Chicago Divorce Attorney Blog

If we hope to convince our soon-to-be ex to agree to a sensible out of court settlement, we cannot place any blame our spouse and we cannot allow ourselves to display anger.

As we discussed in Part 1, anger causes blame and blame causes anger. If we are angry, we blame someone for making us angry. In divorce, this someone is our spouse - the person from whom we want concessions and compromise. Since no one takes kindly to being blamed, our using this tact (and we all do) starts the very divorce war that we hoped to avoid.

When we blame our spouse, we do it to show them how wrong they were and why they now owe us a fair settlement. Since no one ever wants to accept blame, this approach makes them angry, and angry people do not settle cases - they fight. And, they also make lousy decisions.

We owe it to ourselves to sharpen our view of what is at stake and control the encounter, or it will control us.

The best way to contain our anger is to anticipate theirs. Anticipate fury, and you will be able to handle fury--without unleashing your own.

It is amazingly easy to control your temper when you know the triggering is certain to happen.

It is this simple.

Divorcing couples go through a highly emotional time.Negative feelings of fear, jealousy, anger, frustration, and resentment commonly arise when we believe we are being wronged or when we believe something we value is being threatened.

However, we must realize that emotions have the same effect on our spouse as they do on us. It only makes sense, therefore, to try to reduce the intensity of our spouse's negative emotions by controlling how we show ours.

Anger is the most powerful emotion, and anger in a divorce is pure poison. It makes us look crazy and it infuriates our spouse. It closes our spouse's ears and prevents us from making our points. It distorts our perceptions, twists our thinking, and impairs our ability to solve problems. It gives our spouse justification to see herself or himself as a victim.

In any divorce, a major source of anger is blame. If we are angry, we blame; placing blame intensifies our anger. The person we blame resents it and gets angry right back. Anger and blame feed off themselves and kill divorce settlements. More about this in PART II.

Listening to your spouse's perspective can be painful because you know they see things "incorrectly," while you see things "correctly."

Accepting that they will never see things as you do reduces the frustration and expense of the divorce process. It is much easier to accept something if we realize it was never within our control to begin with.

How do you handle this? First, remember that your spouse has had different life experiences, and it is perfectly normal for them to see things differently. Then, make yourself curious about your spouse's perspective and let them know that you are interested in how they perceive the situation. When they make a proposal you don't agree with, do not shoot it down right away. Keep asking questions about what they based their thinking upon.

Skillfully dealing with your spouse's perspective is the heart and soul of reaching a divorce settlement. It is necessary for us to understand our partner's perspective as it is, not as what we think it is or what we wish it to be.

It is impossible to gain such an understanding without first listening to what they are trying to tell us. This is why no one has ever reached a quick and sensible settlement by talking. The trick is in listening, or at least pretending to listen.

Divorcing couples have difficulty believing that there could be two sides to the story. Once their settlement conversations begin, however, it is profitable and productive for them to at least pretend that there could be two sides.

If your spouse has a different perspective, understand that different does not mean wrong. It only means different. Explain this reality to your spouse and ask for a mutual agreement allowing both of your perspectives to join the two of you at the bargaining table.

Keep in mind that you will never be able to change your spouse's perspective, and your spouse will never be able to change yours! The pain, cost, anger, and frustration of conflict and of going to trial are the result of not being able to persuade your partner that you are right and that they are wrong.

You cannot win if you try to change your partner's perspective. You win by simply validating their right to see things as they do and then working around it.

There is freedom in accepting each other's views as possible solutions. It frees the mind of ego, bias, and obstinacy, and opens the doors to a higher form of creativity that does have the capability to resolve your difficulty.

By definition, perspective is how we see or understand something. It is what gives us our point of view.

Perspectives are the result of our life experiences. They run deep within us and are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to change. They are also the biggest reason why we have divorce wars.

Our courtrooms are traditionally full of litigants that are unsuccessful in trying to change their spouse's perspective about who should get what in the divorce. This is why so many divorce wars are unnecessary.

The truth is you will never change your partner's perspective any more than they will ever be able to change yours. The key to non-court dispute resolution is to accept that you are dealing with a brick wall and then applying your creativity and energy toward finding a way around the wall.

