August 14, 2025 • 43 mins
Divorce doesn't have to be a battlefield where only the strongest survive. Yet many people approach it with exactly this mindset, fueled by persistent myths about what the family court system can and will do for them.
In this candid conversation, we three divorce experts cut through the misconceptions that lead so many people toward an unnecessarily destructive and expensive processes. We tackle the painful truth that fault attribution has virtually no impact in our no-fault divorce system, despite many clients' desperate need to have their "day in court" to tell their story of marital anguish.
We explore the sobering reality of judicial discretion—how judges are human beings with unconscious biases who must make decisions based on limited information presented in court. When you hand your most important family decisions to a stranger in a black robe, you're gambling with outcomes that affect you and your children for years to come.
The financial toll of adversarial divorce receives special attention as we contrast the initial retainer promises with the eventual six-figure realities many litigants face. The most damaging myth we address might be the belief that hiring an aggressive "gladiator" attorney will somehow produce better results, when experience shows they just make it take longer.
Through real examples and decades of professional wisdom, we make the case for mediation and collaborative divorce as processes that not only cost less financially but also preserve the relationships that matter—especially when children are involved. While no divorce process is entirely painless or inexpensive, understanding these realities can help you make choices that support your long-term well-being rather than satisfying short-term desires for vindication.
Ready to approach your divorce with clear eyes and realistic expectations? Listen now to arm yourself with the truth about what really works in family transitions.
The Three Wisemen of Divorce are divorce experts Mark C. Hill, CFP®, CDFA®, Financial Divorce Consultant; Peter Roussos, MA, MFT, CST, psychotherapist; and Shawn Weber, CLS-F*, Family Law Mediator and Divorce Attorney.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Shawn Weber (00:00):
It was almost depressing.
I think I need a therapist,pete.
Welcome to the Three Wise Menof Divorce Money, psych and Law
podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,psychologist Scott Weiner and
(00:22):
attorney Sean Weber for a frankand casual conversation about
divorce, separation,co-parenting and the difficult
decisions real people like youface during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 70 years in divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
(00:45):
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
Pete Roussos (01:01):
So, guys, I got a question for you, something I've
been curious about and you know, I think this would be
interesting for me and, I think,interesting for an audience.
But what are the common mythsand misconceptions about the
family law system that peoplehold?
(01:22):
Ah, the family law system thatthat people hold.
Shawn Weber (01:27):
Ah, the family law system.
Um, I mean, just to be clear.
I remember my professionalresponsibility professor at law
school always saying that, uh,litigation is like a meat
grinder.
You go in a pig and you comeout a sausage, Like imagine that
image, right?
(01:47):
But I think people don'trealize how destructive
litigation can be.
And this is not meant topoo-poo litigation.
It's a tool that is meant forcertain cases.
That's just all you can do andit's inappropriate.
Pete Roussos (02:19):
And the professionals that work in the
litigation system are doing goodwork, I think for the most of
you for the first time in yourpractice as prospective clients.
What are the examples of themyths and misconceptions that
you literally have to clarify ordisabuse them of?
What do you have to explainabout how the system works?
Mark Hill (02:41):
Well, how about ascribing fault in a no fault
system?
Yeah so somebody comes insaying he or she was awful in
the marriage, did terriblethings and therefore I should
get what I want they want theirpound of flesh they want yes,
they want to be paid for theharm they've been caused, on top
(03:05):
of what the normal courtprocess would do.
Shawn Weber (03:09):
Yeah, you caused this, so therefore I should
receive this or you should haveto pay for everything.
Pete Roussos (03:16):
And the reality is in the system that's the myth.
What's the reality?
Shawn Weber (03:22):
Nobody cares whose fault it is in the system, and
it's a court of equity.
And even if it was somebody'sfault, the court isn't going to
determine that.
The court is going to justdivide things according to
equity.
If you're in a communityproperty state, like we are here
in California, you're justdividing the community property
(03:43):
in half.
It doesn't matter if you earnedit during the marriage, it
doesn't matter if you're the badguy or the good guy, we're
dividing in half.
And a lot of people don'trealize that.
Yep, and so then there's thismistake that happens, where
people are thinking well, if Ican just get my story out there,
the judge will see it my wayand give me what I want.
(04:04):
And no, you know, the judge isgoing to apply the law, even if
the law is stupid, even if thejudge doesn't agree with the law
.
