This week saw the publication of Dr Rachael Blakey's thought-provoking report Evaluating innovative family law practice: the 'one-lawyer-two-clients' format. I was delighted to be one of the 24 lawyers interviewed for the study and to attend the report's online launch event. As an enthusiastic adopter of the "one couple one lawyer" model, I found the report both a reassuring endorsement of its benefits and a valuable prompt for reflection on its future development.
The model (which at Hunters we call Resolve) allows a single lawyer to advise both parties in reaching a divorce settlement. With its constructive and collaborative approach, it offers separated couples a productive and healthy way to navigate through what is often a challenging time.
Dr Blakey's report highlights the high settlement rates achieved through the one-couple one-lawyer, with many lawyers reporting 100% success, and others only rare instances where no settlement agreement was reached. This reflects our experience at Hunters, as does Dr Blakey's suggested explanation: the careful screening process. Resolve is not suitable for all couples, and in-depth individual conversations with each client to understand their relationship dynamics, motivations and emotional readiness for Resolve are crucial. Dr Blakey's research offers clients confidence that if they are assessed as being suitable for a one-couple-one-lawyer approach, there is a strong likelihood of reaching a constructive resolution.
The report also explores the diversity of practice within the model. While there's no single "correct" structure, most practitioners follow broadly similar steps: screening, joint meetings, financial disclosure, legal advice, advice from other relevant professionals such as financial advisors, and ultimately a consent order. I have found the flexibility to be a real strength, allowing me to tailor the process to each couple's needs, but Dr Blakey is right to highlight that it raises questions about consistency and oversight, particularly as the model becomes more widely adopted.
A feature of the report that surprised me was that almost 40% of the lawyers interviewed had not completed the training offered by Resolution (some because they began offering one-couple one-lawyer services before the training was launched). As Dr Blakey noted at the launch event, the role of providing legal advice jointly to two people is closer to that of an evaluator than the traditional role of advocating for a single client. I therefore found the Resolution Together training invaluable, offering both practical guidance and deeper insight into the unique challenges of the role.
The report calls for further research, particularly into client experiences, and raises important questions about regulation and training. As practitioners we should welcome that conversation. As the model grows, we need to ensure that it is practised ethically, consistently and with the right safeguards in place, whilst protecting the flexibility and responsiveness that make it so effective.
For me, working in this way has been transformative. Resolve respects clients' autonomy, supports their wellbeing, and helps them move forward with dignity, all while benefitting from expert legal advice. I have also found it to be far better for my own wellbeing than a more combative approach. I'm excited to be part of its development and to see where it goes next!
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
