By Teris Deitsch, Esq.
While it may sound like hyperbole, the start of collaborative practice, could be compared to other revolutionary movements that redefined broader cultural norms. It is well-recognized that when the concept of collaborative practice first emerged, it represented a significant and seismic shift in legal thinking. The practice of collaborative family law was, is, and should be considered a true movement.
Collaborative practice began as a purposeful revolution of traditional legal practice focused on problem-solving rather than problem-creating. The early leaders and thinkers of collaborative law broke important ground by developing a framework that has allowed professionals, and especially, lawyers, to approach conflict with greater integrity and respect.
This article is part of Florida Collaborative Quarterly — Issue 001, a publication of the Florida Academy of Collaborative Professionals exploring the development and practice of Collaborative Law and interdisciplinary collaboration.
More importantly, it has provided families a much healthier way to restructure and move forward once their divorce is concluded and the professionals are no longer involved. However, as with any progressive movement, collaborative practice cannot stay static. The strengths of this movement have always been its creativity, adaptability, and open-mindedness; yet these same aspects can sometimes feel uncomfortable as new generations bring different perspectives and experiences. The collective challenge as collaborative professionals is acknowledging and upholding the principles of the original model while also making space for collaborative practice’s continued growth.
Stu Webb, one of the original founders of collaborative practice once stated, “Collaborative law is reinvented wherever it takes root. And that’s the way it should be.” (ACP, Collaborative Review, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Fall 2001)). Despite that insight, it is sometimes apparent from the attitudes, behaviors, and even the language of many experienced collaborative practitioners that they are highly resistant to change when it comes to collaborative practice. This resistance to change can be seen in strongly held views about how a collaborative case should proceed, what kinds of matters are appropriate for the process, which clients are best suited for it, and even which professionals are “qualified” to participate.
This hesitation to change within collaborative practice appears to be based in wanting to preserve the integrity of the practice as practitioners have understood it, partly because “that’s the way it has always been done.”
The Traditional Collaborative Model and Its Perceptions
The traditional collaborative model has unquestionably helped numerous families and practitioners. It is understandable that many practitioners want to hold on to the established concepts of collaborative practice. In Florida, the traditional model for a collaborative case involves four professionals: Two collaboratively-trained attorneys, a mental health neutral, and a financial neutral. This model is believed to be the ideal because the contributions and strengths provided by each professional typically leads to a complete and constructive resolution of the issues presented. Yet, reliance on this traditional model has led to tunnel vision as to what collaborative practice is supposed to look like.
The regular success with the traditional model has fostered a narrow perception of collaborative practice—which, by definition, limits it. This narrow perception can make it difficult to expand collaborative law to a wider range of clients and cases. It can also make it harder for newer professionals to find opportunities to participate fully in collaborative practice. Many newer practitioners can feel that experienced, established ones prefer to work with familiar, long-standing teams. The safety in familiarity is completely understandable; however, this can makes it challenging for those outside these tight-knit circles to become involved.
“The Country Club Divorce” Perception
This exclusive view of collaborative law has contributed to the commonly shared perception, by both the public and collaborative practitioners, that collaborative law is a “country club divorce“ only suitable for wealthy individuals. This view of what collaborative practice is supposed to look like not only assumes the use of the traditional four-professional team, but also the implies an expectation of exorbitant attorneys and other high-end professionals to make up the team.
Although the traditional model has proven effective for many, it conflicts with today’s modern reality: Most people do not fit the “country club” cliché. Today’s modern individuals and families are diverse in background, experiences, financial means, and structure; yet, the prevailing image of collaborative law often does not reflect that diversity. Even within the collaborative community, these continued perceptions can create obstacles. Collaborative practitioners that do not fit into the conventional professional mold of what a collaborative practitioner is supposed to be—whether in style, appearance, approach, experiences, etc.—may find it more difficult to be perceived as “right” for the team. This exclusivity is not deliberate but it can affect how accessible and inclusive collaborative practice feels to both potential clients and collaborative professionals.
The Psychology of Resistance to Change
Understanding resistance to change involves much more than simply seeing some people as reluctant or stubborn. Instead, resistance to change involves complicated psychological and social forces. Resistance is not simply obstruction of progress, but often comes from the instinctual need to protect stability and independence. Fear of the unknown, loss aversion (regarding change as a loss rather than an improvement), and status quo bias (the brain’s preference for familiarity) are the instincts that propel people to embrace the familiar, even when they know that change could create improvements. Further, when the traditional method of doing things has previously proven successful, the instinct to preserve these familiar methods increases (Arangath).
Additionally, people frequently perceive the familiar as the “morally right” or “correct” way of doing things (Riggio). Thus, in professional communities such as collaborative law, this can mean believing traditional practice methods to be more legitimate or even, more ethical, than newer approaches. The fear of failure or mistakes can also increase resistance. Trying new methods brings risk, and practitioners that are considering their professional reputation may prefer the security of what has been previously tried and tested successfully (Riggio).
Professionals are more likely to be resistant to change when it threatens their sense of expertise, identity, or control. When individuals feel that their independence or skill is being challenged, they instinctively push back, even against well-intentioned ideas (Arangath).
Within collaborative practice, this may appear as subtle or outright skepticism toward newer models, discomfort with non-traditional team structures, or preference for working only with accustomed colleagues. Social dynamics further reinforce this resistance. Long-standing professional groups often develop shared norms that define what is considered “good practice.” Deviation from these norms can feel risky (Emerson). Thus, even well-intentioned professionals may default to traditional ways of collaborative practice because other options feel uncomfortable or inconsistent with group expectations.
Lastly, resistance can also appear as indifference or doubt toward new approaches, preventing the implementation of changes, even when they have proven benefits (Riggio). Consequently, newer practitioners who challenge conventional models may be perceived as inexperienced or impractical, making it harder for their unique, but beneficial, ideas or outlooks to gain acceptance.
