Most attorneys claim that they reach a settlement in the majority of their cases. Assuming that is true, how does a collaborative divorce differ from a traditional court-based divorce?

There is a major difference between the way collaborative and traditional litigation cases are
settled. A traditional case may end up with a settlement, but it usually happens right as both
parties are behind the eight ball and about the go into court. At that point, a lot of time, effort, and
money have already been spent and a lot of ill feelings have often developed between the two
parties. The settlement is usually done under fear of what may happen if they end up going to trial
(which less than five percent of cases ever do). This makes for a settlement that is often not well
thought out and one that may cause lots of regret later on.

A collaborative divorce, by contrast, is set up from the start in an atmosphere that fosters
mutual cooperation and respect. This allows the parties to resolve their differences creatively
and in a low-stress manner. In addition, the attorneys involved, while acting as advocates, are
also working hard toward reaching a fair settlement that allows both sides to get their deepest
concerns addressed.