By Mary Sakaguchi
As the incoming President of the King County Bar Association, let me introduce myself:
First, I’m a partner in a small boutique Family Law firm in Kirkland. While I’ve done a broad range of civil matters over my career (real estate, landlord/tenant, construction defect, receiverships, probate, business), my primary area of practice is family law.
Second, I’m fairly straightforward. I’m not a person of many words, though I have many ideas and opinions (as one does when you’re an attorney).
Third, I’m a strong believer in collaborating with others in making and executing decisions. It is imperative to gather feedback from those impacted by the decision and outside parties who can provide relevant insight. Upon reflection, I’d say that this is how I try to approach most areas of my life: as a parent, a partner, a friend, and a professional.
To be clear, from an organizational (and parental) standpoint, I don’t subscribe to a consensus leadership style because the consequences of decision-making ultimately fall on the shoulders of the final decision-maker. When deciding whether my kids got a car after getting their license, we took into account their preferences and made a decision with that feedback. More importantly, we had a reasoned explanation to share with our children about our decision.
Similarly, when KCBA’s Executive Director, Kathleen Jensen, stepped into the position from her prior role as Associate Executive Director, the Board sought input from KCBA’s leadership staff prior to making the offer. From those conversations, the Board received invaluable insight about pros and cons of promoting Kathleen to Executive Director. Perhaps the strongest lesson I learned, aside from the obvious conclusion that Kathleen was the best fit for the role, was the powerful significance of collaboration. The feedback I heard from the leadership staff was that they felt heard (and hopefully respected in giving their feedback, deservedly so). While we were clear that we were not able to guarantee that individual preferences would be adopted, they were greatly considered in the decision-making process. This makes sense, doesn’t it? Our staff leadership would interact the most with the new Executive Director, and we as a Board need the Executive Director to work well with KCBA’s staff so that we have a well-functioning organization. To me, this is collaborative leadership in action.
I was thrilled when I learned that this month’s Bar Bulletin theme is “Ethics of Collaboration” because you may know that a large part of my practice is, in fact, Collaborative Law, which is a dispute resolution alternative. At its core, Collaborative Law is a process by which the parties and their attorneys agree (in writing) that they will not litigate their dispute and will work collaboratively to reach an interest-based and durable resolution. In the event the Collaborative process fails and the case transitions to litigation, then the attorneys are disqualified from litigating on their client’s behalf. Often the Collaborative case includes professional neutrals (e.g. coach or financial specialist) who, along with the attorneys, form the professional team that supports the parties. Communications and work-product from a Collaborative case are privileged and confidential, like in Mediation. The Uniform Collaborative Law Act was enacted in Washington in 2013 and resides in the same chapter of the RCW as the Uniform Mediation Act. See RCW 7.77.
Anecdotally, I have heard litigation colleagues question whether Collaborative Law was ethical. It was a fair question, as it is not hard to see how such a process could be abused. However, if you read through RCW 7.77, it addresses much of the question “Is Collaborative Law ethical?”:
- Collaborative Law is limited-scope representation, as the attorney may not represent a client in a contested process. This is permissible under RPC 1.2(c) so long as the client consents.
- The attorney is required to consult with the client about the appropriateness of the Collaborative process in comparison with other resolution options. See RCW 7.77.120.
- The attorneys are required to screen for a coercive or violent relationship and continuously screen throughout the case. See RCW 7.77.130.
- An exception to the attorney disqualification provision is in the event it is necessary to seek or defend an emergency order if a successor litigation attorney is not immediately available. RCW 7.77.080(3)(b).
- Collaborative Lawyers do not abdicate their professional responsibility. See RCW 7.77.110.
Arguably, the professional responsibility requirements under the UCLA are more stringent than ethical standards generally for civil litigation counsel, given the affirmative duty to screen for coercive or violent relationships and consult with a prospective client about the appropriateness of the process compared with other options. I have found no Washington case law regarding the ethics of Collaborative practice. I have found just one WSBA Advisory Opinion that discusses the appropriateness of a Collaborative participation agreement, which was concluded as permissible as limited representation and with client consent. See WSBA Advisory Opinion 2170.
