

WELCOME
When we change how we view disputes over parenting, child support, custody/guardianship, spousal support, and property division from legal battles to be won to joint problems to be solved, the experience of separation and divorce becomes less adversarial as out of court settlement strategies replace traditional ways of resolving the family law dispute.
I support my clients by offering a menu of options
from traditional to more collaborative approaches to resolving family law problems.
As a litigation lawyer, I was inspired to explore non-adversarial approaches after witnessing disputes escalate into animosity, frustration, delays and excessive costs. What I discovered was that non-adversarial settlement strategies help to preserve relationships; reduce the emotional and financial costs; and promote a more thorough exploration of options in reaching mutually satisfying agreements. The success of these out of court settlement strategies begins with this fundamental shift in seeing the dispute as a joint problem to be solved. This shift unlocks the door to innovative ways of resolving disputes respectfully even when couples are experiencing high conflict, disagreements, difficulty communicating, and wanting different outcomes.
Helping you make informed choices involves understanding your hopes, fears, concerns, and goals. Together we can explore all your options and develop a personalized plan to move forward. I am based in Nanaimo, BC serving clients on Central Vancouver Island. Contact me to book a consultation.
With 20 years of litigation experience combined with my dispute resolution background, I am well equipped to work within any process.
MEDIATION
Mediation focuses on exploring solutions that meet the interests of both parties which is referred to as “interest based negotiation”.
ARBITRATION
Arbitration is an out of court process that offers a legally binding decision by a qualified Arbitrator acting as a Judge.
COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAW
This process requires two collaboratively trained lawyers who collectively use their mediation skills in approaching the dispute as a joint problem to be solved.
TESTIMONIALS

ORGANIZATIONS
I am also a member of the Family Separation Professionals in Victoria, BC; the International Association of
Collaborative Professionals; and a member of the CBA-ADR section
POSITIONS VS. INTERESTS:
Working with your Collaborative Lawyer to Negotiate Agreement
The collaborative lawyer plays a key role in helping couples to negotiate a mutually acceptable separation agreement, which is the ultimate goal of the collaborative process. To achieve successful negotiations it is important for couples to understand the difference between interest-based negotiations, as compared with positional bargaining. A lack of understanding can create significant obstacles to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement in the collaborative process. An understanding of the differences between the two negotiation approaches will also help couples understand the role of the collaborative lawyer in helping them reach their goals.
Typically the concept of “negotiation” in family law conjures up traditional notions of exchanging proposals through lawyers. Proposals are positions taken based upon what each person has decided he/she wants. This approach is known as “positional bargaining” or “positional negotiation”. Strategies are often employed to try to influence the other party to give up his/her position such as making demands, making concessions, holding back information, and using threats of court. The lawyer’s role is traditionally understood as “fighting” to get what the client has decided he/she wants as being fair and reasonable.
When the ultimate goal is to agree on a position that is mutually satisfying, the tendency is to think and talk only about the positions.
Wife: “I want my spouse to pay me spousal support”.
Husband: “I don’t want to pay spousal support”.
The statements above reflect this type of positional thinking and talking. When talking in terms of positions only, the options to find mutually satisfying solutions are limited to the two positions that each party is advancing. The limited options often lead to impasse as neither party wants to give up what he/she wants to reach an agreement.
Thanks for visiting
Laura Taylor Law!
Subscribe for exclusive content latest articles & news
delivered straight into your inbox.