or her findings on what is presented. Certainly, when I practiced family law, judicial interventions during court hearings were relatively infrequent, an approach that still seems to be the norm in many jurisdictions. The danger with this approach is that the parties any present what the present and all sorts of important things, not just, can be overlooked, forgotten or completely missed. Cue Judge Scully.

Let me start this chapter 9 review with her opening thoughts: –

“This book recognizes that every space can benefit from the touch of a peacemaker. While it emphasizes the advantages of mediation, collaborative family law, and other non-adversarial dispute resolution methods offered in the private sector, we must also acknowledge a practical reality: Despite the best efforts of settlement-focused attorneys and parties wanting an out of court settlement, many family law cases inevitably find their way into the courtroom. When you step into that courtroom, how do you maintain your commitment to peacemaking? Should you automatically view the judicial officer hearing the case as an adversary stranger to peacemaking, or is there still some opportunity for collaboration? Is there any room at all for peacemaking values and approaches within the litigation process? In this chapter, I share my perspective as a family law judicial officer and former family law mediator, collaborative attorney, litigator, and court-appointed minor’s counsel who believes that not only is there room for peacemaking in the family law courtroom but, in fact, legal and ethical authority mandates it.”

Making the point that “the views expressed in this chapter are my own and not official statements of colleagues or the Los Angeles Superior Court.“ , Judge Scully continues

“On a personal note, the idea of integrating mediation and collaborative skills and concepts into the family law courtroom was my fundamental “why” in deciding to apply for a judicial appointment. Representing family law litigants as well as their children over the years, I had spent countless hours in family law and probate courtrooms observing hearings and fielding the powerful responses of participants (myself included), both positive and negative. I often found myself observing court proceedings through a mediation-tinted lens, noticing how judicial officers, lawyers, and litigants were communicating. Many core ideas in this chapter arise from a presentation Judge Gary Roberts and I shared with colleagues on the Los Angeles Superior Court Family Law Bench in 2023. I am indebted to him for his wisdom, ongoing collaboration, and thoughtful engagement on peacemaking and dispute resolution topics.“

If I ever needed reminding, after reading these succinct but very powerfully expressed opening words, it was apparent that the ideas that Judge Scully advances in this chapter are not just about family courts or her own particular jurisdiction.

As with the rest of “Lawyer as Peacemaker, this chapter is so uniformly excellent that highlighting one particular extract is almost to do an injustice to another. Nonetheless, I have attempted to give a thumbnail of Judge Scully’s ideas. I trust that I have done them what Australians might term “a fair go”.

I see the Judge’s views that might loosely be referred to as “peacemaking judging” as being a stepping stone to or the impetus for a seismic shift in the way that courts the world over decide cases (and not just in family jurisdictions). Of course there may be some theory in this chapter but this is not theory for theory’s sake. The bywords are down-to-earth day-to-day practicability, common sense and as her opening remarks demonstrate, they have a very sound legal basis. May I go so far as to say that this chapter and by implication this whole book, ought to be placed in every court library, if not every individual court in ALL jurisdictions. One can only hope that the American Bar Association has a very large printing press at its disposal.

And so, on to some more extracts-

“The concept of bringing peacemaking skills and values into the courtroom took shape in my mind over time as a function of my own training and experience, but I did not originate it. Many other scholars, commentators, judges, attorneys, and dispute resolution professionals have had the same idea. This concept appears in blogs, books, and articles and is sometimes referred to as “facilitative judging.” For example, “Facilitative judging refers to the conscious integration of communication and facilitation skills into judicial adjudication. Facilitative techniques such as active listening can help calm down anxious witnesses or parties and can increase their perception of procedural justice. Emotional intelligence and communication skills can help judges convey their decisions in a sensitive and appropriate manner, which, in turn, may increase the acceptance of, and compliance with, their decisions by the parties.”

“Although the concept of facilitative judging may sound kooky or radical, it is by no means out on a limb. In California, where my courtroom is located, there is unambiguous, well-established, and extensive legal and policy support for promoting settlement within the court process and otherwise incorporating peacemaking skills and values in the courthouse—from the initial court pleading to the notice of appeal.”