Mark Hill (04:13):
I've been told by judges, all we see is two
warring parties and we don'tknow really what the truth is
beyond what has been presentedin a very short format.
Shawn Weber (04:28):
Well, and then, related to that is the, what I
call the myth of justice.
You know, you have that conceptof the, the goddess of justice.
You know that it's always on aseal at the courtroom or there's
a statue of a lady thereholding the scales of justice
and she's blindfolded, she'sblind and and and she's going to
(04:49):
apply the law blindly.
Um, that doesn't really happenthere.
There's no such thing asjustice or fairness at court.
Um, the court strives forfairness and justice, but you
know, we've always said thisbefore fair is the f word, um,
(05:10):
it's like or, as mark says, it'slike beauty.
It's in the eye of the beholder.
What you believe is a fairoutcome may not be what the
other person believes is a fairoutcome.
And, uh, the court's not ableto just make something feel fair
to you.
All the court can do is applythe law.
Pete Roussos (05:31):
Well, within that construct of applying the law,
how much room, if you will, isthere for the biases that, as
human beings, we all have?
A judge has, or that attorneyshave, you know what?
How is?
How do you think of bias in thecontext of the legal process?
Shawn Weber (05:56):
Well, I think I think number one.
You know there is an aspirationto be non biased.
When you're a judicial officer,it's in the judicial canons
that you shouldn't carry a bias.
But the reality is, is allthese judges they're human
beings.
They'll be the first to tellyou we are human.
You know, I think I was tellingyou guys before we started
recording.
I went to a judicial temperamenttraining one time and there was
(06:18):
a commissioner there that Iknew pretty well and he was
distraught that he took a test.
There was like an online testwe were all supposed to take to
kind of show us what ourunconscious biases were and he
was distraught that he had abias in favor of white European
men.
And then the person that wasfacilitating the training was a
(06:40):
black female judge and she hadtaken the same test and she
reported to all of us.
Yeah, it kind of surprised me Ihave a bias in favor of white
European men, you know.
So you never know what kind ofbias your judge is going to
bring.
And there were.
You know, judges are receivingtraining to control their
unconscious biases, but you know, sometimes some are better at
(07:03):
it than others.
Unconscious biases, but youknow, sometimes some are better
at it than others and you knowso many of the issues in family
law like custody parenting.
I mean there are laws and caselaw that they're supposed to
kind of guide the judge'sdecision, but the reality is
everybody has a bias and they'regoing to be influenced by their
bias.
Sometimes they don't even knowthey have it by their bias.
(07:26):
Sometimes they don't even knowthey have it, and so there's
some risk there that you'll goand you won't even know what
bias this judge has and it caninfluence you.
You know it can influence yourdecision in a way that's maybe
negative for you and maybe comeout as a way that you feel is
not fair or just.
Mark Hill (07:41):
And I've heard, sean, that basically in family law
it's a little different thanother areas of the law where
there are very few appeals thatget upheld.
So there are very few appealsbasically.
So it's what your judge decidesis what you're going to get.
And the reason for that ispeople walk out of divorce court
(08:04):
and it's not unusual to seeboth sides really upset and
dissatisfied.
And you know, given theopportunity, I think many people
would appeal.
But I've heard attorneys tellclients no, you don't want to
appeal this, even though I thinkwe had a really good case.
Very little gets overturned onappeal in family law.
Shawn Weber (08:29):
Yeah, I mean there are certain rules that have to
be applied in a certain way andjudges do a good job of just
kind of covering themselvesenough to show that they
followed the law.
But then those areas where theyhave discretion, there's not
really much you can do.
Pete Roussos (08:41):
What are the areas where judges have discretion?
Shawn Weber (08:46):
um, I think a big one is parenting and determining
what's the best interest of thechild.
Um, there are certain likeburdens of proof that can shift
depending on what's going on,like if you have a person that's
an alcoholic or you have aperson that's abusive of you
know, like an abusive personthat's been violent with
domestic violence.
There are certain proceduralevidentiary questions that come
(09:11):
up as a result of those actionsand burdens of proof shift
around.
But for the most part, what isin the best interest of the
child?
That is very subjective and thejudge is going to try their
best to figure out well, what isin the best interest of this
child.
But at the end of the day it'sreally up to the judge what's in
the best interest of the childand as long as a reasonable
(09:34):
person could make a cogentargument in favor of what the
judge is saying, then that willsurvive on appeal.
