One of the first things I explain to clients in our free one hour initial divorce consultation is that there are three types of professionals in Massachusetts who can help clients resolve their divorce case: Mediators, Lawyers trained in Collaborative Law, and traditional Litigators. Each of these methods has strengths and weaknesses, and they can be demonstrated by showing you how some well known couples might have experienced these various options:

Couple #1 - The Cleavers. Ward is a businessman and June is a stay-at-home mom. They have two children Wally and Beaver. Ward handles all of the finances and June handles most of the home care including parenting, although once in a while Ward is needed to help discipline the children (in a very stern but fair kind of way).

Couple #2 - The Huxtables. Cliff is a doctor and Claire is a lawyer. They have five children. They both share in parenting and managing the finances. Cliff's office is located in the home.

Couple #3 - The Honeymooners/The Kramdens. Ralph is a bus driver and Alice is currently unemployed but has worked as secretary at times when Ralph has been laid off. They have no children and Alice is primarily responsible for the management of the finances. Ralph often gets involved in ridiculous schemes that Alice claims have wasted their money. Ralph and Alice often insult each other, and Ralph makes constant threats such as "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!."

Please Vote for whether each couple should use mediation, collaborative law or litigation, by leaving your Comments below.

P.S. Thanks to DGVElaw for giving us the idea for this post with her estate planning couple.

Although sometimes necessary, appearing in Court is often a lengthy, expensive, and disappointing trial (pun intended). Any combination of failed preparation, miscommunication between client and attorney, or incomplete discovery can cause the process to result in imperfect and incomplete Orders. Sometimes just the limitations of the court process (such as the limited time of the Judge to hear each case) can result in frustrating court appearances.

In order to avoid unnecessary costs, you may want to consider alternatives to litigation such as Mediation or Collaborative Law. For more information about those processes read our past posts:

What are the Advantages & Disadvantages of Mediation

Dramatic Impact of Mediation on Children of Divorce

Mediation, Collaborative Law or Litigation: What's your Vote? - A 3 Part Post:

The Cleavers Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part I

The Huxtable's Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part II

The Honeymooners' Divorce: Collaborative Law, Mediation or Litigation - Part III

Even if mediation or collaborative law is not available in your case (these processes both require joint and volunteer participation), it is still possible to reach agreements with the proper preparation and forethought. Make sure that you provide your attorney with all of the information necessary for them to properly and timely prepare your case, and they should be able to make appropriate and timely proposals for settlement that could help you avoid costly and disappointing court appearances.

The Kramden's and Litigation:

Ralph is a bus driver and Alice is currently unemployed but has worked as secretary at times when Ralph has been laid off. They have no children and Alice is primarily responsible for the management of the finances. Ralph often gets involved in ridiculous schemes that Alice claims have wasted their money. Ralph and Alice often insult each other, and Ralph makes constant threats such as "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!."

Recently Ralph was caught using his cell phone while driving and lost his job as a bus driver. When he came home and told Alice she berated him for his stupidity and Ralph became extremely angry. He got right in Alice's face and said, as he so often has, "One of these days... Pow! Right in the kisser! One of these days Alice, straight to the moon!." Alice replies "I'd like to see you try" and in response Ralph steps closer to her and pulls back his arm making a fist. Rather than wait to see if Ralph would actually hit her, Alice immediately backs away. Ralph does not follow her, but Alice is afraid and leaves the apartment.

She goes into a friend's apartment down the hall and calls the police. The police arrive and after interviewing both parties they indicated that they are not going to arrest Ralph. They ask Alice if she wants to request a 209A restraining order against Ralph and she states that she does. The police call the emergency Judge who approves an emergency restraining order. The police escort Ralph out of the apartment who has calmed down and accepts the police's request without any fight or argument.

Ralph, escorted by the police, collects some of his clothes and moves in with his friend, Ed Norton.

The following morning, Ralph and Alice both show up without lawyers at a hearing in the Suffolk District Court. Alice indicates during the hearing that she was afraid that Ralph was going to hit her during their argument, even though he has never carried out his threats in the past. Alice also states that she is not afraid of him right now and that she feels safe so long as he does not move back in. Alice also indicates that she intends to file for Divorce and that she doesn't want Ralph to move back in. Ralph agrees that he won't move back in and that he will continue to live with Ed. The Judge indicates to Alice that he can only extend the Restraining Order if she has a "reasonable fear of imminent serious physical harm," and given her testimony he cannot extend the restraining order.

Both Ralph and Alice consult with attorneys. Alice does not consult with a free Legal Aid service because she is back to working as a part-time secretary and she believes that she does not qualify for their services.

Alice borrows money from a friend to hire the attorney she consulted with because she doesn't feel safe negotiating directly with Ralph. Alice's attorney files a Complaint for Divorce.

Eventually right before the Pre-Trial, Ralph hires an attorney as well and the Divorce case is settled via Separation Agreement at the Pre-Trial. Both parties end up with some debt because of the cost of their legal fees.

COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Unfortunately, when domestic violence is an issue in a case, it is practically impossible to make use of mediation or collaborative law. Although mediation or collaborative law could have been cheaper, both options depend on a certain amount of trust between the parties and it is necessary for there not to be any threat of coercion.

