Critical article spoke of a family court of old

Counterpoint

We have always respected Stephen Erickson's contributions to the civilized resolution of family law problems. However, his recent commentary ("An alternative to colosseum of family court," Jan. 16) was grossly outdated and slandered the lawyers and judges now practicing in our courts.

He also ignored the many other forms of alternative dispute resolution that have evolved since the 1970s.

Our practice years overlap Erickson's. One of us served as a family lawyer for 22 years before serving on the Hennepin County family court bench for 10 more years.

The other served as a Supreme Court justice presiding over systemic changes for the problems Erickson decries.

His memory of how family court functioned was accurate when he left law practice in the '70s. Now it is balderdash.

Beginning in the 1990s, bench and bar have been finding new ways to do business, both in the courts and outside.

Beginning in about 2000, the courts began to actively manage their cases and facilitated the shift from combat to problem-solving.

Now we have individual judges and referees managing cases three weeks after they are filed. That first court appearance focuses on how to get the parties through divorce with the least damage to their children, their pocketbooks and their hearts.

We use neutral appraisers, early neutral evaluations of custody and financial issues, moderated settlement conferences, mediation, and active judicial participation to resolve facts, narrow issues, reduce cost and permit principled settlement.

Under Justice Gilbert's leadership, those approaches were taken from a pilot in Hennepin County to statewide application.

Half of all cases settle at or before that first initial case management conference. Ninety-eight percent of the cases are resolved within one year of filing, most by settlement before a trial date is even set.

The best judges no longer look at family court as punishment. Judges with substantial civil-, family- and criminal-law reputations have been volunteering for family court since at least 1997.

That includes Diana Eagon, John Holahan, Charles Porter, (now Chief Judge) James Swenson, Jeannice Reding, Stephen Aldrich, Jane Ranum, Bruce Peterson, Mary Steenson DuFresne, Mel Dickstein, Susan Robiner, William Koch, Ann McKeig, former Chief Kevin Burke and many more.

Judge Lloyd Zimmerman is a great judge; his perception of being punished for speaking out has nothing to do with his willingness to work for children, as his three years in juvenile court attest. He will be an outstanding protector of children and families while in that court.

Finally, Erickson omits any references to other, alternative dispute resolution techniques created and adapted to family law since the '70s.

Stuart Webb founded the Collaborative Law Institute in about 1990. Lawyers and parties meet in their offices seeking agreement and only go to court to get the decree signed.

Neutral evaluations have been added to second opinions as yet another technique.

Recognizing the cost and waste in family-law appeals, trial lawyers and providers of alternative dispute resolution are using less-costly, more-informal, binding arbitration. That same recognition has led to the family case mediation program of our Court of Appeals.

Mediation is a powerful and important tool; we both do it. But it is not the only tool in the ADR arsenal.

There are still some angry trials pushed by parties, rarely lawyers.

Erickson's hotly rhetorical slaying of the dead dragons of combat court did not tell the truth about family lawyers or judges now.