“The canons of judicial ethics in California are also consistent with peacemaking values such as respect and dignity for litigants, free expression of interests and concerns, a full and fair hearing, and fair and workable outcome, and with implementation of appropriate tools and techniques to operationalize those values. For example, California Judicial Ethics Canons require that judges shall be “patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. . . .” Judges shall “accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.” Judges “shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, promptly, and efficiently.”

“Having spent some time on the issues of whether and why we might incorporate peacemaking skills and values into the courtroom, let’s think about when and how judicial officers might do this. Throughout the course of a hearing or case there are points at which a peacemaking skill or technique might come into play. For example, at the moment of commencing a court hearing, the judicial officer might engage in what mediators would call “agenda setting,” that is, explaining clearly what issues are before the court and asking counsel and their clients to build on the judicial officer’s explanation by adding or deleting issues or offering linkage of issues. By breaking down the problem into the various components, phrased neutrally, the decision-maker ensures that all issues are addressed. The judicial officer can also inquire about any agreements the parties have reached at the outset and find out whether additional time to meet and confer might be useful to lead to further mini-agreements or a full settlement of all the issues.”

“If the fact-gathering process uncovers common interests and concerns or other information suggesting a pathway to settlement, a judicial officer can again restate these common issues and concerns and offer to pause or reschedule the hearing so everyone can meet and discuss. At the end of the hearing, in announcing judicial decisions, peacemaking techniques like explaining things in lay terms, acknowledging interests and concerns and pointing out how those may be reflected in the court’s orders, and acknowledging positives about the litigants’ or counsel’s participation in the hearing can increase confidence that rulings were thoughtful and all parties fully heard. Such judicial explanations can prevent unnecessary relitigating, appeals, or continued anger and conflict between the parties.”

“ Additional peacemaking techniques I use include reflective listening—paraphrasing the speaker’s core message, emotions, or underlying interests—and inviting clarification or confirmation with phrases such as “Am I understanding you correctly?” or “Have I got that right?” Understanding that litigants may not feel comfortable correcting a judicial officer for fear of appearing disrespectful or for cultural reasons, I go a step further by saying something like, “My goal is to make sure I understand the important things you are communicating.” When I ask whether I am understanding correctly, that’s a real question. It’s appropriate to correct me if I am not understanding you—I invite you to—and if you do, I will not interpret that as disrespectful. It’s important to me that you have a chance to say what you need to say and feel confident that I have understood you.”

“A final example of how to bring peacemaking into the courtroom is through the issuance of detailed pretrial orders. In addition to setting deadlines and discussing the mechanics of how exhibits are to be numbered, my pretrial orders address civility, include specific meet and confer requirements, and strongly encourage counsel to discuss consensual dispute (CDR) options like mediation and collaborative practice with the parties and refer them to CDR resources to make sure parties have given informed consent to whatever processes (including litigation) are pursued.”

In the immortal words of the Joe Pesci lawyer character, Vincent Gambini, in My Cousin Vinny, “the case rests”

…advocates and attorneys of all schools of thought and their clients have to contend with, some would say stuck with. A case in point would be the fortunately now reformed, English and Welsh family jurisdiction divorce requirement that required people to establish “grounds for divorce” even though the system professed to be fault free, effectively compelling people petitioning for divorce on the basis of unreasonable behaviour to exaggerate, conflate, whatever.

Anomalies and adversities, sometimes perversities, like this seem to crop up in almost all jurisdictions, compounded in the problem in the US where 50 different legal jurisdictions could conceivably engender 50 different schools of thought, some of which might overlap.

There is also the adversarial nature of the court process. Adversarial lawyers and adversarial judges often go hand in hand. Invariably the judicial systems that one encounters are not either inquisitorial or collaborative. Judges rely on “opposing” parties to provide the evidence that supports their case and all too often, they do not lift what I might term, this “adversarial veil” even where some would say, it is crying out to be lifted.

