What Clients Say About Their Experience in the Collaborative Process

Transcription

1 What Clients Say About Their Experience in the Collaborative Process by Linda Wray, JD Many Collaborative professionals became trained in the Collaborative process because the Collaborative model is a better fit for us professionally. Practicing in this model enables us to be true to our values and use our problem solving skills rather than potentially destructive adversarial skills. It is probably fair to say, however, that the number one reason we work in the Collaborative process is because we believe our clients will likely do best, emotionally, financially and relationally, in this process. We know from our own cases and from stories told by our colleagues, of many, many clients who have expressed gratitude for the work of professionals on their cases and for the process in which their divorces were conducted. We also know of many difficult Collaborative cases, including a small percentage that do not settle, where clients experiences are known to be less than satisfactory, or perhaps not clear. If Collaborative clients from around the United States were polled about their experiences in the Collaborative process, would they express a level of satisfaction with the process consistent with our personal experiences? Or is our professional desire to work in a problem solving process clouding our view of clients actual experiences in the Collaborative process? I believe the answers to the foregoing questions are yes and no respectively. In 2007, the IACP launched the first large scale research survey to learn directly from clients more about their experiences in the Collaborative process. This article discusses the more important findings about clients satisfaction with the Collaborative Practice process and Collaborative professionals. Client Demographics Before looking at client satisfaction, it is helpful to know something about the 98 clients who responded to the Survey. All were invited by one of the Collaborative professionals on their case to participate in the Survey, and the inviting Collaborative professional s case was reported on the IACP Professional Practice Survey. (See, Research Regarding Collaborative Practice Basic Findings) Approximately half the responding clients were male and half were female. The majority were middle aged, between the ages of 40 and 59. Well over half of the respondents were married 16 years or more and most were in their first marriage. Prior to the Collaborative process, almost two thirds of respondents participated with their spouse in marital or couples counseling. Most of the respondents had children. The majority of respondents and their spouses were well educated with fairly high household incomes. 1 The male respondents were generally the primary wage earners in the family. They were much more likely to have incomes of $100,000 or more as compared with the female respondents. Over one half of respondents had estates valued at $500,000 or more, and over one-third had estates valued at $1,000,000 or more. Outcome of Cases The settlement rate among cases reported by clients was quite similar to the settlement rate of cases reported by professionals. Of the cases reported by clients, 90% settled in the Collaborative process and 10% terminated prior to settlement of all issues. Approximately half the settled cases were reported by males and approximately half were reported by females. Six of the terminated cases were reported by females and three were reported by males. The presence of children appears to have impacted the settlement rate. The small percentage of cases that terminated all involved children. Satisfaction with Outcome Clients were asked to express their level of satisfaction with a variety of types of outcomes following the Collaborative process ranging from their relationship with their children and spouse, to co parenting matters, to development of skills important to post divorce functioning, to the terms of their settlement. Approximately three quarters of all clients were extremely or somewhat satisfied generally with the outcome of their case as compared with only 13% who were somewhat or extremely dissatisfied. Not surprisingly, satisfaction overall with outcome was somewhat higher among clients whose cases settled in the Collaborative process than among clients whose cases terminated. Clients expressed the greatest satisfaction with outcomes pertaining to their children. They were satisfied particularly with their relationship with their children following the Collaborative process, how well the interests of their children were served in the process, the emotional well 17