If you fight the way your spouse sees things, you are asking for war. If you allow your spouse to see things as they do, you open the only window you need to entice them to meet you half way. Listening to each other's concerns and validating the other's right to have such concerns is your best bet for getting around the wall of resistance.

The public is displeased with our divorce legal system. Its frustration is building to a point where one of two things is likely to occur: either people stop getting divorced or they find a way to get divorced without using litigation.

The first is not likely to happen, and the second is why it is time to try the cooperative approach.

Here's why things must change:

1. Society is demanding something different. The "I'm going to be my own attorney" sentiment (which is often quite risky) is becoming more and more widespread.

2. Lawyers' operating expenses and fees are not expected to decrease anytime soon - unless their landlords and employees cut their rates. (Fat chance.)

3. The number of divorces filed each year shows no sign of declining significantly.

4. People resent having to spend more on their divorce than they did on their wedding and have reached their breaking point.

This doesn't leave us many options. We simply have to find a better way to divorce, and the friendly and cooperative method is the logical choice. While it doesn't work for everyone, we really do not have any others to pick from.

Society has just experienced a century of costly, damaging, and painful divorce wars and, until recently, has done nothing to correct the situation.

Mediation arrived the mid 1980's, collaborative law arrived in the early 1990's, and our newest divorce money and pain saving process - cooperative divorce law - has just now arrived in Illinois.

These three alternatives make it possible for divorcing couples to avoid the costly and damaging courtroom experiences that our predecessors were required to endure,

The thousands of folks that preceded us in divorce were limited in their ability to convince their spouses to settle out of court. We now know more about the art of negotiation and can easily overcome this limitation.

We have learned that we cannot get through to our spouse by explaining the reasonableness of our position. A century of divorce wars proves this does not work. We are not able to unlock their thinking from the outside because our key only works from the inside.

If we hope to disengage our partner's resistance, we have to get to the inside of their reasoning process. We earn the key that gains us entry when we stop talking and start listening. Their deadbolts will remain in place until we have heard every word they say.

This is the core of the secret to a friendly divorce.

A sensible way to learn something is by accepting guidance from someone who already knows it. When we want to learn how to knit, drive, play the piano, or use karate, we find an expert and take lessons. Need tax help? We talk to a CPA.

Our divorce rate indicates that we are not doing very well staying married. And judging by the length, expense, drama, and trauma of the average divorce, it looks like we, as a nation, aren't much better at becoming unmarried.

We have resources for every imaginable endeavor, from sports, to hobbies, to finances. Yet, society offers us very little insight into what we can do to prevent our divorces from becoming disasters. This is startling when we consider that more than half of our marriages end in divorce.

Marriage is difficult by nature, but divorce isn't. Getting divorced is often difficult by choice. The trick is not to get in our own way and to avoid the combative mindset that society has instilled in us. We have been programmed all wrong when it comes to divorce and this has affected countless thousands of families of those that preceded us in divorce.

It seems that we're always being told how to behave during marriage, but no one ever tells us how to think and how to act during divorce. No one, that is, until now.

ChicagoDivorceAttorneyBlog.com aims to start the process of fixing this. For a fuller explanation, see the March 21st post.

In a successful divorce settlement, each partner will give up something they want in order to make the settlement attractive to the other side. To do this, it is critical that you:

Start the negotiations by trying to create a cooperative atmosphere and ask your spouse to join you in making early settlement a priority. Establish a mutual understanding that each of you will allow the other to fly off the handle two times without taking it personally or reacting in kind. Anticipating the occurrence of emotional outbursts lessens their destructive power.

Explore ways of finding common ground that both of you can agree upon. Write these points down on a piece of paper and keep them in front of you on the table for both of you to see.

Use tact and try to read your partner. Wait for them to show their softer side before bringing up delicate money issues or concerns. The last thing you want to do is try to make a point or ask for something if your spouse is in a particularly resistant state of mind.

If it appears that you and your soon-to-be ex are having difficulty reaching an agreement, ask yourself (and your spouse) how much it is worth not to have to argue about the same issue(s) a year from now.