For many people in a family dispute situation, contacting a lawyer for legal advice will be the first step and if the lawyers involved get it right, the chances are that things can be resolved. However, even in the most seemingly straightforward of cases, that nasty little thing, the point of law, might crop up. In cases where there is perhaps less than shall we say 100% mutual trust, one party or other might want a collaborative law agreement to be embodied in a court order which will require the approval of a judge (it is possible that however good/effective the collaborative processes has been the judge might say “”no” or refer back).

There is also the question of enforcement. As with mediation agreements, collaborative law agreements are only as good as the parties who are party to them and observe them. Payment of child support might be a case in point. One would reasonably expect that a collaborative law agreement will be couched in terms to try and avoid such eventualities and/or provide for such contingencies but as we all know there is no such thing as a completely watertight agreement.

So, (my first “so” of this review”) in this chapter, Woody and Lara take a good look at “the court system” and how it might be changed or improved. As with the 10 chapters that preceded it (and indeed the one that succeeds it), it is very well thought out. The arguments are well considered properly referenced and above all, rooted in everyday practicality rather than airy fairy legal theory, the sort of thing that people outside the legal profession be they laypeople or otherwise can readily grasp. As ever, although this chapter has a US/North American starting point, it has worldwide applicability.¨

What Woody and Lara is not do is tell the courts or the judiciary “what they are doing wrong”. They are not court reformist zealots. They are not demanding an immediate overhaul of the system, the censoring of judges or striding off to the US Supreme Court in high dudgeon. Their message may be as game changing, as was for instance the landmark decision in “Brown v The Board of Education” but they do so in the context of peace, seeking to change hearts and of course minds, rather than with the threat of censure or a nasty costs penalty. They write by living example, pragmatic yes but at the same time human, with human hearts.

So-onto the substantive chapter. I will now choose a few extracts that I think best “ sums thing’s up”.

By the way-What of my cynical friend? Of late (and yes he does actually exist by way) he has been strangely silent on the subject of collaborative law. I would like to think that he is reflecting and that however inadvertently, he is fast becoming a layperson convert to Woody and Lara’s principles. Time will tell.

The chapter extracts that follow are cited section by section. As you would expect I this these in the order they are provided in the book and normally there is no question of me choosing one extractor over another. However, in this instance I will break that rule partly because something particularly impressed me and partly because I would like to use a practical example to impress my cynical friend when he reads this review (ho-ho).

From the introductory section of Chapter 11

“For most people, the first place they experience law is not in a courtroom—it is in the silence of a family dinner turned tense, in a slammed door, in the voice of a child caught in the crossfire. Justice, for so many, does not begin with rights or remedies, but with confusion, fear, and the overwhelming sense that their private lives have become public problems. In these moments, what families need most isn’t a courtroom victory. They need to be heard. They need support. They need someone who sees their dignity beneath the conflict, who can guide them not just through a legal process but also through a human transition. This is the quiet, powerful work of the family peacemaker.”

“Our work is reshaping the justice system from the inside out—not with grand pronouncements, but with everyday courage. And at the heart of it all is a radical idea: that justice must be human-centered, culturally respectful, and community-anchored—or it is not justice at all.”

Reimagining the Family Court: Healing in a Hall of Justice

“Family and matrimonial courts were never meant to carry so much. Today, they are inundated with the consequences of poverty, trauma, addiction, bigotry, and violence. They are expected to resolve not just legal disputes but also the legacies of systemic failure. And too often, the system itself, despite the efforts of well-intentioned judges and well-trained court personnel, adds to that harm”.

“Peacemakers help redesign how families experience justice—advocating for trauma-informed courtrooms, child-sensitive procedures, and culturally competent dispute resolution modalities. They work alongside judges to make processes less adversarial and more relational. They push for triage systems that divert families away from court and toward community-centered solutions, when appropriate. Because, many times, the greatest act of justice is keeping a family out of the courtroom altogether.”

