According to a widely told story, Minneapolis family law attorney Stu Webb, after some 26 years of practice, came up with a radical idea against the established grain.

In a particularly difficult divorce case he decided to work with the opposing attorney. He proposed sharing information and if the two could not reach agreement, he would not bring the case to court. Webb called the concept of a separate settlement counsel who would not litigate cases as “collaborative law.” As the model developed, cooperating attorneys and their clients began to bring in other professionals, such as financial advisers and mental health professionals, as needed.

The term has also become part of the discussion as to how the practice of lawyering is changing. This is led by Julie Macfarlane, Forrest Mosten, and others who see the future as attorneys who are, in the words of Michael Leathes, “solution and results-orientated, process-intolerant, favouring (and skilled in) negotiation, mediation, collaborative practice and restorative justice.” Widely respected practitioner Forrest (“Woody”) Mosten has been a strong advocate for family mediation and unbundled legal services where attorneys provide advice along with other appropriate professionals. Mosten has been a strong advocate for the paradigm shift that changes the power dynamic between lawyers and clients so the client takes more responsibility for problem-solving and decision-making, as well as for mediators to be part of the collaborative divorce process.

Many family law groups offer the collaborative approach, but its use for other civil matters has been limited. Some types of cases that have benefitted from collaborative law include disputes between business partners, construction, wills and estates, and other kinds of family law cases.  As collaborative law evolves, the role of mediation in the process is evolving as well, but at base, parties in a collaborative case can bring in a mediator to assist in the negotiations.

No laws need to be enacted to advance collaborative law. Attorneys can utilize any dispute resolution process. The only change necessary is for attorneys to set directive adversarial approaches aside for an approach that emphasizes relationships over winning.

A growing area of interest and concern is how mediation can help with disputes involving animals. This includes companion animals, show animals, horses and livestock, fish (such as aquaculture), insects (such as beehives), and basically all non-human creatures.

In the United States, animals are generally considered property in the courts, much to the distress of their human companions. A 2016 Harris Poll revealed that 95% of humans consider their animal companion to be a member of their family. That gap in status is a continuing source of conflict and emotional stress.

The list of disputes than can include animals is long, but the following are the most common:

• Veterinary malpractice

• Disputes with groomers and others who provide services

• Pet sales

• Landlord-tenant

• Dog bite

• Partnership agreements involving livestock or horses

• Neighborhood disputes involving animals

•  Divorce and family low matters involving animals such as custody and ownership

• Probate matters involving pets such as in estate planning

Even though the legal status of animals is property, humans attach great emotional value to these companions. And it is that emotion which makes these disputes best handled with mediation. While a provider’s liability may be limited to the animal’s sale value as property, in almost all cases the emotional value means more and is deeply felt.

I myself have mediated with couples dividing up their property in separation agreements. In every case assets and debts are easily handled. It is the animals that can bring up emotion and guilt. Often the agreement includes visitation rights—sometimes not for the humans, but for the animals.

At times, disputes involving animals can have a significant dollar value attached. One case involved the possession and use of breeding sperm from a champion race horse.

Increasingly there is a growing recognition that while animals do not have legal rights, they are granted legal considerations, that is, as sentient beings, not objects and are protected by a growing list of safeguards.

One of the first mediations I was ever part of concerned two neighbors in court regarding a rooster crowing during early morning hours. The parties could not reach an agreement and their dispute actually ended up in court. I remember the judge checked zoning regulations and determined that having a rooster was permitted and ruled “just as birds got to fly, roosters got to crow, so get used to it.”