Divorcing couples are more likely to reach a mutually amicable settlement if they agree in advance to set some "house rules" to govern their negotiation sessions. Here are some examples that can help:

Agree that no more than one person is allowed to get angry at any given time. If things get too heated, take a 20-minute break. Allow either party to call an instant time-out that must be honored no matter what, even in mid-sentence with no last words thrown in.

The party speaking has the floor, and no interruptions are allowed as long as that person is still speaking. If there is silence, then the other party may ask for permission to speak. No one should ever ask "Are you through?" or "Is it my turn?"

Neither party will judge the other's position as wrong but will keep the door open until both sides have had a chance to explain their positions. If either party commits an act that brings pain or hurt to the other, the hurt party will not place blame or automatically assume that the pain or hurt is intentional.

The parties agree in advance that, if either side walks out of a negotiation meeting, they will meet at the same time on the next day to resume their discussions. No matter how abruptly a session ends, the parties will not deem such an ending to be final; instead, they simply meet the next day and pick up where they left off.

The "friendly divorce" approach makes it possible for settlement discussions to take hold before things get out of hand and costly.

How do we let our spouse know that we are willing to do our part to achieve a sensible, out of court settlement? Here are some techniques that help set the stage:

Always speak in tones that transmit sincerity and compassion and never raise your voice.

Make it possible for your spouse leave the negotiation table with some satisfaction and some bragging rights.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot by hiding funds or assets, cutting off the cash flow, running up charge cards, or playing games with visitation. These tactics start wars and cost money.

Avoid making any negative comments about your spouse's vices, traits, propensities, habits, work tendencies, appearance, etc.

Do not push your spouse's buttons. Angry people are less open to considering solutions. Clear-mindedness helps your partner see the problem as you do.

Manage your emotions, no matter how right you think you are and how wrong you think your partner is. You are sitting at the negotiation table to settle your case, not to waste money by trying to prove a point.

You and your spouse have been discussing the terms of your divorce settlement. You have exchanged offers and counter-offers and cannot reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. You are close, but not close enough.

How do you entice your soon-to-be ex to close the deal?

If you are stuck, discuss the fact that you are stuck. Talk about the lack of progress without being judgmental or assessing blame. Keep your comments light and indicate your willingness to help solve the problem.

One-on-one divorce settlement conversations between spouses do not always have to be moving forwward. It is normal for them to stall from time to time. Discussing the stall in general, instead of focusing on the reasons for the stall, can be surprisingly productive.

Everyone has to bring home a prize to show to their side of the family or friends, or to their support group. Stay flexible and leave room for your spouse to get what they deem to be a prize. This is usually something that is less than what they want and is something more than you are willing to give up.

The language of negotiation is compromise. Compromise means making concessions, and making concessions settles divorce cases.

We all know that it takes two spouses to make a good marriage, but it takes only one obstinate partner to make a bad divorce.

Every divorce situation will descend to the level of its most difficult participant, whether it is you, your partner, or even one of the lawyers. One troublesome player can throw a monkey wrench into the whole process.

Difficult people come equipped with a built-in unwillingness to meet the other party halfway, and this reluctance can doom your settlement talks. If you married such a person, get a good trial lawyer and take their advice.

But even if you and your spouse are trying to be reasonable, you still need to watch out for the bitterness and insanity that typically accompany divorce. Be prepared to contain this beast by anticipating its appearance and its power. Expecting a verbal attack automatically equips you to deal with it.

You have the right to let the monster out of its cage, but not if you want your divorce to be quick and inexpensive. Accept that your partner will press your buttons and do not react as you wish; react, instead, as you should.

View their unreasonable behavior as a mere distraction and do not allow it to cost you money.

Negotiation is the process of persuading others to give us what we want in exchange for something they want. When a couple's problems lead to divorce, knowing what to say during settlement conversations with your soon-to-be ex can save you months of frustration and thousands of dollars.