Family Justice Is Interdisciplinary and Multicultural by Necessity: Law and the Whole Person

“Families don’t live in isolated silos of “custody disputes,” “alimony,” or “parental rights.” They live in stories, in histories, and in communities that are far more complex than any set of legal definitions can capture. Behind every legal case, there are layers of lived experiences. Family peacemakers understand this deeply. They know that to truly serve families, law cannot stand alone. It must be responsive to the fabric of people’s lives, needs, cultures, and struggles. Without integration, the law risks becoming sterile and disconnected—a tool that serves justice only in the abstract, ignoring the humanity at its core.

Take, for example, a father fighting to keep custody of his children…”

“None of these deeply human experiences can be untangled by legal arguments alone. The law is necessary, but it is insufficient on its own to heal, support, and guide families through such complex terrain. It is not, on its own, inherently just. This is why family peacemakers are so much more than lawyers: They are advocates, connectors, and healers. They are professionals who understand that real justice requires more than a verdict; it requires understanding, healing, and the capacity to incorporate the myriad of resources needed to address the full scope of a family’s challenges.”

“Following the lead of Massachusetts and Wisconsin, each featuring different types of joint petitions, in California, the governor signed into law a new family code (section 2342.5) on January 1, 2025, and the forms/rules will go into effect on January 1, 2026.1 Led by Jeffrey Jacobson and Jennifer Winestone, this new process creates the option of a joint petition where spouses who are committed to resolving their divorce without judicial intervention can begin the process in a manner consistent with that goal. They do not need to take legal positions (which they often do not understand) at the outset of the matter. They can begin a process on equal footing without the labels of “petitioner” and “respondent.”

Social Responsibility: Law as Love in Action

“The peacemaker’s work flows from a profound sense of social duty. You know that your service is not just a profession—not even just a personal calling—it is a promise. A promise that no matter who the client might be, that person will be treated with fairness, respect, and humanity. Peacemakers do not accept the systemic ways in which these promises are often broken for members of the LGBTQ+ community, for immigrants, for people of color, for people living in poverty, for people with disabilities, for members of religious communities, and for so many others. Peacemakers push back, not just in court or outside of court, but in every aspect of how they structure their practices, speak in public, and mentor the next generation. They create sliding-scale clinics. They design materials in multiple languages. They meet clients in synagogues, in community centers, on Zoom calls from rural kitchens. They listen deeply—not just for facts, but for fears, for hopes, for dreams. And they act. “ [My highlighting)

“Each peacemaker understands that justice is not a one-size-fits-all decree handed down from on high, but rather something that is co-created—a process built through relationships, trust, and a shared sense of humanity. Your decision to become a peacemaking lawyer is a decision to reclaim the heart of justice—to re-humanize a system that has too often turned the intimate, messy, and beautiful complexity of families into impersonal files and abstract processes.”

Justice with a Human Face

“You, as a family peacemaker, are not a passive observer or distant reformer watching from the sidelines. You are an architect of a movement that challenges the very foundations of how we define and experience justice. Each peacemaker understands that justice is not a one-size-fits-all decree handed down from on high, but rather something that is co-created—a process built through relationships, trust, and a shared sense of humanity. Your decision to become a peacemaking lawyer is a decision to reclaim the heart of justice—to re-humanize a system that has too often turned the intimate, messy, and beautiful complexity of families into impersonal files and abstract processes. Your work, rooted in empathy, furthers the understanding that real justice is not something that can be imposed from the outside, but something that must emerge from within. As our communities become more diverse, our challenges more complex, and our institutions more fragile, the work of family peacemakers becomes ever more urgent, vital, and indispensable. “

“Our collective efforts ripple out into the broader fabric of society, creating the conditions for true peace, equity, and justice to flourish. We are nurturing the possibility of transformation within individuals, within families, and within the institutions that serve them. We serve to remind our world that justice is not a transaction, but a relationship built on understanding, care, and a shared commitment to everyone’s right to thrive.”

Vincent Gambini’s “the case rests” quote that I mentioned in the previous chapter is as relevant in this chapter as the last one, hence me now reiterating it.

