Unfortunately not. While it might seem logical for a divorcing couple to share the same lawyer in order to keep costs down, it’s actually not permissible for a lawyer to represent both parties in a divorce. In this blog post, we’ll explore the reasons why lawyers can’t represent both parties in a divorce, as well as some alternatives that couples can consider.
The American Bar Association (ABA) is clear on its position that lawyers cannot represent both parties in a divorce. The ABA has stated that representing both parties in a divorce would create a conflict of interest. This is because the lawyer would be unable to give each party the undivided attention and loyalty that they deserve.
In addition, representing both parties in a divorce would also present the lawyer with conflicting duties. For example, the lawyer would have a duty to promote settlement between the parties, but also a duty to zealously advocate on behalf of their client. These conflicting duties would make it very difficult for the lawyer to adequately represent both parties.
So, what are some alternatives for couples who are looking to keep legal costs down?
One option is mediation, which is often less expensive than traditional litigation. Mediation allows couples to work together with a mediator to reach an agreement on all aspects of their divorce, from child custody and visitation to the division of assets.
Another option is collaborative law, which is similar to mediation but involves each party having their own attorney. The attorneys involved in collaborative law agree to work together towards a settlement and avoid going to court. If the matter does go to court, then the attorneys involved would have to withdraw from the case.
A lawyer cannot represent both parties in a divorce. Doing so would create a conflict of interest and make it very difficult for the lawyer to provide adequate representation. If you’re looking to keep legal costs down, alternative options such as mediation or collaborative law might be worth considering.