The "friendly divorce" approach enables you to disarm your spouse by respecting their stand. You encourage your partner to tell their story and convince them that you understand it. Showing respect for their concerns reduces anger and distrust. It relaxes their defenses and enables you to be persuasive, sometimes without their ever realizing that you gained the ability to influence their thnking.

Despite the many benefits of a non-confrontational approach, be aware that it will not work with everyone. Some people are just too unreasonable, stubborn, or impossible to deal with. Some folks are born fighters, some are not able to compromise, and some simply can't handle it when the law does not conform to their sense of justice. They think that what they want - and not the law - should determine what they get.

If you and your spouse are reasonable people, you have the tools to negotiate your way to a sensible divorce. You do not have to wind up with a divorce that is unnecessarily difficult and costly.

What should you do if your spouse is an overpowering negotiator?

Many people are naturally overpowering when it comes to discussing who should get what in the divorce. Some of them qualify as "negotiation bullies."

A "reasonable spouse" can at least begin to understand the other side's settlement position, but negotiation bullies are totally unable to comprehend that there may be another way of seeing things.

They are too self-centered and "superior" to perceive an opposing settlement position as being anything but preposterous. And this is not an act - they actually believe it.

If your spouse is being a bully, save your breath, and hire a good lawyer to do the talking for you.

Never haggle with a bully, because they will beat you every time. If you dislike conflict and become tempted give in, leave the room. A bully knows his or her prey and knows more about your "weakness" than you do. They bank on it.

If you are about to say yes to a bully (and many of us do), be tough about one thing. Don't say yes on the spot and Insist on getting a day or so to think it over.

If your spouse is not a bully but is just extremely competitive, resist trying to challenge them directly, and be diplomatic. If you stir up a competitor, you will have a semi-bully on your hands.

Should you negotiate with your spouse by telephone or e-mail?

Face-to-face conversations provide your best opportunity to get your spouse to hear your side. Telephones and e-mail may be more convenient than a visit to an attorney's office, but the other side can better understand us if they see our body language, eyes, facial expressions and voice inflections. These are our best persuasive tools, and it is foolish for us not to use them whenever possible.

People tend to be braver and meaner over the phone and in e-mail. Even if our telephone conversation or e-mail note started civilly, we could get fired up pleading our case and just get angrier and meaner with each word. Using the convenience of e-mail or the telephone usually isn't worth the trouble that could result.

If you must negotiate in this way, try to be as upbeat as possible. Schedule the phone calls for when both of you are usually less harried, more rested, and likely to be in a good mood.

What to do when your spouse pushes for a ball-park number:

When couples are in divorce negotiations, there is a tendency for everyone to want to know everything right away. At the same time we are reluctant to reveal our real thoughts because we don't want to be held to a position until we have had time to think it through. If the other side pushes for a ball-park figure, don't give them one.

Instead, tell them you need more time to think about it. Dodging the question may make you feel uncomfortable, but mentioning a ball-park figure locks yourself in and gives your spouse an opportunity to whittle you down right on the spot.

Leave haggling to the hagglers:

Making a first offer too soon or being forced into stating a ball-park figure can lead to haggling, the kind of bargaining common in Third World street markets. Haggling in a divorce is not the way to avoid divorce court.

Some degree of satisfaction is essential for both sides in divorce negotiations, and this can only happen if both partners vent freely before tackling the larger issues and feel their views were heard and validated. Haggling won't accomplish this and will leave one or both sides dissatisfied and, possibly, bitter.

How do you respond to an ultimatum?

Your spouse says, "Take it or leave it. This is my final offer." How should you respond?
It may be hard, but just ignore it. Just go on as if it was never said. Keep talking and allow it to fade into oblivion. Ignoring the ultimatum gives your partner the opportunity to continue negotiations without losing face.

If, however, your spouse continues to press for an instant decision, then ask for a little time to give it some thought and come up with a reasonable counterproposal. Try to calm the situation by asking questions in order to neutralize the threat and give them a chance to get off the hook for making the threat.

Does the first one to speak always lose?

Car sales people use silence after an initial offer in an attempt to stake out their position. They believe that if the customer speaks first, then it is a sign of surrender and the salesperson can hang tough on the last price mentioned. If your spouse tries this with you, then break the silence by saying, "What would you do if you were in my shoes?"