It's only when a judge doesn'tfollow one of the burdens or
doesn't make a required findingthat there could be, or there's
just a blatant abuse ofdiscretion, which is very hard
(09:54):
to prove, can a best interest ofthe child finding be overturned
.
It's very difficult.
Another area is in the area ofspousal support, the amount of
spousal support, especially inCalifornia, it's a very wide
range of discretion that thejudge has to determine.
They're not allowed to use acomputer system to just tell
them what the number should be.
(10:15):
They have to just kind of makea judgment call based on the
factors.
There's a list of factors amile long in the family code
about what they're supposed toconsider.
They have to consider thefactors.
If they don't consider thefactors, it can be overturned.
Pete Roussos (10:28):
Sean, can I just jump in and ask you?
It's interesting, because am Icorrect in my understanding that
child support is much moreformulaic?
Shawn Weber (10:38):
Yeah, that's a guideline.
That's just a formula.
There's very few circumstanceswhere a child support order can
be anything but the guideline,but with spousal support it's
not that way, and so the judgehas an enormous amount of
discretion, and as long as thejudge is able to show that he or
she considered the mandatoryfactors that you know it's a
(10:59):
list of factors like did someonegive up career so that the
other person could have a career?
Did someone perform moredomestic duties than the other
person?
You know things like that, noneof which have anything to do
with what is the number thatshould be the spousal support.
Pete Roussos (11:18):
Hey guys, can I actually try to steer this a
little bit?
I'm just thinking about thisconversation, and what I'm aware
of is regular listeners to thepodcast have heard us many times
talk about why we are suchbelievers and devoted to the
practice of mediation,collaboration, alternative to
(11:39):
sport, dispute forms ofresolution, right, and what we
talk about is how, when peoplego to court, they're ceding
these decisions about thesemonumentally important things in
their lives to somebody else.
So you know, folks who listento this know where we stand
vis-a-vis litigation versus whatwe do, and so I'm wondering
(12:02):
this is a long-winded way ofsteering, if you will, something
that's more in our let's go toour wheelhouse.
What are the myths and themisconceptions that people have
about mediation andcollaborative divorce?
Because there are also, I think, a bunch of those that we've
(12:25):
heard and that we talk about.
Mark Hill (12:28):
If I don't have a strong attorney fighting for me,
I'm going to end up losing.
Shawn Weber (12:35):
Yeah, or one myth that people come in with is it's
either going to be A or B.
You know, like I call it thefalse binary, it's going to be
either I win or he or he wins.
You know, you know it's it's.
It's a false binary, andwithout understanding that, in
mediation, what sometimes welook for is is the chance for
(12:57):
both to win or both to lose.
Similarly, similarly.
Mark Hill (13:09):
I mean, there are some financial issues that, if
litigated, the judge is requiredto choose A or.
B, Whereas in alternativedispute resolution we can be a
little grayer and say well,maybe a 40-60 split here might
work for you guys.
But the judge doesn't have thatchoice.
They have to pick A or B, andthat is probably not what at
(13:32):
least one of the participantswanted.
Pete Roussos (13:34):
Well you know, go ahead.
Pete, I think regular listenershave heard the two of you say I
think a number of ourdiscussions.
I've heard the two of you say Ithink a number of our
discussions and it just is sostriking to me one because of
the realism of it but that areally successful, healthy
mediation often means that bothparties are a bit disappointed.
Shawn Weber (13:56):
Yeah, I kind of joke with my clients.
If you're both disappointed atthe end of the day, then I've
done my job, you know.
But what it means is they'vecompromised.
You know they're in the popularculture today, especially with
the politics out there, there'sthis kind of this notion that a
compromise is some kind of adirty word, like we shouldn't
compromise.
And uh, we, as mediators andalternative dispute resolution
(14:19):
practitioners, understand that acompromise is actually a good
thing.
It means you've gotten, youknow, you've managed risk.
If you go to court, you knowyou, like Mark said, the judge
has to pick a, pick an answer.
It's not like you can go in andsay, well, I have this
appraisal that says that thehouse is worth a million five,
(14:39):
and I have this other appraisalsays the house is worth two
point five.
So, judge, what do you think?
And the judge could split thebaby in half, you know, and pick
a middle number.
Judge is not allowed to do that.
He has to either pick the onepoint five or the two point five
.
Pete Roussos (14:54):
A myth that I have encountered is people thinking
that if they go into a mediationprocess, they actually can be
more secretive.
