“I know that if we had not had collaborative law, it would have been a war in court,” notes Loïc Dehoux retrospectively, regarding his divorce. “It wouldn’t have been pleasant at all, because it was emotionally difficult for both of them. »
Not to mention the costs of litigation.
The initiative for the separation came from his partner.
“It fell on me, I absolutely didn’t expect it,” he confides, without expressing any reproach.
They had been together for almost 20 years, parents of a little girl.
They appealed to mediation to resolve the details of the inevitable divorce without acrimony. They held three or four meetings with a mediator which did not bring them an inch closer. Because everyone retreated into their conviction that they were in the right.
“For the child, custody and all that, we agreed, that wasn’t the problem,” he said. In our case, it was really financial. »
His partner received an income much higher than his, he explains modestly.
We realized that we were not making progress, because the role of the mediator being precisely to mediate, he could not take sides. And since my ex-partner and I held our positions, it was a little complicated for him.
Loïc Dehoux
The mediator still opened a way out that Loïc Dehoux had never heard of: collaborative law.
“It was he who talked to us about each finding a lawyer who could help us, but in a framework where we were going to discuss everyone together around the table, rather than going to fight in court. »
Sensitive lawyers
Loïc Dehoux and his partner each found a lawyer – in this case two lawyers – who practiced collaborative law.
“As soon as we met our respective lawyers, we had a timetable, we had objectives for each meeting, it was structured,” he describes. We were too emotional in the matter, in fact, to be able to have this perspective and this release. »
In short, the two lawyers planned the route that would lead them to the objective that Loïc and his ex-spouse were perhaps incapable of clearly formulating: “agree on a separation of property and a separation in figures”.
Loïc Dehoux estimates that the four of them met for around ten hours over the course of a few months; “with our respective lawyers to supervise the discussions, so that it does not go in all directions and so that it does not degenerate,” he specifies.
Each ex-spouse prepared the next meeting with their lawyer, by telephone or in person. “For my part, my lawyer was very available,” relates Loïc Dehoux. She was attentive to me, but she was also attentive to my ex-partner. »
Same attentive and bilateral interest on the part of his ex-spouse’s lawyer.
This is what I felt: they have sensitivity for their clients, but also for the opposing side, which means that they help to understand the problem. In fact, they help move sticky points forward because they understand the situation.
Loïc Dehoux
Little by little, an agreement emerged. Good law gave way to common sense, then to good will.
“For my part, my lawyer made me distinguish what was reasonable from what was not,” says Loïc Dehoux. And I think that, on the contrary, my ex-partner’s lawyer made her understand the same thing. And we reached an agreement thanks to them. Otherwise, we would have remained in our positions, a bit like we did in mediation. »
And these positions would have been defended all the way to court, at great cost.
Divorce, even if collaborative, remains a challenge, he admits.
“We remain hurt, we remain fragile on certain things. But I think that because we had the help of the lawyers, it still went much better than if we had been in court in front of a judge, where we would have fought tooth and nail for what everyone wanted. And that’s not desirable, obviously, because we had a child in common. Even if we try to protect them in this kind of situation, children are very observant and for our daughter too, it was difficult. I think it helped in every way, actually. »