header-logo header-logo

A fleeting fad?

11 July 2013 / Edward Heaton
Issue: 7568 / Categories: Features , Family
printer mail-detail
155160048

Is Collaborative Family Law a real option or just a passing craze, asks Edward Heaton

With the government actively encouraging individuals to resolve family disputes through mediation rather than relying on the increasingly over-burdened court system, it would seem that Collaborative Family Law (CFL), a further alternative to litigation, has arrived on the scene at exactly the right time.

What is it?

CFL remains a relatively new concept to England and Wales and could be mistaken for being just one more form of alternative dispute resolution (or just “dispute resolution”, as we are now being encouraged to call it) to add to the many others that already exist. There is, however, perhaps more to CFL than to other methods of dispute resolution, which makes it stand out from the crowd and goes some way to explaining why family lawyers across the country have been undertaking the training required to enable them to practise Collaboratively. But, what exactly is CFL, how does it work and what are its potential benefits?

CFL is a process

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll