It's helpful to remember the conventional legal system tells us what we can't do but doesn't tell us what is possible. With this in mind, Fred and Von set out to shape their own agreement and enlisted the help of a collaborative law practitioner to help them co-create their agreement. They asked for their agreement to be written in plain English, removing any unnecessary legal jargon so they could understand what they agreed to. Then, they hired an attorney with experience litigating contracts to check case law and ensure the partners were not getting into trouble with the larger system and that the agreement would integrate with the conventional legal system.

Remaining friends was so important to Fred and Von that they literally wrote it into their agreement: "We begin this as friends, and we are creating an agreement which will put our friendship in the forefront of the business." Because not hurting one another is equally important, the agreement is not designed to be used in court to argue for damages. Instead, the agreement is written to maintain the partners' friendship and further a relationship that endures change, withstands, and transforms conflict. As part of the partner's agreement, the agreement includes a conflict resolution process that offers a path for their partnership to get back into alignment and win-win outcomes, even if that outcome is parting ways.

How does the Conflict Resolution Process work?  

The conflict resolution process starts with Fred and Von having coffee and discussing the issues in person in DeLand, Florida.

Their agreement forbids the use of attorneys to represent them. However, the partners agreed that they could have legal advisers. The agreement states, "We don't want to be protected from each other." In addition, each partner already selected and named their trusted advisors in their agreement to reach out to for help if there is a conflict. These advisors are trained in resolving conflict and collaborative law.

A key provision to the agreement is that engaging in the conflict resolution process is a precondition to filing any lawsuit and requires the partners to take the steps as many times as necessary to get to a resolution. This provision is designed to protect the partners from unnecessary lawsuits and empower the partners to resolve their own conflicts. Once Fred and Von meet for coffee, they agreed to ask each other the questions below to guide their conversation: 

• What do we most appreciate about the work we have done together so far?
• What has really worked well for us so far? How can we expand on it? 
• Do each of us feel we are getting what we anticipated?  
• Is it time to redefine or redirect our work together? 
• Is there something that is no longer working for one or both of us? 
• Is there something difficult we are avoiding saying or doing? 
• Are there outside influences (or money) affecting how we are working together? 
• What do we gain by continuing/ending this work together? 

These questions, along with a trained conflict mediator, are designed to help identify the issues and brainstorm ideas. The partners even thought about and agreed to the tools and practices that define how they will treat each other during the conversation. The idea is to put the partners in the correct headspace to hear each other and communicate effectively. These tools are based on the Peace and Justice Institute's teachings. The agreement spells out exactly how to handle conflict or close the partnership if needed. Nothing has been left to chance or for the courts to decide.

Formal Mediation

If the partners cannot reach an understanding at this point, they agree to proceed to the next step, which is formal mediation. During this step, the partners choose a trained, neutral facilitator to help them discuss their issues. The Mediator does not represent either of them or give legal advice. They are hired to help the partners discuss possible concepts to solve the conflict and guide them to a win-win outcome.

Collaborative Law

If formal mediation also fails to see results, the partners agreed to engage in The Florida Collaborative Law Process; the act and the rules became effective as of July 1, 2017, which starts with the partners consulting two specially trained lawyers. The lawyers enter into a contract to provide legal advice, problem-solving skills, and facilitation to achieve an agreement, but they will not go to court. The lawyers enter into a contract because The Florida Collaborative Law Process has a provision to disqualify the attorneys from representing their client in contested litigation against another party in a matter related to the subject of the collaborative process. The attorneys must be committed to problem-solving and not thinking about what would happen if this went to trial. The role of advocating for the client is transformed into useful problem-solving skills.

If all fails, then this 

The friends agreed that if they went through all of these processes and couldn't agree, they would sell everything, pay all debts, and split all the money equally. This was to prevent litigation, as Fred and Von agreed the pain caused to themselves and others was more significant than fighting over money and hurting their friendship. 

Little history  

Von Coven founded Breyting (Icelandic for "change") to raise support and awareness for removing unexploded bombs from Southeast Asia and share the lessons learned from the wars in Southeast Asia. Von contributed 15 years of capital and labor to bring Breyting to where it is today.

He brought in his dear friend Fred Schneider of the B-52s as a funding partner for two of Breyting's initiatives, with the understanding that they would honor the investments and sacrifices made by numerous people, which reaches into the millions, by establishing a non-profit that would benefit their heirs and society. Their investments would be used to pay salaries to their heirs for the rest of their lives. This fact has been in all the organization's action plans since its founding.

Before Fred became the frontman of the world's greatest party band, the B-52s, his ambition was to be an environmental conservationist. That is why Fred agreed to come on this journey with Von so he could have a legacy outside of his music and fulfill the part of him that wants to give back--- Fred's closest friends remarked that they had never seen Fred so happy.

So, what changed? 

Amidst Fred's battle with cancer, a family member took advantage of the situation and orchestrated a team, including lawyers, to dismantle the partnership without any valid grounds. They showed no intention of finding a solution or working with Breyting to ensure its longevity. This team reneged on the promise to transform Breyting and its initiatives into a non-profit and refused to honor the financial obligations to the people, vendors, artists, and non-profits involved. This family member made untrue claims of fraud and manipulated Fred into signing over half of Fred's estate under the disguise of protecting him.

Fred, in his own words, expressed his anguish, "It's hard to explain. I've given (name withheld) half of the house, my house, and apartment, and he holds it over my head and says he can have me thrown out and just bulldozes me in a way I can't deal with. Believe me, I'm devasted."

So why bring awareness to this conflict?  

Breyting has been part of a movement that promotes value-based and collaborative law agreements. Collaborative law is primarily used in family law. However, the concept is increasingly being used in business, which is why Breyting has been in books, discussions, blogs, and speaking to university students advocating for its use.

Businesses followed and use Breyting's best practices. Now, Fred and his attorneys are challenging the very foundation of this type of non-adversarial operating agreement. Instead of being advisers to Fred, as the agreement states, Fred's attorneys demand that each partner have legal representation and aggressively advocate for their client, which prevents Fred and Von from following their conflict resolution process. This is not at all what collaborative law is. It is exactly what Fred and Von agreed not to do—give over their power to people who are not trained to resolve conflict.

The agreement and its mission are much more significant than the partner's conflict as it is a fight for freedom—the freedom for business partners to make a conscious choice to legally commit themselves to an agreement that binds them to a collaborative process where the partners solve their own disputes.

So, what's next?  

We are in a holding pattern, waiting for Fred to engage in the conflict resolution process. In the meantime, as an organization devoted to peaceful activism, we are "bearing witness" to the harm caused through video, photography, and testimonies and sharing these lessons in a documentary called "The Agreement." The documentary will raise awareness of the importance of non-adversarial agreements, why infusing values into non-profits and businesses matter, and why there is no resolution without healing.

As a society and business owners, we must learn how to resolve conflict without harming each other. Stay tuned.