Therefore, if a financial adviser’s clients decide to use mediation or another conciliatory approach, this makes the whole process much easier, more transparent and ultimately cheaper for everyone involved.
There are not any rules stopping advisers working for both parties in a divorce (solicitors for example cannot do this) and this joint process can work very well – the adviser remains financially neutral and gives information (rather than advice) so both spouses can get to a practical position they are happy with.
From a financial adviser’s perspective, particularly those who, pre-separation, were advising a couple together, it fits very well being able to recommend a service to clients which will serve them both and enable them both to receive impartial advice.
From the couple’s perspective, they can each work separately with their trusted financial adviser to get the financial information and disclosure needed by the barrister, building a professional relationship which can then survive the divorce.
Why should one-half of a couple necessarily have to change a professional adviser following a split?
From the financial adviser’s perspective, a cooperative divorce would certainly be a more comfortable process, and for them, much less partisan.
Easy?
No, divorce will never be easy and emotions will often run high.
But it does not have to be as hard as it is at the moment. Or as expensive.
The public mood is urging reform, but that will take time. Couples need a solution now.
Our view is that while legal expertise is undoubtedly needed for couples facing the surrender of half (or sometimes more) of their assets, this can be done in an impartial, focused and cost-effective way, leaving them better off financially and less battle-bruised by the process.
Samantha Woodham is co-founder of The Divorce Surgery