(not for me but for a relative) -
can the parties actually share a single attorney? How would that work - doesn't the attorney have to represent only the interests of his/her single client? (this is in CA if that makes a difference)
there are noises being made about "collaborative divorce" but as I understand that, that is an agreement not to litigate in court - but each party seeks their own representation.
Can that really be done with only 1 attorney?
Or is this just the soon-to-be-ex trying to pull something over?
I'm no legal expert, but I can't imagine any lawyer thinking that's a good idea.
__________________ The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same. -- Carlos Castaneda
I could see if it's a perfectly amicable divorce (my parent's was) and they just wanted someone to offer legal advice and draw up documents and all that crap. I can see 2 lawyers being just extra cost and hassle and potentially making an amicable situation worse.
I assume it's "allowed" most places because I think you can even do a divorce without attys. Whether it's in one's best interest likely depends on the people involved and their situation. And, of course, the lawyer.
/blathering about crap I don't really know anything about.
I would say only if the lawyer was "representing" them. If it was just someone to draw up your paperwork and advise you of your rights and things you have to do… maybe not.
I know a guy who shared a lawyer with his ex. Not sure how it went, but I know it was amicable.
__________________
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable."
- Christopher Reeve
I can be done if there is no dispute between the two parties. One person files and if the other agrees with everything in the document all they have to do is sign it.
__________________
"The greatest thing in the world is not so much where we are, but in what direction we are moving." --Oliver Wendell Holmes
I guess my concern is that I don't fully trust the other party (A) (infidelity)(not that it is my business) so am concerned that the relative (B) might not know what it is possible to ask for and therefore might not get something (B) would otherwise be entitled to (e.g. pension or 401K or what the options are for dealing with the house or options for custody/support for the still dependent child (one is in college, but one is in late jr high)) - so who's interest would the single lawyer be representing really? (A) retained the lawyer and is saying "no, you don't need one of your own, that would be a waste of money, we can work it all out".
There's assets on the line to split, so it makes sense. As I understand it the DIY/cheap divorces are for situations where you each have a junker car and no real money.
^^ that's my thought too but wanted a second opinion - not that my opinion will be listened to but thought an appeal to "and everyone I've asked about it says it sounds shady too" might help convince.
I would guess that (A) has more to lose in this than (B). Thus (A) hires an attorney that will get the best for (A). (B) needs to make sure they have an advocate in their corner so they don't get screwed.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
that's essentially what I/we have been saying to (B) - but being a little bit in denial isn't helping to see clearly. Did I mention that this attorney for (A) just happens to be the one who handled the divorce for the "new person" in A's life?
that's essentially what I/we have been saying to (B) - but being a little bit in denial isn't helping to see clearly. Did I mention that this attorney for (A) just happens to be the one who handled the divorce for the "new person" in A's life?
that's essentially what I/we have been saying to (B) - but being a little bit in denial isn't helping to see clearly. Did I mention that this attorney for (A) just happens to be the one who handled the divorce for the "new person" in A's life?
Well, the obviously the previous statements I made don't apply here. Adultery tends to prove dishonesty to a certain degree (esp if one is gonna run off with an affair), and while I fully believe an Atty can be completely unbiased, why take the chance?
If B is smart, they'll get a lawyer. It doesn't need to be a money grab, just keep from getting further taken advantage of.
that's what I think too -
apparently there are $ questions, why pay for two lawyers, who pays for what out of which account - sheesh, glad it isn't me.
thanks for the 2nd opinions guys.
Me too. Fortunately it'll never be me. If Otto does something so bad that we need a divorce, I'm pretty sure a steak knife in the eye and backyard burial will work just fine for me.
But, if B is looking for cheap:
which if you look close:
and
so you can even offer some support.
Yes they can. If the two parties involved can come to a mutual agreement as to how to split assets and care for the kids, then all the lawyer has to do is write up the official docs.
who's advocate is the lawyer acting as in that case? (wow, that may win today's awkward syntax award) - or is there a role for a non-advocate in the process?
Talk you friend or whatever into at least seeing another attorney. Maybe if she hears an attorney tell her (I assume it is female and I can do that since I am female) how stupid that would be, she'll listen.
I have seen my mom trust her last husband in a divorce, left her borderline poverty while he went to law school without working for three years.
It will hurt her to give him the benefit of the doubt. It won't hurt her to question him and get her own lawyer. If it is truly cut and dry, easy peasy, no argument divorce, a second lawyer will not cost too much more than one lawyer drawing up all the docs. (Not entirely true but it sounds like a good argument for someone not thinking with their head.)
When I got divorced my ex and I both used a mutual friend who was an attorney to process all of the paperwork. We did however agree to the split of assets and all other important matters prior to meeting with our attorney. If there are no issues to be resolved you can save yourself a bunch of money by doing it that way. This is assuming that your friend has a true understanding of what assets they have and what they are entitled too.
__________________ -50# by 4/1/10 2 down 48 to go.
Might want to have your friend look up the prospective attorney State Bar of CA :: Attorney Search. If the person has a disciplinary history, that should raise her antennae.
(not for me but for a relative) -
can the parties actually share a single attorney? How would that work - doesn't the attorney have to represent only the interests of his/her single client? (this is in CA if that makes a difference)
there are noises being made about "collaborative divorce" but as I understand that, that is an agreement not to litigate in court - but each party seeks their own representation.
Can that really be done with only 1 attorney?
Or is this just the soon-to-be-ex trying to pull something over?
I don't know why someone would want to do this but, both parties could go to one attorney to get a lay of the land. He could represent neither but advise them what to expect in court. A lawyer cannot ethically represent both parties in a divorce because they have diverse interests and the attorney's conduct will be questionable in regards to one of the clients.
I don't know why someone would want to do this but, both parties could go to one attorney to get a lay of the land. He could represent neither but advise them what to expect in court. A lawyer cannot ethically represent both parties in a divorce because they have diverse interests and the attorney's conduct will be questionable in regards to one of the clients.
that's the gut feeling that I had - the whole "you don't need one, I have one, we'll come up with a proposal and you can see what you think" means that (B)s interests would not be represented.
(not for me but for a relative) -
can the parties actually share a single attorney? How would that work - doesn't the attorney have to represent only the interests of his/her single client? (this is in CA if that makes a difference)
there are noises being made about "collaborative divorce" but as I understand that, that is an agreement not to litigate in court - but each party seeks their own representation.
Can that really be done with only 1 attorney?
Or is this just the soon-to-be-ex trying to pull something over?
Depends on the state. In Michigan, as long as it isn't contested, he can represent both.
__________________ If your dog is fat, you aren't getting enough exercise. -Unknown
My advice (from watching others' mistakes) is make sure everything is thought of in the docs. Custody agreements, big and or important items, coin collections, family heirlooms, divide it all and get it down on paper with details. That way the shady party can't go back on his verbal agreements, leaving you with no proof of the agreement. It only takes a split second for these things to go from amicable to brutal, but sometimes the nastiness doesn't come into play until much later down the road, like when one party finds a new romance or changes jobs or moves or something.
That right there should be the clincher that they should hire your own, real fast. Something shady in that statement.
Given the context, I'm inclined to agree with OG on this one. If they sought a lawyer together to work through an amicable divorce (if there really is such a thing) then sure, more power to you. But this sounds like the soon-to-be-ex getting ready to give it to your relative pretty hard, and not in a good way!
__________________
Renegade HR: Recruit great people. Inspire them to do amazing things. | http://renegadehr.net
divorce - a question
Linear Mode