Recognizing the reasons behind resistance to change helps reframe it from defying conventional notions of collaborative practice to a natural stage of any evolving movement. These reasons should be acknowledged and addressed to allow growth for collaborative practice. Like all progressive movements, collaborative practice must contend with the tension between preserving traditional methodology and embracing innovation. The movement’s long-term progress depends on balancing both viewpoints.
The Cost of Doing Things the Way They’ve Always Been Done
Adhering to the traditional perceptions of collaborative practice, the traditional four-professional model, and the familiar, dependable professional teams within that traditional model can feel comfortable and safe; however, holding on too tight to traditional methods and outlooks comes with costs that may, at first, go unnoticed, but will prove to be consequential. Refusing to veer from established patterns can limit who has access to collaborative law, what types of clients are served by it, and even which professionals feel accepted to participate. Thus, new professionals may find it difficult to gain meaningful opportunities, and clients outside the typical demographic may be inadvertently excluded. This adherence to the old ways can also perpetuate perceptions of exclusivity; this exclusive and inaccessible image prevents the broader adoption of collaborative practice. Although the traditional perceptions and model of collaborative practice are still effective in many cases, remaining inflexible and rigid slows progress and dissuades innovation.
Acknowledging these limitations is not meant to be critical or disrespectful of the original framework or creators of collaborative practice. Instead, it is just the first step toward understanding the necessity of welcoming change in order for a movement to evolve. Collaborative practitioners should understand that the preservation of past principles and allowing the evolution of collaborative practice are not conflicting goals: Collaborative practice can remain principled, and at the same time, embrace innovation and make room for a more inclusive and flexible practice.
The Benefits of Reimagining Collaborative Practice
Instead of thinking of collaborative practice as a fixed, immutable formula, it should be regarded as a movement and overall philosophy. Embracing change, flexibility, and innovation allows the practice to progress while staying true to its core principles.
Collaborative practice is essentially a philosophy of creative problem-solving, not a rigid process. Flexible models allow practitioners to tailor the process to the unique needs of each case. This may include two-attorney or two-party collaborations, selective involvement of neutrals rather than a fixed four-professional team, or expanding collaborative principles to other types of matters. Treating collaborative law as a framework rather than a formula allows professionals to meet modern issues creatively and efficiently.
Flexibility in collaborative practice promotes broader access and participation. Alternative models can reduce costs and make collaborative processes attainable for families from diverse backgrounds. Opportunities for new and diverse professionals bring fresh perspectives and energy to the field. Reframing collaboration as a process for all families—not just those who fit a conventional profile—ensures that the practice remains inclusive, equitable, and adaptive.
Today’s clients value authenticity, innovation, and creativity. Even clients who might fit the “country club” stereotype increasingly appreciate professionals who offer new insights and approaches. Unconventional professionals—whether in background, experience, or style—embody the spirit of reinvention that originally defined collaborative law. By welcoming these perspectives, the field broadens its reach and increases its capacity to help families successfully navigate complex challenges.
Embracing innovation does not mean abandoning foundational principles; it means continuing the work of the founders by adapting to new contexts and needs. The vitality of collaborative law depends on collective willingness to evolve, include new voices, and remain open to fresh ideas—just as the original pioneers once did.
Keeping the Movement Moving: A Call to Evolve
Collaborative law began as a movement—a revolutionary rethinking of legal practice that prioritized problem-solving, integrity, and respect. Yet, as with many transformative movements, early successes can calcify into tradition. Resistance to change risks stagnation: A movement no longer moving.
Despite its effectiveness, collaborative law has not yet become mainstream. Its growth has been limited by perceptions of exclusivity, adherence to traditional models, and a narrow vision of what collaborative practice “should” look like. While the original structures and principles remain valuable, collaborative practice has not always kept pace with the changing realities of current families, professionals, and society. The modern world requires flexibility, creativity, and approaches that reflect the diversity and uniqueness of today’s clients.
To remain true to its roots and also fulfill its potential, collaborative practice must embrace evolution. This means welcoming new voices, experimenting with alternative models, and challenging conventional assumptions about who can participate and how the process can work. Even those accustomed to conventional approaches can benefit from fresh perspectives, innovative thinking, and adaptive strategies.
Changing aspects of collaborative practice is not a rejection of the past; it is a continuation of the revolutionary spirit that gave rise to collaborative law in the first place. By allowing collaborative practice to evolve while still preserving its core philosophies, collaborative practice remains dynamic, inclusive, and relevant. The advancement of collaborative practice depends on the collective openness and commitment to keep the movement moving and carry it forward into a modern, changing world.
Teris J. Deitsch, Esq. is Co-Founder and Partner at Artemis Family Law Group, where she has practiced primarily in family law since 2006. Her work includes divorce, timesharing, child support, alimony, equitable distribution, and related family law matters. Teris is a strong advocate for the Collaborative Divorce process and is committed to helping families resolve disputes through problem solving and practical settlement whenever possible. An experienced trial attorney and Guardian ad Litem, she focuses on solutions that support the long-term emotional and financial well-being of families and children. Teris earned her law degree from the University of Florida Levin College of Law and serves in leadership roles within several Central Florida family law organizations.
Arangath, Chloe. “The Psychology of Resistance to Change in Organizations.” Neurofied, 25 June 2025
Emerson, Mary Sharp. “7 Reasons Why Change Management Strategies Fail and How to Avoid Them - Professional & Executive Development: Harvard DCE.” Professional & Executive Development | Harvard DCE, 24 Feb. 2025
Riggio, Ronald E. “Why Are People so Resistant to Change?” Psychology Today, Sussex Publishers
