Divorce

[cabanafrau]

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.

It's entirely possible for a couple to reach their own settlement agreement. It's also recommended that each present that agreement to their own attorney with instructions that is how they wish to proceed.

 

[kaffinito]

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.

We did the same thing. It was a very simple amicable divorce.

 

[Bren's Mom]

As someone stated above, ethically the attorney can only represent one party in a divorce.

My ex-dh and I had the most amicable divorce in the history of the universe. My attorney was a friend of the family and clearly told him that while he could guide him in what to do, he represented me and if push came to shove he would protect me. My ex chose to represent himself, and we both just moved forward with the 'guidance' of my attorney to be sure we covered everything in our agreement. And all worked out ok.

With what the op has posted, I would strongly encourage her friend to get her OWN attorney.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

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 am speaking "no way" in the OP's case.

It would be different if both parties were working and their assets were already taken care of, ie they already divided up things on their own, took care of all money assets, living arrangements, etc.

 

[Sanchez]

I am speaking "no way" in the OP's case.

It would be different if both parties were working and their assets were already taken care of, ie they already divided up things on their own, took care of all money assets, living arrangements, etc.

I do not think that you or me are in any way qualified to say what is best for these people. How you can come to such a definitive conclusion is beyond me. I am merely suggesting that that the collaborative process is a possibility in this situation - in that it may be what they are considering. I do not think that the OP gave enough information about the financial or other aspects to form any conclusions.

 

[The Mystery Machine]

I do not think that you or me are in any way qualified to say what is best for these people. How you can come to such a definitive conclusion is beyond me. I am merely suggesting that that the collaborative process is a possibility in this situation - in that it may be what they are considering. I do not think that the OP gave enough information about the financial or other aspects to form any conclusions.

This is a message board and we come to the best conclusion based on the advice the poster puts forth.

If someone has a controlling soon to be spouse, then it is in their best interest to get their own lawyer, period.

 

[ClarabelleCowFan]

NO WAY ON THIS PLANET should they share an attorney.

I dont care how friendly the divorce is - this is a BAD idea. Each party needs their own attorney to advise them of their rights and to make sure that everything is being done fair and equitably.

I can use 2 examples - DH and his ex shared an attorney that was a friend of her family. They agreed on everything, signed papers and went on their way until the ex got mad at DH over something petty and decided to take him back to court for more support and then withhold contact with his children for over a year thus breaking the original "agreement". 6 years later and over $25k in attorneys fees later and still climbing, DH is trying to finally get a "fair and equitable" settlement from not having an attorney. The original "agreement" has not been followed by his ex and DH has had to go back to court and fight to see his children, fight for repayment of marital debt, etc... Had he had an attorney in the first place he would have been advised that the original "agreement" was unenforceable and thus all of this could have been settled way back then for MUCH less money and MUCH less of a headache.

My other example is my own divorce. My ex and I drew up our own agreement and agreed on all points. We remain best friends to this day BUT we each had our own attorney to represent us just to make sure that everything was fair on each side. Our attorneys told us and the judge that we were the easiest divorce they ever handled. It wasn't that hard really, we just acted like adults and put the children first and continue to do so.

 

[sjd88]

I am merely suggesting that that the collaborative process is a possibility in this situation - in that it may be what they are considering. I do not think that the OP gave enough information about the financial or other aspects to form any conclusions.

I did state that the spouse, who never worked during the marriage, has already demanded 1/2 of my friend's salary. I think that is enough to think that collaborative divorce will not work in this situation. I also said that the spouse was very controlling during the marriage (something they both hid very well from the rest of the world) and has done other things, which I'm not going to mention here, that would cause me to believe that they are not interested in doing what is best for both of them. I think it's fair from what I've said to believe that collaborative divorce would not work for these two.

 

[a1tinkfans]

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.

 

[robinb]

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.

This should be your friend's red flag in the divorce. The soon to be ex is trying to control the divorce the same way s/he controlled the marriage. If they share a divorce attorney, the attorney will just sign off on whatever s/he is successful in browbeating your friend into. It might work in some cases, but not in this case.

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.

Maybe the souse deserves some support (1/2 seems extreme to me) and maybe they don't but there is no reason for your friend to roll over and give it to him/her (I assume her at this point) without knowing the facts.

