Why One Lawyer Is Better – Part 2

My last blog post, which discussed why I believe having one lawyer helping a couple to obtain a divorce is better than two, generated a lot of comments. Many of those comments caused me to think further about my beliefs.

For those of you who felt it is an inherent conflict of interest for one lawyer to represent both sides in a divorce, I agree. However, I do not agree that a lawyer must represent either side. Why can’t a lawyer be a neutral source of knowledge for a couple without representing either of them?

If the answer to any legal question is “whatever a judge decides after hearing both sides,” why can’t one lawyer inform both sides of the parameters without representing either? Just because you are in conflict with someone, i.e. your spouse, doesn’t mean you need a lawyer to represent you.

While that might be the case sometimes, I suspect that there are a lot of people out there who are smart enough to make their own decisions, once they have the legal information they need.

One responder, Mark from California (who has made a number of very thoughtful comments to my posts in the past), suggested that, since people going through a divorce may not be thinking clearly, the collaborative approach of two attorneys will serve not only the parties but the attorneys.

I couldn’t agree more. I welcome the participation of a second attorney in any case where I am asked to draft an agreement. But rather than have that second attorney “represent” one of the parties, why can’t he or she simply review the agreement I have prepared and point out any issues or concerns that I might have missed? I could certainly benefit from the input of another lawyer.

Just like someone who obtains a second opinion from a doctor when they are considering a medical procedure, why can’t a couple seek a second opinion from a lawyer when they are doing something as important as ending their marriage?