Cheryl Fletcher

Having practiced law for 20 years, Cheryl is committed to finding creative solutions for legal disputes that are less financially and emotionally painful. Collaborative law is an excellent way to do so. She strongly believes that courts should not be where we begin to resolve disputes, but only where we end up if alternative methods have been considered and tried. Cheryl is the President of the South Carolina Collaborative Law Institute, and was a founding member and past president of the Collaborative Practice Institute of Michigan. She is a member of the South Carolina and Charleston Bar Associations, South Carolina Women’s Lawyers Association, and State Bar of Michigan. She also has been a frequent lecturer on financial, commercial, and domestic issues and has written articles regarding collaborative law.

Cheryl is a member of The International Association of Collaborative Professionals.

AV rated

Cheryl Fletcher is a Collaborative Legal Professional practicing in Charleston, South Carolina.

Collaborative Law

Introduction to Collaborative Law

Described simply, the collaborative process consists of parties and their lawyers who sign a binding agreement that they will resolve the dispute outside of court. The parties agree they will not threaten or engage in litigation while they are engaged in the collaborative process. While no one forfeits their right to go to court, if a party chooses to litigate, then the attorneys must withdraw from further representation of the parties. This creates an economic incentive to work cooperatively, as well as engage in creative problem-solving. Further, unlike litigation in which negotiations are handled by the attorneys, in the collaborative process negotiations are done by the parties and facilitated by the attorneys (typically during four-way meetings). Courts are used only to file generic pleadings, final judgments, or settlements, where necessary. By focusing on settlement from the beginning, the parties avoid draining and costly court battles.

Civil Collaborative Law

The goals of Civil Collaborative Practice are to solve problems mutually and privately, preserve key relationships, and prevent unnecessary and costly court battles. Disputes affecting business, partnerships, employment issues, and medical malpractice, and probate and estate matters are financially and emotionally disruptive for everyone involved. Resolving through litigation often adds to the problems by creating entrenched positions, damaging or severing relationships, and imposing ineffective, unresponsive solutions. It is true that most cases are settled at mediation, but mediation typically is not done until after the lawsuit is filed and the parties have incurred substantial attorney fees and costs preparing for trial. The important difference between collaborative practice and conventional litigation is the commitment to reach agreement without going to court, which allows the parties to maintain control of the process and the decision, instead of relinquishing them to a judge or jury.

Read More


Domestic Collaborative Law

The goals of Domestic Collaborative Practice (often referred to as Collaborative Divorce) are to resolve the legal and financial issues without litigation, and out of court, as well as support couples through the emotional aspects of divorce. The collaborative process requires that each party retain an attorney who has had Collaborative Divorce training. The use of collaborative practice to reach settlements in divorce matters, or to resolve post-judgment issues, encourages good–faith problem solving and constructive communication to reach a settlement agreeable to both parties. New parenting relationships can get off to a positive start when parents actively plan together for their children’s restructured family times. Depending on the types of issues and circumstances, other members of the collaborative team may include neutral financial professionals, mediators, or a child specialist – all of whom are trained and committed to the collaborative process. Not only do the parties retain control of the process, but they conserve resources, both financial and emotional.

Read More