…of the heart” which was revived by Howard Jones around 2005. The song lyrics are not exactly on all fours with “Lawyer As Peacemaker” but there is one extract that really does resonate.

“The listening heart

Opens up but won’t surrender

Just as you are

To what you could be

Opening Mind

Reaching out for something better

Changing my life

A revolution of the heart”

My only regret in this regard is that I did not remember this lyric when reviewing Patrick Kalscheur chapter 2 in which he describes in detail the transition he made from being lawyer to peacemaking and the time that he took and efforts he made, in my view a true “Revolution of the heart”. However, I can be forgiven that lapse of memory because the lyric extract below is as relevant to chapter 11 as to chapter 2 as to any other chapter in the book or indeed the footnotes and appendices.

I also thought of another possibly analogous anecdote. Back in the 1990s/early 2000, when green politics had quite a high media profile the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone who himself had a very high profile, declared himself to be green. I found myself at a presentation of his when he was extolling the virtues of his latest book and making extensive references to these newfound credentials.

Somebody in the audience popped up and cynically but perhaps also truthfully said something to the effect of “Ken–the mere fact that you have put the word green in the footnotes at the end of the book does not make you or it green”.

So it is with the peacemaking collaborative lawyer. One does not simply drive home disillusioned on a Friday night after a bad week at the law office, drink a martini, do some thinking and turn up at the office on Monday as a fully-fledged collaborative lawyer/peacemaker. The revolution of the heart espoused by Sharks and Howard Jones may take a little time to implement and to achieve.

However, the vision of lawyering that Woody and Lara and their co-authors have so vividly and passionately but at the same time practically outlined in quick this book is perfectly attainable.-Just look at the examples given in this chapter and see not just what can be attained but what has already been attained.

Chapter 11 is in truth the beginning, if you like another chapter 1-or maybe as Freddie Mercury once sang-“don’t stop me now”.

Don’t worry Freddie I most certainly not stopping so on with some extracts highlighting a wonderful summit chapter of a wonderful book

In the introductory section

“A Summit Reflection: Inhaling the Journey We arrive now at the summit of our shared odyssey. We are now at our last chapter of our effort to share our passion for peacemaking. Throughout this book, we have leaned on our colleagues in the field for their brilliance and insight. Here, we would like to leave you with our own thoughts, dreams, and heart messages.

In our opening pages, we stepped into the calling of the Family Lawyer as Peacemaker, recognizing law not merely as an adversarial mechanism but as a vessel for healing and forward movement—supported by history, by culture, and by the enduring rhythms of the human condition—well outside the contours of traditional family lawyering.”

“We challenged assumptions …… We explored how to maximize help by sharpening the quiet tools: listening, empathy, presence, discernment……. We stepped into the delicate and hopeful terrain of collaborative and mediated prenups, postnups, and preventive peacemaking—learning how proactive legal planning with a peace paradigm can foster not fear, but clarity, security, and care.“

“We discovered it is, in fact, possible to build strong and durable bridges before conflict arrives. …… We leaned fully into the humanity of this role, seeing the lawyer not only as advocate but as compassionate healer—a steady companion through seasons of grief, fear, and transition.”

“We considered the role of the bench, discovering how judges and court personnel, too, can serve as facilitators of peace when they step into their roles not simply as arbiters but as guardians of family well-being.”

“What opens now is not conclusion, but covenant. Not a final word, but your first vow in your peacemaking lawyering.”

The Peacemaker’s Pledge:

“A Vow Made Sacred At the heart of this chapter lies a pledge—a personal and professional commitment of enduring weight. Originally crafted by Professor Louis M. Brown2 and later refined by Woody Mosten, the Peacemaker’s Pledge stands not as a slogan but as an ethical and spiritual commitment, inviting us to realign our role as lawyers into a higher calling.