Shawn Weber (15:06):
Yes, yeah, it doesn't work very well that way
or the fear corollary to that,the fear that my spouse is going
to be more secretive and sotherefore I'm at risk if I go
into mediation.
What we found is it's just theopposite that people are more
likely to share information in amediation context than they are
(15:27):
in a courtroom situation, andthe reason for that is simple.
I mean, when we're in lawschool, we're taught, when
there's a discovery request thatcomes our way, to share as
little as we can legally getaway with, whereas in mediation,
because people are not justcompletely under the gun the
whole time in this adversarialbattle, people are more likely
(15:48):
to share, and the good news is,mediation can't continue unless
there is sharing going on inthis kind of process is helping
people who are ending theirmarriage get to a place where
(16:09):
both parties feel like they'resharing sacrifice fairly, and
because it's mediation they getto decide what fair is.
The two of them together yeah.
Pete Roussos (16:17):
Yeah, yeah.
Shawn Weber (16:19):
Or what's a good business decision, like, maybe
we can't even get to agreeingwhat fair means?
Like I mentioned, fair is kindof the F word.
So then, well, what's a goodbusiness decision for you,
what's going to make sense asfar as this particular issue, so
that you can reduce the risk ofwhat could happen to you at
court and you can end thisconflict and the other thing
(16:40):
that happens in.
You know, when you're at court,you know there's different
reasons why people have conflict.
You know there's, there's andthere's different reasons, or
let me rephrase that there'sdifferent methodologies for how
people resolve their conflict.
You know some people resort topower.
You know I'm going to havepower over you, I'm going to,
you know, maybe I'm going to beviolent, I'm going to force you
(17:01):
to do something, or I'm going touse some kind of legal
authority that I have.
Or there's rights where we'retrying to figure out who's on
the right side, and that's thatwe see power and rights brought
forth in a litigation context.
But what you don't see inlitigation context is what are
the party's interests?
And what we found is, withinterest based negotiation, is
(17:24):
you can actually get people moreof what they want if they can
agree than if you went to court.
And one of my favorite examplesof this is you know, there's a
parable of two old ladiesfighting over an orange.
You've heard that one.
Pete Roussos (17:39):
No, no, I don't know.
Shawn Weber (17:40):
OK, so two ladies fighting over an orange, and so
then they go to the magistrate,or whoever the person is that
decides these things, and hecomes up with a solution.
The solution is we're justgoing to cut the orange in half
and each of them gets half anorange.
They should all be happy, right?
Well, no, because what reallywas going on is when you look at
the interests of what thesewomen had.
(18:00):
One woman's interest was shewanted the zest from the peel,
and the other one wanted thepulp, you know, and they could
have both had 100 percent ofwhat they wanted If the
magistrate would have stoppedfor a moment to figure out what
their interests were.
But when you go to court, it'sjust about applying the law.
(18:21):
So we're just going to cutoranges in half, we're going to
just apply the law, no matterwhat the interests are, and so
you can't get creative at court.
I mean, it's one of thestrengths of court the judge is
always going to apply the law,right.
But the negative to court isthat the judge must apply the
law.
Pete Roussos (18:37):
Yeah, are there myths and misconceptions, or
what are the myths andmisconceptions that you see
vis-a-vis cost of mediation andcollaborative?
Shawn Weber (18:56):
How people think about the costs of those
processes.
Well, I mean, I don't know whatyou think, mark, but I think
that people, when they hear howmuch a mediation, how much a
mediator, will bill per hour,they kind of get nervous that
this is going to be just asexpensive as going to court.
So I might as well just hire anattorney, because they may have
a similar hourly rate.
But what they don't realize ishow much more hours are spent in
(19:17):
court and how much those hoursare completely out of control
with all the experts that youhire, whereas in mediation and
collaborative you have a lotmore control over the cost.
You spend a lot less time.
You pick your experts togetherat the beginning and really
control their costs, instead ofletting them be picked at the
end, when it's out of control.
And so with litigation you tendto have more of a runaway train
(19:42):
.
Mark Hill (19:44):
And I think, sean, that they don't really have a
good understanding of whatthey're in for.
I think in mediation and incollaborative we do a fairly
good job of laying out whatcosts could be, and we don't
know.
I mean, you know, people ask mehow much this is going to cost.
I use an old English expressionhow long is a piece of string?
