The Neutral Facilitator: Steward of the Collaborative Process

The Neutral Facilitator: Steward of the Collaborative Process

Kristen Boldt | Founder, Harmony Works

Collaborative practice asks participants to do something fundamentally different than traditional negotiation. Rather than persuading an outside decision maker or winning concessions from an opponent, the parties work together to design durable solutions that reflect their shared interests and individual values. In this model, the process itself becomes part of the outcome. How people reach agreement shapes not only the quality of the agreement, but also their ability to implement it successfully after the lawyers are gone. Protecting that process requires intentional stewardship, and that is where the neutral facilitator provides unique value.

When a collaborative case relies only on attorneys, they are asked to fulfill two important functions. They advocate for their clients while also helping maintain the collaborative process. Although these responsibilities are complementary, they are not the same. An attorney’s primary professional obligation is always to their client. A facilitator’s primary responsibility is to safeguard the integrity of the collaborative process. Because those responsibilities differ, the same suggestion offered by an attorney and a neutral facilitator will often be heard differently. Even in the most cooperative environment, an attorney’s comments understandably carry the perception of advocacy. A neutral facilitator removes this layer of perceived bias and keeps the team’s attention focused on the collaborative work of designing solutions together.

This distinction is not a reflection on the attorneys’ skill. Advocacy and facilitation are different professional roles with different responsibilities and different types of leadership. Advocacy provides substantive leadership. Facilitation provides process leadership. Collaborative teams are strongest when both forms of leadership are intentionally represented and each professional is free to perform the role they are uniquely equipped to serve. Separating these roles strengthens both rather than diminishing either.

Using a facilitator keeps the focus on the clients. One of the most impactful differences in collaborative law is the respect and credit it gives the client. The gamesmanship of traditional litigation tends to cast situations as “the lawyer’s case” with the client along for the ride. By contrast, a core value of collaborative ethics is client self-determination. Attorneys offer advice and guidance, but the client is ultimately responsible for making the final decisions on how to resolve their issues in a way that aligns with their values.

The neutral lens of the facilitator brings a different perspective into the room. Attorneys can provide a legal evaluation, but human motivation rarely fits neatly into a legal framework. Grief, trust wounds, family history, and hidden interests can all drive an otherwise logical legal discussion off the rails. A facilitator is uniquely positioned to draw out the underlying interests and relational dynamics that influence decision-making and help the participants work through them productively. If these human dynamics are not addressed directly, they often surface indirectly through talking past one another, projection, avoidance, or stalled negotiations. For example, any major life changes, good or bad, can trigger the stages of grief. Our culture tends to restrict grief to death, but that is only a fraction of where it shows up. Often, a negotiation roadblock that seems irrational is really misplaced grief. When what is really going on is acknowledged and given a name it can then be processed and resolved.

Because collaborative practice depends as much on the quality of the process as the quality of the legal analysis, the facilitator’s work extends well beyond managing meetings. Their role is to intentionally design and protect the conditions that allow collaborative problem-solving to succeed. In practice, that stewardship is reflected throughout every phase of the collaborative process.

Understanding the Participants

The facilitator begins by meeting individually with each participant and counsel to understand not only the legal issues, but also communication styles, organizational dynamics, underlying interests, historical conflict patterns, and the values that shape decision-making. This information helps create an intentional process roadmap before the first joint session.

Guiding the Collaborative Process

Rather than attorneys managing the agenda while simultaneously advocating for their clients, the facilitator guides the conversation itself. This neutral leadership reduces perceived power imbalances, keeps discussions productive, and allows attorneys to remain focused on providing legal advice rather than managing group dynamics.

Expanding Possibilities

Because the facilitator represents neither side, they are uniquely positioned to ask different questions, identify overlooked interests, and explore creative options without the perceived bias attached to advocacy. The conversation shifts from proving who is right to discovering what is possible.

Every successful solution reached by the parties is also practice for addressing future challenges. They leave the process not only with a signed agreement, but with stronger governance, healthier communication patterns, and greater confidence in navigating conflict together.

Whether the matter involves a parenting plan, a closely held business, or a complex commercial disagreement, the human dynamics remain remarkably consistent. People make better decisions when they feel heard, understand one another’s interests, and have confidence in the integrity of the process. At its core, the facilitator’s role is not to solve the dispute, but to create the conditions in which the participants can solve it themselves. By protecting the collaborative framework, facilitating productive communication, and keeping the focus on client self-determination, the facilitator serves as the steward of the collaborative process. This enables attorneys to do what they do best while helping clients do what only they can do—design durable agreements that they understand, support, and are prepared to implement. The result is not simply greater efficiency or higher client satisfaction, but agreements that are more thoughtful, more resilient, and more likely to endure. In collaborative practice, the process itself becomes part of the outcome, and a skilled facilitator helps ensure that both endure.