The financial and emotional cost of divorce is well recognised, particularly where complexities such as business interests, farms, multiple properties or substantial pensions are involved. Disagreements over the financial settlement can escalate legal fees and heighten conflict, even for couples who want to remain amicable.
The introduction of no-fault divorce has undoubtedly eased the path for many separating couples, but it has not removed the challenges relating to reaching a financial agreement or establishing interim arrangements for children.
Collaborative law offers a structured yet flexible process in which each person appoints their own collaboratively trained lawyer, or the couple appoints one lawyer to work with both of them. Advice is given openly, in real time, with both parties present. A common issue in the traditional divorce process is when lawyers advise their clients, who then report this back to the other party, which can cause conflict, especially when our advice is not taken or is relayed incorrectly. Collaborative law ensures advice is communicated to both parties simultaneously, ensuring transparency and that no party miscommunicates information – or indeed misleads the other. The method also reduces delays and costs associated with lengthy correspondence.
This allows couples to explore solutions tailored to their circumstances, enabling questions to be resolved quickly and constructively, maintaining the impetus to reach a resolution and reduce stress.
Although the benefits are well documented, the real insight comes from practitioners who have handled a significant volume of collaborative cases. Their experience shows how powerful the process can be when the conditions are right, and where it can fail when they are not.
Despite its advantages, for example cost savings of up to 60% compared with traditional litigation, collaborative law remains underexploited. Only a small proportion of divorcing couples opt for it. Part of this may stem from a longstanding assumption that the traditional court route offers greater protection or ensures a ‘fairer’ outcome.
In reality, collaborative law is not suitable for every couple. Assessing suitability is a core professional responsibility for the solicitor, which should continue throughout the process, as dynamics can shift over time.
There are clear circumstances in which collaborative law should not be recommended, as follows:
- If a lawyer suspects that one party may not disclose their finances fully and honestly, the collaborative model is unlikely to succeed. In such cases, a more traditional approach, potentially involving forensic financial analysis, may be necessary; and
- Where there are signs of manipulation, intimidation or coercive behaviour. A controlling partner may view the process as an opportunity to influence the outcome without scrutiny, potentially steering the other party into an unfair agreement.
Even couples who appear suitable at the start may reveal imbalances or tensions during meetings. Experienced practitioners will recognise these signs and may decide to halt the process. Face-to-face meetings are essential for this reason. They allow lawyers to observe body language, tone and interaction. Such subtleties are easily missed in emails or phone calls. This in-person element is central to safeguarding both parties and ensuring the process remains transparent and balanced.
While collaborative law has a high success rate – around 90% of cases reach agreement – there are occasions where couples cannot resolve their issues. When this happens, both lawyers must withdraw and the parties must instruct new representatives. In some instances, the matter will ultimately proceed to court despite collaborative efforts.
Collaborative law offers a constructive, cost-effective and more compassionate route through divorce, particularly for couples approaching their divorce with a rational perspective. Success will depend on the lawyer’s professional assessment and a commitment from both parties to engage openly and respectfully. As practitioner experience develops further, so too does our understanding of when the collaborative model works best.
Rachel Buckley is joint managing director of The Family Law Company, Exeter
No comments yet