(20:05):
The longer you pull on thatball, the longer it will be.
So it's not easy to determineit.
But then you get this retainertalk.
Oh yeah, just give me $5,000and we can get going on your
case.
Oh well, 5,000 is not bad,that's okay, I can afford that.
But what that won't even do isget you through your
declarations and the necessarycourt forms done.
Shawn Weber (20:27):
Yeah, that's just your first retainer.
Mark Hill (20:29):
Exactly.
Shawn Weber (20:30):
And it's going to keep going, and keep going, and
keep going until that case isdone, and you could be in six
figures before you know it.
Pete Roussos (20:37):
One of the things that a discussion that I have
with prospective therapy clients, because I'm often asked how
long is it going to take.
But I will talk about how.
My experience is that it almostalways takes longer than
clients want it to and that it'stherefore also more expensive
(21:01):
than clients hope it will be.
And I'm wondering if there's aparallel in your practices.
You know, does mediationtypically?
Shawn Weber (21:14):
take longer than people expect it will take.
Yes, it takes longer thanpeople expect it will take.
And but then what I have toteach them is that if you were
to litigate this, multiply thattime, dive by 10, you know, and
it'll take much longer becausethe wheels of justice turn
slowly, part of why it's soexpensive.
You've got this relationshipwith this attorney who's your
zealous advocate, but the wheelsof justice are turning slowly.
(21:36):
You know it's hard to get to ahearing, and so every minute you
spend with that attorney iscosting you money.
Mark Hill (21:42):
And everything that your soon-to-be ex-spouse's
attorney sends to that attorneyrequires a response.
Shawn Weber (21:50):
Yeah.
Mark Hill (21:51):
Which has a cost associated with it.
But I mean people come intoalternative dispute resolution
with unrealistic expectationstoo.
I mean I always tell peopleit's probably going to cost you
more than you want it to takelonger than you hope it would
and be more emotionally painfulthan you anticipated and be more
emotionally painful than youanticipated.
(22:11):
Be aware this is not easy, thisis difficult, and I tell people
it would be unrealistic toexpect the divorce to be that
much easier than the marriagewas, wouldn't it?
And sometimes that will getpeople's attention.
They will understand you knowthat no matter what you use,
which process you select, therewill be challenges with it and
(22:38):
unrealistic expectations can bevery frustrating when they're
not addressed up front.
Shawn Weber (22:44):
Well, it related to the money that you spend on the
process too.
You know, a lot of times when Iused to litigate I'd have
somebody it's a custody case.
I love my child and money is noobject.
I'll spend whatever I have tospend and pretty soon they
realize money is an objectbecause it's finite.
You only have so much and therewill be a point I don't care
(23:05):
how rich you are where you willrun out of money if money really
is no object.
And uh, the other thing isspending more money isn't
necessarily going to help yourchild more.
In fact it could actually harmyour child more.
You know, like if you getengaged in a really adversarial
process where the parents are ateach other's throats I mean, we
(23:25):
know from research that hurtskids and also from experience.
We watch it happen real, realtime.
You know they always say no onehates war more than a warrior.
You know and I think that'strue no one hates litigation
more than somebody who'sactually litigated and has been
in the trenches and knows whatit's like.
Mark Hill (23:44):
Yeah, very true.
Pete Roussos (23:46):
Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
How common is it also thatpeople will think, oh, if I
could just get on the other sideof the divorce.
Once we get done with thedivorce, things will be better
between us.
Shawn Weber (23:59):
Oh yeah, that happens a lot.
People think that once thetrial happens, it's over.
The battle is when you're inlitigation and you you're
engaged in a process thatencourages conflict, an
adversarial process.
You're not feeling better aboutthe other person at the end of
the day and the conflict willcontinue, whereas in mediation
(24:24):
and collaborative practice wetend to kind of, because it's a
non-adversarial process, we'retrying to find solutions.
The agreements that the partiescreate for themselves tend to
be more lasting and enduringthan the ones that are imposed
upon them by a judge, becausethey created it together.
Pete Roussos (24:43):
I think there's also, particularly when coaches
are involved and there's aninterest on the part of the
parties to try to create ahealthier process between them.
I think that sets the stage fora healthier and more
collaborative post-divorceco-parenting dynamic.
Shawn Weber (25:03):
Well, you know, I was on a call this morning on a
very difficult case wherethere's two attorneys, there's a
parenting coordinator, a mentalhealth professional, and the
conversation that these threeprofessionals were having was
they're, these parents aredestroying their kid.