A version of the Peacemaker’s Pledge reads: I will think about peace—why peace is important and how it works. I will bring my peacemaking efforts to resolve and prevent conflict:

• In my legal office—with colleagues and staff

• With clients, their families, friends, and allied professionals

• In mediation, collaborative practice, and preventive peacemaking

• In my community and profession, striving to share peace more broadly”

The Seven Principles of the Peaceful Lawyer:

Living the Legacy Peace, like law, requires a framework. And so, we look to the Seven Principles of Peace—Love, Unity, Faith, Hope, Courage, Justice, Forgiveness—and see in them a mirrored ethic for the family lawyer. These are not virtues reserved for saints or philosophers. They are daily practices, quietly transformative for lawyers committed to helping people during their difficult days.

To practice love in law is to choose empathy where judgment might be easier.

Unity comes in how we assemble teams, and how we treat the other side— not as opponents but as fellow travellers. Unity invites us to open dialogue at the start of a case with opposing counsel, to name a shared intention: “Let’s help this family land safely.”

To live by faith is to trust the process of peace itself. We believe, even amid high-conflict emotion, and in a volatile and disappointing world, that resolution is possible.

Hope is strategy. Hope is designing services that acknowledge trauma and skill-build emotional literacy. Hope is creating client pathways that begin not with litigation but with visioning, goal setting, and coaching. Hope is the architect of resilience.

Courage. It takes courage to leave the comfort of default legal models and say, “What if we did this differently?” It takes courage to bring up reconciliation to clients who feel scorched. It takes courage to tell a client the truth about the cost—emotional, financial, generational—of war.

Justice, our long-held north star, remains. But we widen its definition well beyond the courtroom or negotiation

Forgiveness. In clients, it may take the form of letting go of betrayals in service of a child’s future. In ourselves, forgiveness may mean accepting when we didn’t get it all right—when we could have listened longer, reacted softer, or stayed more curious.

A Visionary Commitment: Peace in Motion

“There is a difference between believing in peace and building it. Belief, though vital, lives in the realm of abstract ideas. Building lives in the world—imperfect, messy, unpredictable. And yet this is the great invitation: to become not merely believers in peace, but artisans of it. To make peace not an intention, but a practice.”

“The Peacemaker’s Pledge is not an abstract document. It is a mirror. By writing it in your own hand, by dating it, sealing it, and placing it somewhere sacred (your desk drawer, a client file, the inside of a family law statute book) you begin the practice of remembering. When you revisit it one year later, not to measure perfection, but to trace growth, you will find that even the small steps mattered. Saying no to a litigated escalation….. Begin with the small things. Invite your team—paralegals, assistants, receptionists, fellow lawyers—to explore what peace might look like in the way you greet each other, in the tone of your communications, in how you handle pressure.”

“Clients feel this change. They may not have words for it, but we believe that they feel it. And this client feeling gives rise to the next commitment: to consciously expand what you offer. If the only tools you hold are adversarial, then every client might wander into a war. But if you offer useful and tested alternatives—guided consults, pathways to mediation, collaborative frameworks, emotional coaching, holistic planning—then clients walk into that possibility.”

“This work is not done alone. It thrives in constellation. Begin gathering partners across disciplines—mental health professionals, financial planners, clergy, elder care consultants, divorce coaches, and community elders. Let your practice be a hub of wisdom, a node in a larger network of care. Peacemaking work is rarely solitary. We are strongest when we see ourselves as part of a family-oriented web. The courthouse, too, is not beyond transformation. In fact, it hungers for it. We often forget that judges—especially those on the family bench………. They carry the weight of broken relationships, frightened children, financial despair. When you offer judges a way out of reflexive adversarialism—when you coach a client to settle, or bring a restorative idea to a status hearing, or help create and forge an alternative path—you create ripples that go well beyond your docket. The stories of transformation are many. In one courthouse, a family lawyer began convening lunchtime “peace circles” with other counsel and a few openminded judges. What began as quiet conversation turned into a proposal for a local rule allowing peacemaking protocols in custody disputes. In another town, a family lawyer created a volunteer settlement program where trained senior attorneys help self-represented litigants reach agreement without lawyers—saving the court hours and saving the families months of heartache. These innovations don’t begin with mandates. They begin with a peacemaking mindset.“

“As you move through these commitments—from inner pledge to team culture, from client service to community presence, from advocacy to access— you begin to notice something: Your work feels different. Less draining. More grounded. You begin to remember why you came to law in the first place.”