I have not found case law in any other state that addresses the ethics of Collaborative practice. A search of other state bar ethics yielded opinions that similarly approve Collaborative practice so long as the attorneys follow their professional responsibility. See, e.g., Kentucky Bar Association Ethics Opinion KBA E-425 and New Jersey Ethics Opinion 699. The sole outlier was Colorado Bar Association Ethics Opinion 115 (2007), which looked at whether it was ethically permissible for an attorney to enter into a participation agreement with an opposing party and concluded that it violated Colorado RPC 1.7(b), which prohibits an attorney from entering into a contract with an adverse party that disqualifies them from representing the client in litigation. However, it should be noted that Opinion 115 was withdrawn on December 15, 2025, after Colorado adopted the UCLA at C.R.S. Section 13-24-101, et seq. See Colorado Formal Ethics Opinions. Available at: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
I also note that the ABA concluded that Collaborative practice is permissible under the Model Rules and explicitly rejected Colorado Ethics Opinion 115. See ABA Formal Opinion 07-447. The only secondary source I’ve found explicitly about the ethics of Collaborative Law is a 2009 Hofstra Law Review article that discusses much of the advisory opinions promulgated around the time that the UCLA was drafted. See generally Cochran, Robert F. Jr. (2009) “Legal Ethics and Collaborative Practice Ethics,” Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 38: Iss. 2, Article 4. Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol38/iss2/4. The author effectively reached the same conclusion as the ABA. I believe that it is fair to conclude that generally Collaborative Law is ethical practice.
Circling back to my initial comments, I pose the assertion that not only is Collaborative Law an ethical practice, but collaboration can also be a highly effective method of leadership. My search yielded that there are several leadership “styles” and there does not appear to be one definitive list, but there were recurring styles: Autocratic, Democratic, Laissez-Faire, Coaching, Identity, Transformational, Servant, Bureaucratic, and Adaptive appear to be the most common.[1] Collaboration as a leadership style appears similar to Participative Leadership — a style that appears to be less widely known, though it has shown up a few times in my search.[2] This style is generally described as leadership built on shared decision-making, open communication, and collective problem-solving. The consensus among these sources indicates that generally most leaders do not employ just one style, but rather tend to lean toward or fall back on a certain style.
I tend to lean toward collaborative leadership because I’ve learned over the years as a family law attorney, business-owner, parent, and in past organizational leadership, that I really do not have the right answers all of the time. I can research, I can prepare, I can work with consultants, but there is an aspect of “lived experience” by those who are impacted by my decisions that I could never know or research enough to fully understand how decisions I may make can impact others. By inviting feedback, the many layers of the values and priorities of others unveil themselves. The desired end-result is a decision pathway that is accepted by all. Note that there is a distinction between an “accepted outcome” and an “agreed outcome” because sometimes not everyone will be in agreement with the decision. However, sometimes, collaboration within the decision-making process becomes almost as important as the actual decision being made.
Do you agree? Let’s circle back in a year and see if my time as KCBA’s Board President yields that assertion as true — I’d love to get your feedback!
[1] See, e.g., Creighton University, “The 8 Most Common Leadership Styles,” https://www.creighton.edu/blog/8-most-common-leadership-styles; National Society of Leadership and Success, “What is Leadership? Understanding Different Leadership Styles,” https://www.nsls.org/understanding-different-leadership-styleshttps://www.nsls.org/understanding-different-leadership-styles.
[2] See, e.g., Harvard Law School Program on Negotiation, “Participative Leadership: What It Can Do for Organizations,” https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/leadership-skills-daily/participative-leadership-what-it-can-do-for-organizations/; International Institute for Management Development, “The 6 Most Common Leadership Styles & How to Find Yours,” https://www.imd.org/blog/leadership/leadership-styles/.
