I would recommend talking to your lawyer beforehand. One concern that I would have is that if you signed the contract for a debt even if he agrees to pay it as part of a divorce settlement in most jurisdictions that will not get you off the hook with the creditor. If he doesn't pay or pays late your credit report gets dinged - or worse if your car get's repo'd or you get sued.

Personally I would rather get more money and make the payments I am liable for myself. Knowledge is power and paying an attorney for his or hers could put you in a better spot for years to come.

This is a really timely post, because my husband has been pushing hard for us to use mediation.  I have told him only that I am open to any reasonable proposals, but I'll discuss them with the lawyer first.

It is true that lawyers can get expensive, but you get what you pay for.

I first consulted with my lawyer and when he had the papers drawn up, filed, and served on my husband, one thing he requested was that my husband should pay my legal costs.  My husband probably makes ten times what I make.

After my husband was served, he put a lot of pressure on me not to go through with the divorce.  Among other things, he suggested that I'd get a lump payment but I'd have no further income from him.  This is not what my lawyer had advised me -- I'd get half of all our assets (by law I already own them) and that a court would order spousal support, given my age.  If I'd skipped consulting with the lawyer, I wouldn't have known this.

My lawyer is expensive, but in the initial (free) consultation he gave me several bits of advice that I took to heart -- and which have turned out to be very good bits of advice.  So I think you should assume that whether or not you use mediation, you should have a lawyer and you should be sure your lawyer knows your husband should cover your costs (if you can). 

I do agree that mediation usually is cheaper than litigation, but my lawyer also pointed out that most cases don't go to trial anyhow; he says 95% of his cases settle.

Additionally, I would take any agreement you reach back to the attorney along with all the financial statements and paperwork and have him/her look it over before you agree to anything. Just another measure of protection.

Also, don't agree to anything. Even in an offhanded "yeah...ok" kind of way. Always use a "I will have to let my attorney look it over first' kind of response.

Dog lover (I do love your login name!): You can still have a lawyer involved in a mediation, it's just that their role is slightly different.  In my case -- we have very complex finances, and over the years have endured a number of financial crises.  I suspect the critical issue for us will likely be characterization of our various holdings as separate versus marital, and for that I really need a lawyer to advise me about the law, and to advocate for me.  Typically in mediation, it's just the two of you plus the mediator and you can easily give away things without fully realizing what your legal entitlements are.  You hammer out an amicable agreement, and then your lawyers just draw up the papers, but you don't have them as directly involved in the negotiation process.  

My lawyer also pointed out that the decision to use a mediator is not necessarily irreversible -- if at any point I'm uncomfortable with it, I just back out.  He says that all of the difficult financial disclosure we each have to do, will still have to be done with a mediator.

Like everything else, so much depends on your unique situation, but I'm guessing that for younger people with simple finances, mediation is fine.  For older people like me, with decades of our finances being intermingled, it's a lot more challenging to sort out what should reasonably be characterized as "separate" versus "marital", and at my age if I get it wrong, it's not like I have a few decades to rebuild my nest egg.

< deleted >

Last edited by Estella Oculus (February 15, 2019 2:07 pm)