It's going to have apersonality disorder.
This kid's going to have aproblem.
They better be saving theirmoney for the therapy bills
(25:23):
we're worried he's going to have.
You know, all kinds of problemswhen he gets older, including
suicidal ideation and drug usage.
You know the worst casescenarios right, Because we've
seen the movie before.
And that brings up a point.
Mark Hill (25:38):
Well, it brings up a point that you raised earlier, I
think, when we were chattingabout this, before we started
recording, which is the fantasythat you go through a court
trial and everything's ended,everything's complete, it's not
ended.
Shawn Weber (25:53):
Yep, it's not ended .
You're going to have I mean, Iused to make more money as a
litigator doing post-judgmentmotions than I ever made in the,
you know, the main case.
Pete Roussos (26:05):
Really.
Shawn Weber (26:05):
I always made more money on the post-judgment?
Yeah, because it keeps going.
It keeps going.
You've got a relationship withthis client until the kids are
grown and you know you can do alot to short circuit that in
non-adversarial processes.
And I think related to that isthe myth of this concept that if
(26:26):
I get a really good zealousadvocate, a gladiator that's
going to fight my war for me,that's going to be good for me
and my family, that's going tobe, and really what that ends up
doing is it ends up there's alot of costs associated with
hiring that person that youdon't realize, and one is the
absolute destruction of therelationship with the other
(26:46):
person.
And so, you know, I'm alwaysasking my co-parents, you know,
do you want to dance at yourdaughter's wedding?
And I, you know, I'm alwaysasking my co-parents, you know,
do you want to dance at yourdaughter's wedding?
And I, you know, we've we'veheard those stories of people
where the other person doesn'teven come.
You know, neither parent comesto the wedding because they're
afraid the other person is goingto be there, or it's just this
uncomfortable, awful thing.
(27:06):
Would you like to have a?
You know, could you imaginehaving a parenting relationship
where you're not having to go tobed at night worried about what
the other person is going to do.
Pete Roussos (27:16):
I shared this before in one of our discussions
, but this goes back probably 18years the case that I had where
I, when I was still doing courtordered therapy and had a woman
that I was working with.
Both parties were court orderedinto therapy and at some point
(27:40):
in time I asked her you know,how much have you spent on your
divorce process so far?
And it was half a milliondollars and there was no light
at the end of the tunnel forthem.
So she and her soon to beex-husband well, not so soon to
be ex-husband, but at some pointin time would be ex-husband
(28:00):
hated each other and they hadhired two attorneys who hated
each other.
And it was this perfect storm avery, very costly process in
financial terms and in emotionalterms, and just brutal on their
children.
And, among other things, thatcase was the reason why I
(28:23):
thought well, I'm not doingcourt-ordered therapy anymore,
in large part because myexperience was that people who
are court-ordered generallydon't want to really participate
and it was useless.
But it also steered me evenmore fully into collaborative
work.
Shawn Weber (28:39):
Yeah, that's interesting.
You know, I've done mediationswhere attorneys are involved and
sometimes the attorneys areworse than the parties.
You know, and you see theseparties looking at you.
Please, god, help me.
You know, you know, and you seethese parties looking at you.
Please, god, help me.
You know, and, and and then yousee these attorneys just ready,
loaded for bear, ready to goafter each other because they
think that's what they need todo.
(28:59):
Or maybe, like you said, theyactually don't like each other.
It has nothing to do with theparties, it's just they're
animus towards each other.
Um, and having to wrangle theseattorneys to think you know,
what are you doing to thisfamily?
You know, I remember thiscouple of attorneys, one time in
particular, where they werejust arguing like I was the
judge and I'm the mediator.
(29:20):
I'm like, look, you understandthat I don't have the authority
to decide anything, right?
So all of this effort thatyou're spending arguing your
legal case is not helping you.
Can you come up with a proposalthat the other person might
accept?
You know, and and kind oftelling them you look, you're
destroying this family andyou're destroying the children
that are in this family.
(29:41):
Um, usually that doesn't go overwell, but sometimes I'll have
an attorney that kind of shocksthem into better behavior.
But yeah, this myth of thinking, well, if I hire the nastiest
attorney I can get that's goingto help me and my family, it'll
probably end up costing you moremoney than you have.
