Occasionally, people getting divorced are concerned about not being “represented.” This can happen in marital relationships where mistrust exists. In mediation, a mediator will not and cannot provide legal advice. By contrast, the collaborative divorce model allows for the advantage of the private counsel of an attorney as well as the attorney’s additional perspective. This can be enormously valuable. But it also brings additional cost. Both attorneys must be paid, as must the mediator if one is used to work through sticky issues. A collaborative divorce can cost twice what the non-represented, mediation-driven and pro-se approach of Heartland Family Mediators does. Costs aside, however, collaborative divorce has benefits.

Proponents of collaborative divorce say the required attorney “resignation” eliminates most risks. They point out that the normal course of discovery in a contested divorce would have revealed the information anyway. They also say the resignation requirement can create an urgency to settle. Critics of collaborative divorce concede these points, for the most part. However, they say, the danger remains that strategies that could be needed in later litigation might be subtly or unintentionally revealed. Or a spouse’s orientation on an issue might be unintentionally disclosed, leaving him or her vulnerable. These are important considerations.