Obviously there are many different types of couples with somewhat unique issues. But a local article on a trend for both people to use one lawyer makes sense on many levels. One presumes less expense and probably better long-term solutions. Of course, this isn’t that different from arbitration which might favour one party.
I have no personal experience with this. But I would be interested in hearing about yours. Too idealistic? Too hard to agree on the who’s and what’s? A good solution? Whattaya say?
The main concern is balance of power. A lawyer can only act for both parties if they are not in a conflictuel situation.
Amicable divorce, where the parties are on roughly equal terms? Yes, it can work, if they are fully advised of their rights.
Divorce where there are disputes between the parties? Or if there is clear imbalance in power or sophistication between the couple? Much more risky. And, if they do start with one lawyer, and then a conflict develops, that lawyer is off the file, with work thrown away, and they each have to get their own lawyer.
TLDR: I think it would work as long as soon to be exes need help with the formalities of getting divorced but if the two sides aren’t seeing eye to eye, I think it would be a bad idea.
If it’s an amicable divorce that could have been done pro se (no lawyers) and both sides are comfortable with the situation, I don’t see a problem.
It would be entirely understandable for a married couple to want some hand holding throughout the procedure. Even just with things like filling out the mountain of paperwork, sorting out/separating finances, working out a schedule for the kid(s) and so on.
When my ex and I got divorced we didn’t really have any disputes to work through. In our situation I could certainly see sharing a lawyer just to help with the minutia.
OTOH, I suppose anyone could have done something like that, it wouldn’t have to be an actual lawyer since the actual court part, in front of the judge, was little more than a formality and there would be no need for a lawyer there.
I feel like it could work, but the problem I see is that if the two parties start diverging too much, that single lawyer will probably have to be replaced with 2 new ones. Now instead of saving a few dollars, they’re in the hole for 3 lawyers.
So…maybe not an actual lawyer, but I could certainly see where there could be non-lawyer agencies that could help with this kind of thing.
This is what we did when I got divorced. We were in full agreement with everything… Dividing our possessions, custody, visitation, spousal support, and so on. There was no reason to have more than one lawyer.
This describes us perfectly. I still get along really well with my ex-wife. (Better than I did toward the end of our marriage at any rate!)
Having a lawyer helped make sure that everything was done properly. Oh, and best of all, my ex-mother-in-law paid for it.
My first wife and I did it. We were young, we didn’t own a house, didn’t have kids. She took her stuff and one car, I took my stuff and the other car, she took the savings account, I took the checking account, we both cut up our credit cards and that was that.
When I got divorced there was just one lawyer. I found him, and my ex only met him once, letting me do the work(which was fairly typical of our relationship) No kids, not much money, just the house to sell. I ended up with more money as he got the down payment and I got the difference, each month, between the old and new mortgages. It ended up about 25/75.
At the time I had long hair, as he liked it that way. So the last time I saw him, at the realtor’s to sign the paperwork, I had gone and got my hair cut off short.
My first husband and I effectively had one lawyer. No children, equal incomes and I said that he could have the house for x dollars.
The only disagreement we had was that he wanted to pay the money in installments. He had more than enough in savings (he was terrified of being broke).
I told him we could settle it in court then, and he immediately backpeddled.
In court, my lawyer commended us for how amicable our divorce was.
When I was looking at divorce, my good friend offered to do it if my wife agreed. He kind of owed me, so it would be free. My wife said it worked for her.
A few months later, my friend told me that his attempts at contacting her weren’t going well. Turns out she wasn’t cooperating. Her initial agreement was actually a smooth, aggressive move. Then she hired her own attorney and served me.
Long story short, my friend could not represent me, having briefly represented both of us. I had to hire an attorney and things got nasty,
It’s not legal in all states but it is in California. That’s what we did and it worked out outstandingly. It will only work if the divorce isn’t contentious and there are no more than a few minor things to negotiate.
This comes up as a topic from time to time and typically a lawyer will come along to say what a bad idea it is. It definitely cuts down on attorney fees.
My ex and I could have pretty much done it ourselves and in fact I did most of it. We just wanted to make sure that we weren’t missing anything and for him to do the final agreement contract. It’s actually very simple for a case like ours when there are no kids, there are no assets prior to the marriage and no reason for alimony. The lawyer (called a mediation attorney or something like that) will only have a conversation if both parties are present with the exception of things like setting up an appointment time. If it gets too contentious or if they see that someone has a huge power disadvantage, they’ll step back and advise separate council.
After the initial consultation, we told the lawyer to get started. I asked him how many hours of his time we would need. He said that he’d done hundreds of divorces and that there were a handful that he was able to do in three hours where there were no arguments and both parties were ready. I said, “we’re both ready and I think we can do better than that”. He looked over at my wife and rolled his eyes. She said, “if he said it, he’s right”. We were able to complete the process using two hours of his time.
As I mentioned some states don’t allow this and I believe some states don’t even allow people do do it on their own. The legal communities there don’t want to miss out on those sweet sweet fees.
My ex and I had one lawyer to do the paper work and whatnot.
We were scrupulous in coming to our own arrangements (we almost went off the tracks dividing up our CD music collection…really).
We were also clear that if we could not come to agreement on anything then we’d each retain our own lawyer. It never came to that for us.
But, I think that is rare. We were lucky in this respect (obviously being unlucky that we were getting divorced).
We realized that we’d each spend thousands for practically nothing. That kept us focused on doing it right. It also helped infinitely neither person wanted to screw-over the other person.
I don’t have any data but I suspect that it’s super common. Think about all of the short marriages between young people with no assets and no kids. They don’t really need an attorney at all, just one of those cheapie legal aid places.
Technically, the lawyer isn’t representing either party. They are representing themselves and the lawyer is an independent mediator.
Some friends of mine went this way. But their marriage had always seemed a little… distanced to me the whole time. They each had come from well-off families, so they’d had prenups that covered what would happen to most of their ‘stuff’ already. No children, no jointly owned property, they each had flourishing careers (different fields.) They’d never really combined financial doings, with separate bank accounts and credit cards and such, plus a ‘household expenses’ expenses they’d both contributed equally, so they just cleared all bills and split the remainder.
The only real bone of contention was who got to stay in the apartment which was really conveniently located for both of them. They settled that one with simultaneous sealed bids for how much they would pay the other to let him/her keep it, highest bid winning.
I could see this working if the two people were generally on equal financial footing. But if there’s an imbalance, then it doesn’t seem like a good idea. Even if the couple is amicable, one spouse may feel pressure to be amicable throughout the process because they are uncomfortable with conflict. With each couple having their own attorney, their own attorney can push for what would be fair and the spouse can avoid that uncomfortable conflict. I would think one attorney would work best for the spouse who is more outspoken or has a more solid financial position, but not necessarily for the other spouse.
Yes, this is what is the issue from the perspective of the governing bodies for lawyers, not fees. A lawyer is not a mediator. It is possible to work for both parties, if they are in agreement, and able to work out the details.
But a lawyer in that situation always has to be on the look-out for any suggestion that one of the parties has undue influence and is using it, either directly or behind the scenes. The lawyer owes a professional duty to represent each party’s interests equally, and if the conduct of one of the parties makes it impossible to carry out that duty, the lawyer must withdraw.
As I said, the mediating lawyer in California, and probably everywhere else, is compelled to withdraw if they see that the divorce* is becoming contentious or one party is being coerced, etc.
*we don’t technically have divorce in California. It’s a dissolution of marriage. I’m not sure if there is even a real distinction between the two but our lawyer made sure to point that out to us.