Our legal system is intended to be adversarial. Our law is based upon English common law and we believe truth is best determined in the crucible of a contested action. Truth emerges after a fair fight. While this may be true in certain types of cases, such as criminal matters, I question whether it should be continued at all in matrimonial actions. Too often, I have seen the outcome of cases determined by the side with the better lawyer or more resources.

Mediation seems to me to be a better solution for parties, even if they are warring. Everyone knows divorce is stressful, emotional and costly. After forty years of practicing law in the courts, I recommend mediation to couples who wish to manage their divorce discreetly and efficiently, even amicably. In mediation the parties work with a neutral third party attorney who has experience in aiding couples navigate a difficult time in their lives. Without standing around in the hostile environs of a courthouse, parties can allow the mediator, in effect a judge, to explain their options in child custody and support, division of assets and debt, and every other issue that a court could entertain. Most couples are able to resolve their differences after a few mediation meetings, which significantly reduces the time and cost involved in a typical divorce action. In addition, your divorce is confidential whereas in court your case is a matter of public record. In contested cases, the public is allowed to enter almost any courtroom it wishes and anyone can listen to the most personal and private details of your life. In an effort to browbeat me into a settlement, I once had a judge threaten to ask a tabloid reporter to sit in the back of the courtroom!

Frankly, I believe virtually everyone should choose mediation over court. This choice will save couples a huge amount of stress and emotional discord and in most cases up to 90 percent of the cost of a litigated divorce.