Divorce

[sjd88]

I'm a regular disser but am posting this under a different username.

Can you think of a good reason (other than saving money) to share a divorce attorney? Someone I know is getting divorced and their spouse suggested that they share an attorney, who also happens to be a friend of the spouse's family. It is a mutually agreed upon divorce. So far, they are talking & friendly, but I've seen a few divorces over time and while most of them started out friendly, none of them ended that way.

I just found out that the spouse was very controlling, to an extreme, during the marriage and has already done a few things that make it seem that they are looking for anything but a fair divorce. I'm concerned that my friend will not get the representation they need if they share an attorney. This is the first time I've heard of this and I think it's a horrible idea.

Does anyone here have an experience with a shared attorney?

ETA - there have been issues during the marriage (caused by both of them) that have made for some really tough times. They are just now at a point where they can agree to go their separate ways.

 

[Agri]

I would not share an attorney no matter how amicable a divorce might be. No matter what, you want to know that your attorney is looking out for your interests without a single doubt. It is a major conflict of interest.

Unless you're going to a storefront lawyer and getting divorced the same day, no way.

 

[NCRedding]

Ethically, the attorney can only represent one party in an adversarial proceeding, so why it might be "sharing" attorneys to the parties, in reality, the attorney has only one client, and is ethically bound to represent only the client, not the other party.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

No way in hell.

 

[NikitaZee]

My first husband and I shared a divorce attorney. We had no children, no property and I didn't want spousal support. We agreed on who kept what as far as possessions, and our split was agreed upon and amicable. For a divorce as uncomplicated as ours was, sharing our attorney was just fine. We had no problems with the actual divorce, and saved money by doing it that way.

 

[NMAmy]

When my ex and I first decided to divorce, we were going to use the same attorney--a friend of both of ours who was going to do the divorce pro bono.

When I found out my ex had used another attorney to declare bankruptcy without my knowledge, I got another attorney friend to represent me. When our original attorney found out what happened, he refused to represent my ex. So, in the end, I still had an attorney who took my case pro bono and my ex ended up paying for his attorney.

I talked with our original attorney later and he told me that he only did this very rarely and he was shocked by my ex's behavior, as well. I think it can work as long as both parties are open and above board. Since our attorney was a friend, I really trusted him not to favor one of us over the other.

 

[bicker]

The beneficiaries of a woman's estate, and the family of her non-beneficiary second husband, are both suing someone (else) for wrongful death. You'd think that interests would coincide - not be adversarial at all - so using the same attorney would make sense. Don't be so sure.

And a divorce is naturally adversarial. nuf sed

 

[KiKi Mouse]

Ethically, the attorney can only represent one party in an adversarial proceeding, so why it might be "sharing" attorneys to the parties, in reality, the attorney has only one client, and is ethically bound to represent only the client, not the other party.

You are correct.

One party can have the lawyer and have papers drawn up and the other party can go in and sign them. Depending on the law in the state the 2nd party may have to sign a document stating they are acting on their own.

Here you have to have independant legal counsel.

 

[sjd88]

My first husband and I shared a divorce attorney. We had no children, no property and I didn't want spousal support. We agreed on who kept what as far as possessions, and our split was agreed upon and amicable. For a divorce as uncomplicated as ours was, sharing our attorney was just fine. We had no problems with the actual divorce, and saved money by doing it that way.

So sorry to hear about your divorce. It is good to know that sharing an attorney can work for some people.

The spouse is asking (actually demanding) for spousal support so I think that is enough to get another attorney involved. They have no children or other property, except one car that they share.

 

[LuvOrlando]

In the history of bad ideas I think this may be the worst. The only time I can see it being ok is if there are zero assets, zero debt and no children with no strings attached, no alimony, no palimony, no child support... nothing.

If you have any interests you want protected either come up with the cash or get a credit card and pay to have those interests protected by someone devoted to you & you alone.

 

[Allison]

Sharing an attorney? Nope

Sharing an attorney that is a friend of the spouse's family? Absolutely not.

 

[Sanchez]

They may be participating in a collaborative divorce process. This is becoming more popular and can lead to successful resolution.

http://www.collaborativedivorce.net/

If the parties are in reasonable agreement as to major issues then this may be a process worth investigating. I would imagine that in most divorces the major issues are resolved once the parties understand the best/worst case scenarios. If the parties cannot reach an agreement they can always back out, retain counsel and take the traditional route.