2 being of their children and their co parenting skills. They were also satisfied with their ability to make financial decisions post divorce and with their own emotional well being following the Collaborative process. Clients were somewhat satisfied, as compared to indifferent or dissatisfied, with the settlement terms of their divorce, including the division of property, spousal support, child support and the parenting plan that was developed. Although still somewhat satisfied, clients levels of satisfaction were among the lowest regarding outcomes pertaining to their spouse: their relationship with their spouse, their spouse s relationship with their children, and their spouse s co parenting skills. Male and female reporters gave substantially the same ratings on each of the above factors, except for one: the other parent s co parenting skills. Male respondents were somewhat satisfied with the other parent s co parenting skills as compared to female respondents who were neutral. Satisfaction levels in cases with children differ in two factors from cases without children: emotional well being following the Collaborative process and terms of their settlement. Those clients who had children were neutral to somewhat satisfied with their emotional well being, as compared to those without children who were somewhat to very satisfied. Similarly, those with children were neutral to somewhat satisfied with the terms of their settlement, as compared to those without children who were satisfied to very satisfied. Satisfaction with the Collaborative Process Clients satisfaction with the Collaborative process was slightly higher than their satisfaction with outcome. Again, three quarters of clients reported that they were extremely satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the process of Collaborative Practice, but only 7% reported they were extremely or somewhat dissatisfied. Satisfaction increased only nominally for those clients whose cases settled as compared to those clients whose cases terminated, suggesting that clients recognized value in the process irrespective of outcome. Clients indicated that they were somewhat to extremely satisfied with the following aspects of the Collaborative process: Meetings scheduled to accommodate clients schedules Respectfulness of the Collaborative process The disclosure of information in their case How free clients felt to express themselves in their case The opportunity to address concerns directly with the other participant They felt neutral to somewhat satisfied with the following aspects: How well the process focused on concerns important to the client Restructuring of their family in a constructive way The degree of control the client had over the process The degree of collaboration in the client s case Maintaining a constructive/healthy relationship with the other participant The length of time of joint meetings The minimization of stress The efficiency with which the client s case was handled Male and female reporters differed only with respect to two of the above factors: your opportunity to address concerns directly with the other participant and maintaining a constructive relationship with the other participant. Male respondents were significantly more satisfied on each of these factors than female respondents. Clients who had children, although generally likely to have more difficult cases than clients without children, were as satisfied with process as clients without children except with respect to one factor: the degree of control over the process. Those with children were neutral to somewhat satisfied. Satisfaction with Collaborative Professionals More than one half of all clients who responded to the IACP Client Experience Survey were involved in an interdisciplinary Collaborative process. Almost sixty percent engaged a financial professional and almost fifty percent engaged at least one mental health professional. Approximately three quarters of those clients who engaged a financial professional also engaged at least one mental health professional. Ninety percent of those clients who 18

3 engaged financial and/or mental health professionals settled their cases as compared to approximately ten percent who did not. Lawyers Clients indicated that they were somewhat satisfied to extremely satisfied with the performance of their own lawyer across a list of several functions: Maintaining respect for the client personally and for their viewpoint Explaining matters so that the client understood what was happening at each stage of the case Assessing how options met goals, interests, needs and concerns Communicating effectively with all participants Assisting the client with determining which options were most acceptable to both parties Helping develop a parenting plan Assisting with developing options for issues Assisting with gathering information Notably, except with respect to the function of helping develop a parenting plan clients satisfaction with their own lawyer s performance trended up (although not to a statistically significant level) across all functions if a financial professional or one or more mental health professionals were involved in the case. In contrast to clients satisfaction with their own lawyer, clients indicated that they were neutral to somewhat satisfied with the performance of the other lawyer across all of the above listed functions. Further, except with respect to the function of helping develop a parenting plan and explaining matters so that you understood what was happening at each stage of the case, clients ratings for the other Collaborative lawyer dipped somewhat if there was a financial professional on the case and rose somewhat if there was no financial professional on the case. Similarly, except with respect to the function of communicating effectively with all participants and assisting with gathering information, clients ratings for the other Collaborative lawyer dipped slightly if there was a mental health professional on the case and rose slightly (though not to a significantly different level) if there was no mental health professional on the case. Clients indicated that they were somewhat satisfied to extremely satisfied with the performance of their own lawyer across a list of several functions. While the differences in satisfaction with one s own lawyer and the other lawyer are, for the most part, not statistically significantly affected by the presence of financial or mental health professionals, the consistency in the direction of the data is unmistakable. One possible explanation for this result is that clients generally found the work of financial and mental health professionals to be helpful, as discussed further below; this in turn may have reflected positively on the client s own lawyer who presumably encouraged the clients to work with these professionals. Also, the presence of mental health and/or financial professionals may have in fact enhanced the ability of a client s own lawyer to perform with greater competence, both in terms of substantive matters and in terms of handling client dynamics. One explanation for the decrease in satisfaction with the other lawyer when mental health and/or financial professionals were involved is that clients simply had less exposure to the other lawyer in such cases, and thus had less exposure to the work done by the other lawyer. Mental Health Professionals The survey asked responders to review their satisfaction with all mental health professionals involved in the case. Given the variety of approaches to Collaborative Practice surveyed, the clients simply identified mental health professionals in their cases by number rather than by role. Thus, the survey does not identify whether the mental health professionals were neutral, including child specialists, or aligned with the client. Client satisfaction with the mental health professional (MHP) labeled as Mental Health Professional #1 can be reported, as can client satisfaction with all MHPs combined. There were too few cases with two and three mental health professionals to report client satisfaction with MHPs #2 and #3 individually. Clients indicated 19

