Traditional Litigation

The decision to litigate should be based on facts, not emotion. While traditional litigation is not the only model for negotiating and resolving issues, it is the one ingrained in society as the best choice for resolving issues and disagreements.

This option frequently carries with it significant financial and emotional costs. In reality, this model is usually ill-suited to the purpose of resolving family law conflicts. That’s because the parties’ objectives or strategies collide. After this collision, it is often assumed that the only way to move past, through, around or over the opposition is to employ the power of the law-based procedures to make something happen.

In the face of opposition from the other side, a lawyer looks to the power of the process, and often overlooks the reverberating impact that the process will have on the daily lives of the clients and their children. Furthermore, this model—based in power and fueled by competition—nurtures continued resistance. The entire process underscores the participants’ view of the opposing party as a threat and therefore something to fear.

In the traditional divorce, both parties hire attorneys who provide legal advice and represent the positions of their client in negotiations and court hearings. The parties communicate through their attorneys rather than directly with one another. The process may involve the use of legal procedures known as “discovery” to secure financial and other relevant information.

Each party may hire experts to support their positions. Experts may include psychologists, real estate and personal property appraisers, business valuation specialists, accountants and other investigators.

Ultimately, if agreements are not reached, the parties and other witnesses testify before a judge who makes a decision on each disputed issue. Most litigation divorces are eventually settled, but only after substantial time, money and emotion have been spent in the conflict.