Yeah, there’s a variety of options. I mean even in the litigation arena, you can mediate the case. You can still get settled. Now, one thing that I’ve been doing a little bit differently is it’s something I’ve been calling cooperative law, and it’s not – I didn’t create it. It’s been around and I’ve seen the literature on it and people writing about it. It’s not collaborative in the truest sense. The withdrawal provision is not in play.

Typically in a collaborative case, if the case is not settled, the lawyers back out, withdraw. The parties have to get new lawyers and so a lot of people are reluctant to choose collaborative because of that reason. And so I’ve had a couple of cases recently where I just felt like litigation was not gonna serve my client, so we talked about this other idea, cooperative law, if you will. We’ve done it in two cases. It worked fine. We’ve settled the case.

The other lawyer was open to it because they didn’t have to withdraw, you know, or they thought it was good for their client as well. And so I’m curious about doing more of this and proposing it if it seems appropriate. I still think that collaborative is a preferable choice because it eliminates completely this idea of going to court. The alternative I just talked about, you still have the court thing there. The difference is you’re doing it in a structured way. You’re having meetings and people are communicating directly in the meetings as opposed to the normal communication kind of through the lawyers.