4 that they were somewhat satisfied or better with the performance of MHP1 and with all three MHPs combined across the following functions: Maintaining respect for the client personally and for their viewpoint Managing communications between all team members Helping manage emotions Creative problem solving Managing conflict Providing information about child development Maintaining neutrality if serving in a neutral capacity Helping develop a parenting plan Helping develop co parenting skills Providing children with a voice Assisting the client and other participant with improving communication Clients indicated that they were somewhat satisfied or better with the performance of MHP1 and with all three MHPs combined across functions. They were neutral to somewhat satisfied with MHPs on the following functions: Assisting the client and other participant with redefining family structure Assisting the client with redefining his/her identity apart from the other participant Managing the case so that it proceeded at an appropriate pace Notably, clients ratings for MHP1 increased across all functions if a financial professional was involved on the case. Although there were very few cases with no financial professionals and at least one mental health professional, the direction of the data suggests that clients satisfaction with MHP1 dips somewhat across all functions if there is no financial professional on the team. Financial Professionals Clients indicated that they were somewhat satisfied or better with the performance of their financial professional (FP) across all functions: Maintaining neutrality, if serving in a neutral capacity Maintaining respect for the client personally and for the client s viewpoint Communicating effectively with all participants Assessing how options met goals, interests, needs and concerns Explaining financial matters so that the client understood what was happening at each stage of the process Assisting with developing options Assisting with determining which options were most acceptable to both participants Assisting with gathering information Clients satisfaction with FPs increased significantly across all functions if one or more MHPs were involved in the case. The number of cases with a FP and no MHPs was relatively small; however, the direction of the data across all functions was consistent in showing a dip in satisfaction with the FP in such cases. The consistency in findings regarding clients increased satisfaction with their own lawyer, MHPs and FPs if at least one other interdisciplinary professional is involved in their case, and dip in satisfaction in the absence of a full interdisciplinary team, is striking and quite significant, suggesting that an interdisciplinary team has value beyond the sum of its parts. That is, the team itself adds value to the work of each individual professional. 20

5 Clients indicated that they were somewhat satisfied or better with the performance of their financial professional (FP) across all functions. Clients Perception as to the Reasonableness of Fees The value of all Collaborative professionals from the perspective of clients is also apparent from clients views of professional fees paid in their cases. Clients were likely to see all professionals fees as very reasonable or somewhat reasonable. Eighty one percent of clients considered the fees charged by their lawyer as very reasonable or somewhat reasonable. Seventy nine percent of clients considered the fees they paid for MHPs as very reasonable or somewhat reasonable. And, 81% of clients considered the fees they paid a FP as very reasonable or somewhat reasonable. Likelihood of Referring Another Person in Need to Collaborative Practice A different measure of client satisfaction is the willingness of clients who have been through the Collaborative process to refer other people to this dispute resolution process. Seventy three percent of clients reported that they would definitely or probably refer a person to Collaborative Practice, as compared with 10% who reported they were unlikely to do so or definitely would not do so. As might be expected, clients in cases that settled with a complete agreement were somewhat more willing to refer another to the Collaborative process than clients overall: 78% of clients in settled cases reported that they definitely or probably would refer a person to Collaborative Practice, as compared to 8% who reported that they were unlikely to do so or definitely would not do so. Of particular note however, is the fact that one third of the very small number of clients whose cases terminated reported that they would definitely refer another to the Collaborative process, suggesting a significant value of the Collaborative process to clients. Concluding Summary Clients who participated in the Client Experience Survey are representative of those whose cases were reported in the Professional Practice Survey. The majority of Collaborative clients experienced fairly long marriages, had not been previously divorced and participated in couples or family related counseling prior to the Collaborative process. They are generally middle aged and well educated, with children. Male spouses are fairly high income earners and are much more likely to be so than female spouses. Most Collaborative cases settled in the Collaborative process. Clients were satisfied with the outcome of their case and the process used. As an indication of their general level of satisfaction overall, the majority of Collaborative clients would definitely or probably recommend the Collaborative process to another in need. Clients expressed satisfaction with the Collaborative professionals on their case. Of particular note is the finding that the presence of an interdisciplinary team resulted in greater client satisfaction with individual professionals. That is, clients were more satisfied with their own lawyer if the client also worked with one or more mental health professionals and/or a financial professional; they were more satisfied with a mental health professional on their team if there was also a financial professional on the team; and they were more satisfied with their financial professional if there were one or more mental health professionals on their team. Client reports that they were largely satisfied with the professional fees charged adds weight to the finding that clients were generally satisfied with their Collaborative professionals. Notes 1 Eighty four percent (84%) of respondents had an annual household income of $100,000 or more and 48% had an annual household income of $200,000 or more. Linda Wray is a lawyer in Minnesota and is the Co-chair of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution, Collaborative Law Committee 21