The backbone of the collaborative process is a series of four-way meetings, involving both parties and their legal representatives.

There is a minimum of correspondence, there is no preparation for court. An integral part of the process is that clients sign a participation agreement at the outset, confirming they will not go to court to litigate either the divorce, or the finances.

As a result, there is a transparency of mutual interests which keeps the parties and their advisers at the negotiating table.

This method is not suitable for all separating and divorcing couples, and it certainly is not an easy option on relationship breakdowns.

However, it enables the couple to focus on the issues which they find important, rather than letting a judge decide what those issues should be.

Collaborative law is particularly helpful in complex cases involving family businesses, trusts or substantial estates.

Difficult areas of valuation can be discussed face to face, with a forensic accountant or property valuer coming into the four-way meeting to discuss their findings, rather than giving a snapshot figure' which so often becomes the focus of much sterile - and expensive - debate in court.

For experienced, specialist family lawyers, the collaborative process has proved a natural way forward.

To them, it provides the best aspects of the professional services available, without the time consuming and expensive downside.

Given the limitations as to what the court can order, (couples can only apply for a transfer of assets or shares, or for a business to be sold), the four-way meetings provide a forum for more flexible options to be explored.

The settlement can reflect more subtly the requirement of that particular family. The process is looked at as a family transition, rather than the traditional gladiatorial struggle in the court arena.

Other professionals are also now starting to be trained in this method. These include accountants and financial advisers, who can then become involved in the process.

For them, it is an opportunity to help their existing clients and remain involved as trusted advisers.

Here is what happened in a business case, involving commercial and private assets worth a significant sum of money. In between four-way meetings, there was an immense amount of work between solicitors and with clients. Each stage was carefully planned and advanced.

The couple instructed solicitors in June 2005. The first four-way meeting took place at the end of July 2005, at which the valuation process was planned.

Valuations were taken of commercial and domestic properties during August and the family's accountant calculated the tax liabilities. A net asset figure for the overall estate was arrived at by the middle of September.

At the second four-way meeting, the disclosure was discussed in greater detail alongside looking at the value of other assets.

The commercial property valuer who attended the meeting was asked to clarify certain issues and certain tax points were also clarified subsequently with the accountant.

At the third and fourth four-way meetings in October and November the terms of the settlement were agreed, and subsequently implemented in the early part of 2006.

Had this couple used the traditional means of the court process, the following would have been the likely timetable: Divorce and financial proceedings would have been issued in July 2005. Exchange of financial information would have taken place at best in September/October, together with the preparation of the first appointment documents - statement of issues, chronology and a questionnaire in which a schedule of enquiries would be made.

Discussions would then take place as to the choice of valuer and the terms of the joint letter of instruction prior to the First Appointment.

At the First Appointment, a district Judge would consider which enquiries in the respective questionnaires were appropriate and set a timetable for the valuation process.

This would be carried out over the next three months, before the second court appointment - the Financial Dispute Resolution (FDR) hearing, in say, May 2006.

The parties would answer the questionnaires and in correspondence would make without-prejudice proposals. Both parties would be represented at the second hearing, the FDR hearing, and a district Judge would encourage them to try and settle matters.

In the absence of a settlement, the case would have been listed for, say, four days in late 2006 or early 2007.

After an examination of the valuation evidence, an order may have been made for the husband to pay a substantial lump sum based on an appropriate percentage of the net value of the estate, in the expectation that the husband would borrow substantially or sell off part of his holding.

So it is not difficult to see why, for many, collaborative law is a much better option than the traditional court procedure.

Contact: Rachael Smethurst, 01865 812 531, rachael.smethurst@henmans.co.uk