Stories from the Field:

“These stories will not be miracles. They will simply be what happens when you shift the lens from winning to healing, from adversarial to restorative, from fear to dignity. They will be reminders that transformation was always possible.”

“There will be Maria and Paolo, a young couple on the brink of marriage, both carrying scars from their parents’ divorces. When they approach you about a prenuptial agreement, they will be hesitant. They will have heard that prenups are cold, transactional, a hedge against betrayal—a plan for divorce. But you can offer them something different: a process grounded in curiosity, mutuality, and clarity. Over several meetings, with a therapist present as a communication coach and a financial professional to help them understand and plan, they will co-create not only an agreement but a set of relational values to improve their marriage. Their contract will do more than just outline assets—it will map their vision of partnership, their hopes for children, their plan for navigating hard seasons. Years later, they might write to you: not because they need to enforce the agreement, but because the process itself will have deepened their trust.”

“There will be Judge Eliana, a seasoned jurist presiding over family court in a busy metropolitan district. After observing your use of a “values conversation” at the beginning of a high-conflict custody hearing, she might call you into chambers and ask you to explain what she had seen. You might share the framework, the guiding questions, the intention behind it. Months later, she may launch an initiative within the court to pilot “peace protocols”—voluntary, pre-motion settlement sessions using peacemaking language, facilitated by trained attorneys. She might later call it one of the most meaningful innovations of her judicial career.

The Ethical Horizon: From Profit to Purpose

“To be a lawyer is to live within a dense forest of obligations—ethical rules, fiduciary duties, codes of conduct. But peacemaking invites us to look beyond compliance and into conscience. It asks: What kind of service do we offer, and what kind of world does that service create? The answer lies in the stories we choose to tell ourselves about our role. The traditional legal narrative exalts the lawyer as defender, strategist, tactician. And rightly so—we are trained to guard our client’s interests. But in family law, the stakes are more intimate . . . beyond protection, the wounds are more personal, and the costs of combat more destructive and enduring. When a family lawyer shifts from adversary to ally, from technician to listener, a quiet ethical evolution begins to unfold. This evolution doesn’t replace the old role— it transcends it.”

Closing Affirmation: A Benediction of Peace

“And so now we arrive—not at the end, but at a threshold. A liminal moment. A quiet hush before the next beginning. Let the Peacemaker’s Pledge be more than a token. Let it be a practice. Place it where your eyes land each morning. Let its words be your touchstone when a client’s fear rises, when a colleague lashes out, when a judge questions your method.”

“Many may still associate family lawyers with strife, with scorched-earth battles, with drawn-out custody wars. But you know better. You are building something different. Every peaceful prenup, every collaborative divorce, every mediated elder care plan, every circle process—each one sends a signal that peace is possible. The work is not easy. But it is sacred. You will stumble. You will doubt. You will lose your footing at times. But you will also help someone sleep again. You will help a child live with fewer scars. You will help parents stop seeing each other as enemies. You will help people live the rest of their lives with more dignity than they imagined. And in the quiet hours, you will feel it: the hum of integrity, the glow of purpose, the fierce, soft knowing that you have chosen a higher road.

Invitation to the Journey Ahead

“Hold this book in your hands. Let its weight be a reminder: Peace has substance. Peace has presence. You carry that now, and it carries you. This book does not end here. It continues every time you walk into a mediation with calm resolve. Every time you invite your team into a deeper way of working. Every time you decline to escalate. Every time you remind a frightened parent, “You are not alone. We can do this differently.” You may be one person. But the peacemaker’s work is exponential. Your one act of dignity ripples across households, classrooms, courtrooms, generations. Peace doesn’t end with an agreement—it begins there. So go forward with your Pledge. Say it aloud. Say it silently. Say it with your work. And when you are asked, as you surely will be, “What kind of family lawyer are you?”—may you smile with grounded clarity and say: “I am a peacemaker.”