To those of you saying "no way", perhaps you should understand the process prior to taking such firm positions. It is not for everyone, but in most cases it seems worthy of consideration.

 

[Nancyg56]

They may be participating in a collaborative divorce process. This is becoming more popular and can lead to successful resolution.

http://www.collaborativedivorce.net/

If the parties are in reasonable agreement as to major issues then this may be a process worth investigating. I would imagine that in most divorces the major issues are resolved once the parties understand the best/worst case scenarios. If the parties cannot reach an agreement they can always back out, retain counsel and take the traditional route.

To those of you saying "no way", perhaps you should understand the process prior to taking such firm positions. It is not for everyone, but in most cases it seems worthy of consideration.

I understand that there are circimstances in which this is a vialble solution. My DD has a coworker who finally has seen that there are no assets, no nothing so using an attorney to skewer her soon to be ex is an exercize in futility. I can tell you that my DH's uncle and aunt shared an attorney. The poor woman was battered financially in court and in my opinion that attorney should have lost his license. The uncle was his relation BTW. So unless I had nothing to lose or to gain.............I would never do this.

 

[clutter]

My first husband and I shared a divorce attorney. We had no children, no property and I didn't want spousal support. We agreed on who kept what as far as possessions, and our split was agreed upon and amicable. For a divorce as uncomplicated as ours was, sharing our attorney was just fine. We had no problems with the actual divorce, and saved money by doing it that way.

Same here. In your friends case, if there are no kids, no equity, no one-sided retirement plans,etc, I think she'd be fine (although I wouldn't use a friend of the ex, even though I did ) However, if they'd been married a long time, had retirement savings, had equity in the house, or kids, I think she'd need her own representation.

 

[sjd88]

A quote from the collaborateive divorce site - "It requires that those involved be committed to working with and not against the other party in order to achieve results."

I'm not sure it would work in this case. The spouse has already done some things since they agreed to split that show that they are not committed to working with my friend.

 

[lpereira]

Even in a collaborative divorce you need two attorneys. The process is simple and as painless as divorce gets and everyone sits down and comes to an agreement to present to court without spending an arm and a leg- or dragging each other through the mud. You can even skip the lawyers and go through medication if you want. But a lawyer cannot represent 2 different clients at the same time without violating their ethical responsibility. Anyone who does should be suspended or revoked.

 

[punkin]

In the history of bad ideas I think this may be the worst. The only time I can see it being ok is if there are zero assets, zero debt and no children with no strings attached, no alimony, no palimony, no child support... nothing.

If you have any interests you want protected either come up with the cash or get a credit card and pay to have those interests protected by someone devoted to you & you alone.

This definitely. I had a cousin who was divorced this way. She had only been married 2 years. They lived with her parents. They had no children. Neither one even had a job. One attorney worked very well for them. There was quite simply nothing to fight over. It was not exactly an amicable divorce (they hated each other to a remarkable degree) but since neither one had any assets or income, it went smoothly.

 

[Sanchez]

I understand that there are circimstances in which this is a vialble solution. My DD has a coworker who finally has seen that there are no assets, no nothing so using an attorney to skewer her soon to be ex is an exercize in futility. I can tell you that my DH's uncle and aunt shared an attorney. The poor woman was battered financially in court and in my opinion that attorney should have lost his license. The uncle was his relation BTW. So unless I had nothing to lose or to gain.............I would never do this.

I do not think I made the distinction clear. In a collaborative situation the parties agree to a negotiation process. It is not a court process. If they cannot reach an agreement then they are free to obtain separate counsel and fight it out in court.

I can see where the collaborative process would not work in many situations. There are bitter feelings in most divorces and most people are unable to get beyond that to make sound decisions (and also they watch too many courtroom TV dramas.) Collaboration requires cooperation and most people are simply unable to do that in these stressful situations. It is a shame because many could save thousands in attorney fees by using an alternative resolution process.

 

[sjd88]

since neither one had any assets or income, it went smoothly.

This is the part I'm most worried about. Though they don't have any assets except for the car, the spouse, who has not worked at all during the marriage, has already demanded 1/2 of my friend's income.

 

[cabanafrau]

Ethically, the attorney can only represent one party in an adversarial proceeding, so why it might be "sharing" attorneys to the parties, in reality, the attorney has only one client, and is ethically bound to represent only the client, not the other party.

Absolutely, 100-percent the truth!

I don't care how simple & amicable the situation may be, each party should retain their own attorney.