Even in an instance where no physical violence has occurred, the threat of violence can be just as damaging and puts the victim at a disadvantage in any negotiation (notwithstanding the ongoing safety concerns).

As was suggested by one of our voters, DGVE law, Alice, might have been better served by having a trained domestic violence advocate work with her. Resources for domestic violence victims in Massachusetts are available here. Alice should have also discussed her case with potential legal aid services before assuming she didn't qualify. Resources related to finding legal counsel and/or legal services are available here.

Don't believe everything you see in the movies. In the popular teen pregnancy flick Juno the adopting parents end up getting divorced and the Husband states "I called Gerta Rauss. She says she can represent both of us. They call it 'collaborative divorce.' It’s apparently all the rage right now."

Although, collaborative law is "all the rage" right now, it does not involve one lawyer representing both parties.

It is not ethical or practical for a lawyer to represent both parties in a Divorce, whether through collaborative law or litigation

In fact, Rule 1.7 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation will be directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client AND each client consents after consultation.

Although both clients might consent, it is not reasonable to believe that a lawyer can represent two adverse clients at the same time in the same action and look out for both of their interests.

It is possible to have a lawyer act as a mediator but in that case the lawyer does not represent either party and is not looking out for either of your individual interests. It is also possible to have only one party hire an attorney, but it is important for the other party to recognize that that attorney is not looking out for their interests too.

If you'd like to learn more about hiring an attorney you can schedule a Free One Hour Consultation here.

You can also read a hypothetical example of a Collaborative Law Divorce on our blog here.

Thanks to Michelle Bernier-Capaldo for suggesting this question.

Cliff is a doctor and Clare is a lawyer. They have five children. They both share in parenting and managing the finances. Cliff's office is located in the home. Some of the children live at home but the number is constantly changing because Clare and Cliff keep their doors open to their children.

Clare recently informed Cliff that she has met another lawyer who she feels has more in common with and she wants a divorce. Cliff is shocked but after dealing with the initial shock, he realizes that he does not want the process to be acrimonious or to affect their relationship with the children. He has seen how other doctors have had their families and practices torn apart by drawn out litigation and does not want his children or patients to suffer.

The votes are cast - The Cleavers and Mediation:

Ward is a businessman and June is a stay-at-home mom. They have two children Wally and Beaver. Ward handles all of the finances and June handles most of the home care including parenting, although once in a while Ward is needed to help discipline the children (in a very stern but fair kind of way).

Ward and June agree that the spark and color had left their marriage long ago and that they were only staying together for the children. They have agreed that a divorce would be best and have already sat down to a family meeting with Wally and the Beaver and explained that although Mom and Dad are getting a divorce, they will still both be involved regularly in the children's lives, that it is not the children's fault and that they both love the children very much.

Ward, eager to move forward with the divorce quickly and as cheaply as possible, suggests that they attend mediation and provides June with the name of a mediator he has found. Agreeing with the logic of using a mediator, June agrees and they attend their first mediation meeting.

At the first meeting, the Mediator explains how mediation works, telling Ward and June that the mediator does not represent either of them, and that their job is only to help Ward and June reach an agreement, not to steer them in any particular direction. The mediator explains that they will both have to provide a Financial Statement and that they should begin thinking about what they each want for a custody and visitation plan, and for the division of assets and liabilities.

After the meeting Ward informs June that he wants joint custody and that he will help her do her Financial Statement since he has all of the financial information. He also wants to sell the house and he asks her to agree to this immediately so they can list the house for sale as soon as possible.

June is worried that she doesn't know enough about their finances to know whether the house has to be sold. She also realizes that she doesn't really know what joint or sole custody means. June talks to her friends who all suggest that she meet with an attorney. After meeting with a few attorneys, June realizes she needs help and hires an attorney. Upon realizing that June has hired an attorney, Ward feels like June was trying to get an advantage behind his back and hires an attorney as well. They end up proceeding through litigation, because June's attorney insists on filing the Complaint for Divorce to protect the assets with the Automatic Stay and to provide for mandatory discovery. Eventually they settle their case at Pre-Trial.

COULD THIS HAVE GONE BETTER: Because of June's lack of knowledge about the finances it was likely that she would feel uncomfortable at some point in the mediation, even if Ward hadn't pushed her at the beginning to be more ready to make decisions. Her lack of information was going to make it difficult for her to make decisions. This could have been resolved by June being more aggressive, but if this has not been the pattern in the marriage it was unlikely to change now. For these reasons June needed an adviser/advocate, i.e. her own lawyer.

If the parties had communicated their intentions better, it is possible June and Ward would still have been able to use mediation, and just have their lawyers advise them individually as to the Agreement and disclosure of financial information.

This was likely a more ideal case for Collaborative Law, because of June's need for a representative. In Collaborative Law both parties and lawyers agree to commit to working towards a settlement and to not file litigation. In a true Collaborative Law agreement, the lawyers also agree that if the case goes to litigation that they will not represent the parties, i.e. both lawyers are thus committed to the settlement path as well. Although there's the danger of having to pay two lawyers each, the advantage is the great potential for a less acrimonious process.

Because both Ward and June committed to settlement, but just had an imbalance of power/knowledge, they would have been best served by Collaborative Law.


There's still time to vote for what the Huxtables and Kramdens should do: leave a comment here.