Part II

Adam Berner’s interview with Honorable Ronny Jo Siegal (Ret.), family court judge, on divorce mediation and family court.

The following excerpt is from an interview that I had with the Honorable Ronny Jo Siegal (Ret.), who presided as a family court judge in Passaic County and then in Bergen County for over eight years prior to her retirement (as required by New Jersey law, at age 70). For more information, see the full interview at: https://youtu.be/PKZBijbBML4

Adam Berner (Adam): I know you’re a little familiar with the collaborative divorce process. Can you share your take on that approach to getting divorced?

Judge Ronny Jo Siegal (Judge Siegal): Well, I think as I get older, I like it better. And I’ll tell you what I like about it. People come to the table with the view that they both want to resolve their case. And that idea that they’re committed to resolving their case is something that I like. And that the couple has available to them accountants in case there are financial issues that require the couple’s assistance and that there are mental health professionals the couple can call upon to help them answer, guide and support them through the divorce process. And they have attorneys. A couple is more likely to get through this process, I would say, knowing that they both want to resolve their case and have a team in place to help them do that.

What’s the downside? Where the collaborative case would not end in an agreement, I think that there could be some lost time because the attorneys that you are retaining for the collaborative process are committed not to be involved in litigation. You have to sort of begin again with new attorneys. And that can cause the divorce to take a little bit longer. So from my vantage point, I think that’s a negative if it turns out that you can’t continue to resolve the case through the collaborative process. Is that a negative to you, too? Or that’s just the nature of the work?

Yes, it’s certainly a negative that comes with an opportunity. And because of that concern, there is an ethical mandate to make an assessment that the professionals just don’t accept any case as a collaborative case. There has to be a certain level of scrutiny. As opposed to going to litigation, where the litigation attorney has no such obligation to make an assessment, asking questions such as whether this family has enough money to litigate. Do they have the psychological wherewithal to withstand litigation? Do they have kids old enough that maybe they won’t be so negatively impacted by a litigious divorce?

As opposed to assessing whether litigation is the right process, where there is no ethical obligation, at least not on the books, in the collaborative model, there’s an ethical mandate requiring the professionals to be careful and assess whether the clients have the capacity, interest, the wherewithal to resolve their divorce settlement collaboratively. And if one of the attorneys or other professionals feels that that’s not the case, then we should not take on that case as a collaborative one. And I’ve had that. I’ve had a number of cases over the past 20 years where either myself or the other attorney thought it wouldn’t be a good idea to resolve this through the collaborative process after speaking to the client or potential client.

Adam: So what kind of cases should be dealt with in the court?

Judge Siegal: Ones in which the playing field is not level. So the most common case that comes to mind that should be in the courtroom situation is a domestic violence situation. It may not even be domestic violence as the world defines it, but even an inability for parties to be able to comfortably speak up for themselves. That case has to have the benefit of a judge overseeing the proceedings and making sure that each party is dealt with fairly.

I also think that when there’s a lot of financial complexity to a case, there has to be a complete disclosure of finances so people can make intelligent decisions. If you can accomplish that in an agreement in mediation, then that’s an OK place to be. But if you can’t do that, then I think you have to go through the legal process, go before a judge who will make sure that if either party needs some type of financial disclosure, they will ensure that that occurs.

Adam: In light of all that you’ve done, what do you like better in terms of those various processes, being a judge or a mediator?

Judge Siegal: Well, my quick answer is always that people listened to me when I was a judge, and I don’t have that ability anymore. But what I liked about being on the bench was the great number of people I met who were so very different, with different nationalities, different ages and different problems. And it was that breadth of people, the people that I was dealing with, that brought great experience and knowledge to me. And I liked that very, very much. I liked the fact that I could bring finality to their issues because that was my responsibility. I had to call it for them. They evidently could not do that themselves. And I was answering the problem for them. And I liked that very much. So in terms of did I enjoy that role? Yes.

But what else? There was great pressure in being a judge because what happens is you don’t know the people. It’s not your life. It’s their lives. And in a short period of time, they have to explain to you what their issues are. How do I call that for them? My preference would always be that they could resolve it themselves, which is why I so favor mediation if at all possible, because that affords the parties an opportunity to address their problems, knowing all that they know and then coming to a conclusion. But on the bench, what proves to be great pressure is that you have to give them an answer, but you lack all the knowledge that they have about their lives. So you do the very best you can based upon the law and the facts. You have to follow the law, the statute and the cases. And then you have to provide an answer.

Adam: What do you find most rewarding in your work with divorcing couples?

Judge Siegal: Well, frankly, it’s just that I could bring it to an end for them in a way that they feel optimistic about the future. Sometimes you can’t, but for the most part, if you can do that, it is very heartening.

Adam: So what would be your parting message for a couple who’s starting the divorce process, contemplating different ways to go about doing that? What would be your message to them?

Judge Siegal: I would like both of the parties to feel as comfortable or as confident as they can that they’ve made the right decision because it is of such great consequence. That they educate themselves and learn as much as they can learn about the process, about their finances and what they want for themselves. And then be fair to the other party as well as being fair to themselves. Know that this was somebody they loved, who is the other parent to their children, and so, to be respectful and to try to be fair.

For Part I of this interview, see February 2 issue of The Jewish Link, https://tinyurl.com/2nxteh9w

Adam Berner specializes in mediation and collaborative family law, is the owner of the Berner Law & Mediation Group, with offices in Hackensack and Manhattan. As a leading practitioner in the family dispute resolution field for the past 30 years he has served as president of the Family & Divorce Mediation Council of Greater New York and founding president of the New Jersey Collaborative Law Group. In addition to his private practice, Berner is a mediation trainer and adjunct professor at YU’s Cardozo School of Law, where he teaches mediation and collaborative law. Additional information can be found at www.MediationOffices.com.

Judge Siegal is currently a partner at the law firm Pashman Stein Walder Hayden, where she heads up the family law dispute resolution department, serving as a mediator, arbitrator and consulting family law expert. For more information, see https://www.pashmanstein.com/team-hon-ronny-jo-siegal