The spell of silence is usually broken if the first one to speak after the latest offer asks a question.

How do you respond to belligerent questions?

What should happen if your spouse asks a series of intentionally intimidating questions that end with such demands as "Just answer yes or no" or "Did you or didn't you?" or the emotion laden, but pointless "Is that a threat?"

If you hear such things in your divorce negotiations, try to overcome the temptation to snap back. Instead, try to ignore it by switching the conversation to something else.

But if you are not comfortable doing this, then fire back with your own pointed question. Say "Is that a threat?" right back at them. "Okay, you win; we're even! I threatened, you threatened, and now we're back to where we started. I was hoping we could make some decent progress today. I'm willing to try and I hope you are too. I say, let's get back to figuring out something that works for both of us."

How do you respond to an ultimatum?

Your spouse says, "Take it or leave it. This is my final offer." How should you respond?
It may be hard, but just ignore it. Just go on as if it was never said. Keep talking and allow it to fade into oblivion. Ignoring the ultimatum gives your partner the opportunity to continue negotiations without losing face.

If, however, your spouse continues to press for an instant decision, then ask for a little time to give it some thought and come up with a reasonable counterproposal. Try to calm the situation by asking questions in order to neutralize the threat and give them a chance to get off the hook for making the threat.

Does the first one to speak always lose?

Car sales people use silence after an initial offer in an attempt to stake out their position. They believe that if the customer speaks first, then it is a sign of surrender and the salesperson can hang tough on the last price mentioned. If your spouse tries this with you, then break the silence by saying, "What would you do if you were in my shoes?"

The spell of silence is usually broken if the first one to speak after the latest offer asks a question.

What to do when your spouse pushes for an answer:

If your spouse is pressuring you to agree to a major point that you are not ready to give away, neutralize the problem by asking this question: "What if [this big thing you want from me] was not a problem? Where would we stand then?"

If this tactic doesn't move the major issue out of the spotlight, then ask to shelve it until some of the smaller issues are resolved. You can always revisit the major issue later, but by then it may no longer be a do-or-die obstacle.

What to do when your spouse heads for the door:

If your spouse is through talking and stands up to stalk out angrily, then calmly say: "If you are intent on giving up and taking this to court, then please take this with you and at least think about it."

Scribble a quick offer on a plain piece of paper, fold it, hand it to them and tell them not to open it until later. Limit the offer to only the biggest issue.

If your spouse is done negotiating, then so be it. But if there is some glimmer of hope for reviving settlement talks, the note gives the other side a face-saving way of returning to the table.

Divorcing couples and their respective attorneys often agree to meet in one of their lawyers' offices to discuss the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. This kind of meeting is known as a "four-way conference."

In traditional or adversarial cases (as opposed to cooperative divorce law or collaborative law cases), four-way settlement meetings are optional. The attorneys agree to hold such meetings only if they believe the parties are capable of discussing the issues constructively.

The first four-way usually takes place in the lawyer's office that is most convenient or suitable for all four parties. A series of meetings may take place, alternating between both lawyer's offices.

Four-ways can make or break a divorce. Be prepared to walk on eggs, because your spouse is sure to get your goat at some point in the discussions.

Never bite the hand that negotiates with you. You may be tempted to express your anger, but don't do it. There is no down side to a four-way if you keep your cool and refrain from blowing up any settlement bridges.

Maintain a friendly approach in the four-way and always remember, when you argue with your spouse, they will say no.

When divorcing couples begin settlement negotiations, many legal professionals believe their clients gain an advantage if the other party makes the first offer. The rationale for this point of view is that the first offer sets a limit on the best deal that the party making the offer can ever expect to receive.

On the other hand, some top negotiators now believe that the party proposing the first offer actually gains an advantageous bargaining position. The first offer can indicate strength and confidence and anchor the settlement talks in the preferred bargaining zone of the party making the offer.

If you do make the first offer, it is best to preface it with a polite statement about the legal standard governing the situation. For example, you could say something like, "When I ask you to pay for one-half of the day care expenses, it is not because I am out for your last penny. I am told that this is what the law usually requires, and if I am wrong, I will gladly stand corrected."