They'll probably end updropping you at the end of the
(30:04):
day because you can't affordthem anymore, and so when you're
most vulnerable, they'll dropyou like a hot potato because
you can't pay their bill, andthen you'll be stuck hanging the
bag, holding the bag.
You know they don't care thatit's your life.
Pete Roussos (30:27):
Well, I think, as you're talking about that, sean,
what?
But that I think, asprofessionals, we have a
responsibility to help ourclients develop realistic
expectations.
So I wonder about folks whoconsult with professionals who
are less scrupulous, who arewilling to encourage unrealistic
(30:51):
expectations about what youknow, what might happen in a
court process?
Shawn Weber (30:57):
I mean, I've seen it a lot and I've actually
worked with attorneys that actedlike this and they would give
you, you know, like Markmentioned earlier, the retainer
talk, I'm going to get you allof these things.
He's, you know, we're going toget his left leg in a bag and
he's going to pay all yourattorney's fees.
He's, you know, we're going toget his left leg in a bag and
he's going to pay all yourattorney's fees.
And aren't I great, I'm goingto do this for you.
And then you get into the caseand then the person's telling
(31:21):
you well, you know everything Isaid about.
You know, I looked at the courtstuff and it's actually it's
going to be more like this.
And then you're verydissatisfied with your
representation because theperson that encouraged you to
retain them then startsbacktracking on all the retainer
talk because, of course, theycan't give you all of that stuff
.
You know one thing that I youknow, a good piece of advice for
(31:43):
anybody engaging an attorney isyou want somebody that's
willing to give you the bad newsat the beginning.
If it's all good news, besuspicious, you know, because
it's probably wrong.
So find somebody that's willingto give you the bad news along
with the good news.
Tell you where your case isweak and not just assume that
(32:06):
everything's going to be justawesome because you've hired
them yeah, and also, if you'vehired somebody, and everything
in their marketing, everythingin their messaging and their
advertising is all about warfare, or winning, or winning You're
going to be entering into a veryvulnerable legal arrangement
(32:28):
with this person.
Don't think for a minute.
They're not going to beat youto death too.
You know they're going to.
If you guys get into a pointwhere there's a dispute over
your bill or something, they'regoing to turn on you so hard
because that's what they do.
It's kind of like there's thatparable about the Native
(32:49):
American person that picks up arattlesnake and the rattlesnake
tells him please take me downthe mountain, and I just need
the help to get down themountain.
And then when he gets to thebottom of the mountain, he bites
the, the boy, and the boy'slike well, wait a minute, I
helped you here.
Why did you bite me?
well, you knew what I was whenyou picked me up yeah you know,
(33:09):
and I think you know, if youknow what this person is, that
they're a nasty piece of work,you want to think twice about
entering into a complicatedlegal arrangement with this
person.
Yeah, plus, also, I've learnedthat the nasty attorneys don't
get better results.
The really smart attorneys arethe ones that understand that
(33:33):
this is a human process and arewilling to negotiate with their
opposing counsel.
They're willing to be humanabout it.
Those people tend to do betterat court.
Mark Hill (33:45):
But they don't always have the conversation that
settlement will be necessaryearlier enough in the case.
In the case, usually thatmessage is delivered later and
it's a shock to the clientbecause they expected going into
court and it's Al Pacino andjustice for all.
I'll just tell my story andI'll get everything I want, like
(34:05):
they told me before, and thereality is that message should
be delivered early on, that anydivorce ends up with some form
of compromise, either one youare engaged in or one that is
enforced upon you.
Shawn Weber (34:21):
That's true, that's true.
Pete Roussos (34:25):
I wonder if that's a question that would be good
for people who are thinkingabout a divorce process.
You know, is there one questionthat would be one of the most
important things that they couldask professionals that they're
consulting with?
And would the question be youknow, in your experience, what
(34:47):
are the compromises that I'lllikely have to make in order to
have a healthy and successfuloutcome?
Shawn Weber (34:55):
I think that's a good question to ask your
attorney.
Mark Hill (34:57):
I think even asking the question what did you, mr
Attorney or Ms Attorney,consider a good and successful
outcome?
Because that's not always thesame thing.
Shawn Weber (35:12):
The attorney sees that their client would see and
that's a lot of thedisappointment we see at the end
of these cases there's thatwonderful movie on netflix I
think I mentioned it before onthis podcast marriage story um,
with adam driver and scarlettjohansson.
