With legal fees in the high profile case of the Charmans at £5m before the appeal in the High Court early in 2007, 'big money' divorce cases help the rest of us focus on the amount of money which can be wasted in litigious action to reach a settlement. 

Is it just the money that is wasted though in these types of cases? Do the warring couples who have so much money to argue over, also spare a thought for the effect on their long term relationship, especially if they have children together? How much does ego and power come into the decision to fight and seek revenge?

With lawyers complaining that the law is in a state of flux and that these cases are becoming a lottery, what lessons are there for those couples who don't have so much money to fight over and who prefer to preserve family assets rather than waste them in litigation? And how much of a lottery is it for them to go to court if they can't agree outside of court?

I have experienced being dragged through the courts to achieve the settlement I wished to make out of court. In my opinion if a couple fail to agree themselves on how to end their marriage, then mediation must be suggested as the next best way to try and reach solution.

I always ask a client whether mediation has been attempted and I have been shocked and disappointed to learn that the option had sometimes never even been considered. Not only had it not been considered, but usually it had never been proposed to the couple either as an option by the divorcing couples' solicitors. This is outrageous and I was interested to read an article in the Daily Mail on 2nd March 2007 from the journalist Matthew Hikley.

He writes 'Many cases could have been settled far quicker and with less animosity if lawyers had not kept their clients in the dark about the mediation option, it is said (by the National Audit Office)'

The spending watchdog calls for an urgent investigation into solicitors who fail to keep enough cases out of the courtroom, and says they should be stripped of legal aid contracts unless they have a convincing excuse.
Critics last night accused 'fatcat lawyers' of exploiting emotionally stressed divorce clients to turn a fast buck and pointed out they are under a legal obligation to suggest mediation. The chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, Edward Leigh, urged a crackdown on lawyers who are 'happy to jump straight into the court room, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bill'.

Leading solicitors acknowledged that sharp practices existed, but claimed only a small minority of lawyers were at fault and insisted mediation would be futile in many of the 150,000 divorces in England and Wales each year.

For the full article click here .

Do the aforementioned lawyers who decide that mediation would be futile make this decision in conjunction with their clients? Do they run through what the procedure involves and leave it with the client to make a decision as to whether to try it? Do they spell out accurately exactly what the alternative is e.g. litigation and HOW MUCH THAT IS LIKELY TO COST? Do they talk to the other side's solicitor about the advantages of this particular case going to mediation and how the couple might be jointly persuaded to give it a try?

I suspect the answer to most of these questions is 'no.' However, if your lawyer is a trained mediator, a collaborative lawyer and a member of Resolution or all of these, then they will certainly run through the process with you and answer your questions. And with NFM stating that 68% of clients reach agreement when discussing child issues only and 80% of couples resolving  "all issues" (child/property/financial) isn't it worth that extra bit of emotional effort to at least try it?

7 tips to reduce acrimony in your divorce

• Read as much as you can about the dispute resolution methods. Click and read here how Resolution lawyers operate before you see your lawyer. What will it take to work for you?
• Ask your lawyer any questions you have. If they don't answer them properly, are you with the right lawyer? What are they doing to keep your divorce out of the courts? 
• If the main advantages of dispute resolution is a speedier and cheaper divorce which can focus on a fair solution for all the family, what will this really mean to you and your family, financially and emotionally? 
• What are the disadvantages? If you are unsure, should you seek a second opinion before discounting it? 
• How might you convince your spouse of the benefits if they are not in agreement about the advantages of a conciliatory approach? 
• Have you considered introducing other people to the process to make it easier on you and your family - e.g. financial advisers and a divorce coach to help you decide how to handle the emotional and financial issues e.g. how to calculate your net worth and how to tell the children?  
• What might the effect be on the children of an adversarial approach? Might a non-adversarial route be possible to give you both as parents the best chance of maintaining a relationship post-divorce?

2007 Kirsten Gronning