 

[sjd88]

This should be your friend's red flag in the divorce. The soon to be ex is trying to control the divorce the same way s/he controlled the marriage. If they share a divorce attorney, the attorney will just sign off on whatever s/he is successful in browbeating your friend into. It might work in some cases, but not in this case.

Maybe the souse deserves some support (1/2 seems extreme to me) and maybe they don't but there is no reason for your friend to roll over and give it to him/her (I assume her at this point) without knowing the facts.

I agree that there should be some support given, but I don't think the spouse should be the only one with a say in how much and right now, my friend is just going along with their spouse to keep the peace.

 

[robinb]

I agree that there should be some support given, but I don't think the spouse should be the only one with a say in how much and right now, my friend is just going along with their spouse to keep the peace.

Which is why s/he needs their own lawyer who will not be bulldozed by the ex-spouse. And anyway ... why "keep the peace"? I'm not advocating getting dirty, but there are no kids to share & no house to split up so there is no reason for your friend to continue to bend to their ex-spouse's whims.

It does sound like your advise is falling on deaf ears, though. I hope your friend can make it through their divorce without getting totally screwed in the process.

 

[RNMOM]

My SIL is an attorney who does this in her practice. Both parties are delt with at the same time and know everything that is expected and required. It saves both parties a great deal of money and time as well as conflict in most cases. She is in Houston.

 

[sunnyday123]

No way in hell.

What she said.

 

[tvguy]

Well, no personal experience. Co-workers who used one attorney seem happy at how much money they saved. Co-workers where each spouse had their own attorney found themselves fighting with each other, and their own lawyer.

 

[sjd88]

And anyway ... why "keep the peace"? I'm not advocating getting dirty, but there are no kids to share & no house to split up so there is no reason for your friend to continue to bend to their ex-spouse's whims.

It does sound like your advise is falling on deaf ears, though. I hope your friend can make it through their divorce without getting totally screwed in the process.

Keeping the peace is just part of their personality.

I haven't given advice yet, I've just listened.

My SIL is an attorney who does this in her practice. Both parties are delt with at the same time and know everything that is expected and required. It saves both parties a great deal of money and time as well as conflict in most cases. She is in Houston.

I guess it's more common than I thought and after reading about it, I do believe that it can work for the right people in the right situation. One of my concerns in this situation is that the would-be attorney is a friend of the spouse's family so he may not be able to put personal feelings aside.

 

[tasha99]

My SIL is an attorney who does this in her practice. Both parties are delt with at the same time and know everything that is expected and required. It saves both parties a great deal of money and time as well as conflict in most cases. She is in Houston.

When I worked for an atty, he had one set of clients who did a divorce like this. He represented them both, but only because they had already agreed on everything so there was nothing to contest. It was the best divorce we ever did, and the only one that I didn't see get nasty. The clients were still good friends, and if I remember right, they planned to continue sharing their house. It worked for them.

 

[LuvOrlando]

This writing seeks to educate men about the realities of what they may be getting into when they marry a Western Woman. An informed decision is less likely to be one that may be regretted later in the marriage. The intent is not to dissuade men from marrying, but to encourage them to communicate frankly their concerns

Well that was really offensive to all women because it makes Western women out to be somehow less agreeable and non-Western women out to be more pet-like. Hard to insult so many people at once but you managed it, you must have a lot of experience with women who pretend to not understand you

BTW, I reported this as an advertisement although i can't imagine who would want to use you.

 

[tiggersbombed2]

I can think of a good reason. Screwing the other person to the wall. I don't think the same lawyer can represent two people on opposite sides of the same argument. Unless it's one of those quickie, just sign the papers already written deals. Otherwise I can't see how it couldn't be a conflict of interest.

 

[IluvKingLouis]

A friend of mine's wife surprised him with divorce papers and strongly suggested they just use her lawyer to save money.

She earned about 1/4 to 1/3 of what he made (it was her choice to work part time), and wanted both the house and spousal support. Her only child, from a previous marriage, was grown and on his own.

Her lawyer actually told her she was asking for too much, and if her DH agreed to the house (which he did) that that would be more than generous and she should be happy with that.

I still think he should have had his own representation, but I was pleased to hear that her lawyer wanted to do what was reasonable.