The first offer can be at the high end of the ballpark, but make sure it is not outrageous. Unnecessarily excessive offers cause unnecessarily excessive attorney's fees.

Divorce has an uncanny way of making adults act and sound like sniveling adolescents. When either party in a divorce makes remarks that are insulting, belittling, childish, mean, rude, offensive or abusive, they are asking for trouble and higher attorney's fees.

Behavior of this type is counterproductive and does not help your case.

You must not aggravate your spouse, even when they deserve to be aggravated. If you find this difficult, then just don't say anything at all.

Consider this: When you are silent, you are depriving your spouse of something they would otherwise want to fight about. Silence leaves nothing to quarrel with, and provides nothing for the next negative thing to be built upon.

In the heat of the moment, when you are on the verge of fighting fire with fire, don't. What you say can and will be used against you. Utter the wrong thing now and you are likely to wind up paying for it later.

If you don't watch what you say, you are likely to get exactly what you don't want, and you will probably watch what you do want walk out the door with your spouse.

Never, ever pass up an opportunity to remain silent.

At the beginning of a divorce, experienced divorce lawyers typically have a sense of how a judge in their county is likely to rule when the case gets to trial some 12-24 months later.

Collaborative law practitioners meet and hammer out a mutual understanding of what they believe the court will do and guide the parties toward a negotiated resolution that matches the anticiated court result.

This clears the way for the parties to reach a settlement in 3-4 months instead of having to wait for the case to run its course.

You may ask, "If it's so easy, why doesn't everyone get divorced this way?" The answer is tis due in part to the unique negotiation training that collaborative lawyers receive, and because not everyone is capable of comprehending their spouse's position.

Collaborative divorce law practitioners slowly and methodically educate the parties as to the law and to both sides of the issue. When reasonable people are treated with understanding and respect, they become flexible and inclined to alter their settlement position to conforms to the legal standard that applies in their case.

The competitive nature of our non-collaborative, traditional divorce system, in contrast, encourages the spouses to perceive the law, the facts, and the outcome of their case differently. This approach breeds the hostility, frustration, delays, and expense that the public is fed up with.

In some instances, people use the term "cooperative divorce" to depict all three of the anti-war divorce processes: Cooperative divorce law, divorce mediation, and collaborative law.

However, as some of earlier posts indicate, cooperative divorce law is now its own stand-alone approach to conflict resolution. It is our third and separate out of court settlement approach to divorce.

When do people use cooperative divorce law in favor of collaborative law?

1. When the parties do not want to use mediation and collaborative divorce not yet reached their locale;

2. When the parties want to stay out of court and the other lawyer is not trained in the collaborative approach;

3. When you know your spouse is stubborn, mean, or generally difficult to deal with, and you do not want to have to hire a new lawyer when the negotiations fail;

4. When the parties or the lawyers do not wish to be bound by the rules and mandates of collaborative law; and,

5. When the parties or the lawyers anticipate the case will wind up in court, but want the parties to experience the cooperative process in order to calm things down, minimize ill feeling, and model behavior that is conducive to compromise.

If you balk at the prospect of having to be cooperative or "friendly" toward your soon-to-be ex during your divorce, please ask yourself these questions:

Which do you dislike more: the prospect of being nice your spouse, or the prospect of throwing money away?

Which is more distasteful to you: being pleasant to someone who does not deserve it, or giving money to someone who does not deserve it?

Who would you rather give a new car to: your lawyer's kid, or your own kid? Whose child would you prefer to put through college? Your lawyer's child, or your child?

Is it worth the cost of a new car just to make your point?

The purpose of this post is to ask you to be sure to check and recheck the soundness and necessity of your decision to discontinue settlement attempts and take your case to court.

We do not endorse your giving in to the soon-to-be ex at all costs. If their settlement position is ridiculous, then you have nothing to lose by going to trial. We only ask that you weigh your options objectively and be sure that you do not base your decision on emotions, anger, blame, or other misguiding motivation.