(35:32):
Um, you know, the whole premiseof the movie is they start off
in this divorce context and theystart with a mediator and that
didn't go well and so theyimmediately each went to their
attorneys and it became a warand there's a.
There's a scene in the moviewhere the two high powered
attorneys are speaking for themin court and you watch these
(35:55):
people recede in importance, youwatch them absolutely lose
control of their own lives, andit's kind of a turning point in
the film, you know, and theseattorneys are just doing what
they've been trained to do, yes,yes, and the judge is just
doing what that person can do.
(36:16):
The judge doesn't really careabout you as much as they'd like
to say they do.
You know they're just.
You're just one, two morelitigants that they had that day
.
They've had 40 cases that dayand you're just another one and
there's nothing that's specialabout your case for them.
And you know, you're askingthese people who, um, don't know
(36:39):
you, to decide their lives.
And I there was a litigated caseI had years ago was a custody
case, um, and I remember goingbefore the judge and these
people were at each other'sthroats, you know, and I go
before the judge and the judgestands up there and he points
his finger at my client, says,do you love your children?
And then my client's like, yeah, I love my children.
And then he points his fingerat the other parent do you love
(37:01):
your children?
Yes, I love my children.
Well, I don't love yourchildren and you're asking me to
make a decision about wherethey're going to go to
elementary school.
Can you please go out in thehallway and figure this out?
I thought that was a wise judge, actually.
Yeah.
Yeah, because because we wereable to, uh, reach a settlement
(37:23):
at that point, you know, when itbecame very clear you're asking
a stranger in black robes todecide the life and fate of your
children.
Come on, do you really want todo that or do you want to stay
in charge?
And staying in charge means youwork with your co-parent or you
work with the other person onthe other side to reach an
agreement.
And you know another myth, youknow I've had so many people say
(37:47):
well, you don't understand myhusband or my wife.
They're so charming and they'regoing to be able to just take
advantage of you and they'regoing to fool you and just know
if you get a good trainedmediator or a good trained
collaborator.
There's no fooling going onhere.
We've seen it all and we canspot the imposters a mile away.
(38:08):
And what we're going to provideyou is just a very balanced
process where you can have aconversation with this person,
and the reason you're hiring aprofessional dispute resolver is
not because you're gettingalong with this person.
You're hiring a professionaldispute resolver because we have
training to help you bridgegaps, you know.
Pete Roussos (38:31):
A lot of food for thought here.
Yeah, we've done it again.
Shawn Weber (38:36):
It was almost depressing.
I think I need a therapist,Pete.
Pete Roussos (38:42):
No, guys, I appreciate that we're talking
about this because I do thinkthat expectation setting is so
fundamentally important to whatwe can do for people who you
know they don't know what theydon't know and they don't know
(39:02):
what they think they know that's, that's false or wrong or
likely to um, you know, causethem to to struggle in a process
.
Mark Hill (39:12):
So I think and and the other.
Yeah, peter, and the otherthing I'm I just occurred to me
is that people are going throughan alternative dispute
resolution process and we knowthat it's going to take them a
year or 10 months or 14 monthson average to get through it,
(39:32):
and we may have even told themthat at the outset.
But they get frustrated becausethe costs are going up and the
lack of progress from theirperception because they have a
challenging situation or achallenging spouse on the other
side gets them to a point wherethey start to throw their hands
(39:52):
up in the air and say, you know,I should, I would have been
better off in litigation.
Why am I doing this?
If I just hired an attorney,this would be over by now.
And of course, I see the smileson your faces as I'm saying
this.
But the reality is there is nocontrol going, divorce going on.
(40:13):
This is not a double blind drugstudy where somebody's getting
a placebo.
There's nothing to compare itto, it's frustrating, it costs
money, it takes too long, ithurts, it doesn't go away.
When you walk out of themediator's office or walk out of
the courtroom and go to bedthat night, you take it with you
.
So I think, being realistic,that it is a process it's
(40:37):
certainly not an event that isgoing to have its difficult
times, and that the team youestablish around you is there to
support you and will help youget through this.
The better the team you have,the more information you have,
and the more information we have, the better decisions you can
make.
Shawn Weber (40:58):
All right.
Well, here we are.
Mark Hill (41:00):
Yeah.
Shawn Weber (41:02):
We've done it again .
Mark Hill (41:06):
Look forward to your feedback.
Anyone that's listening we'd bevery pleased to hear from you.
If you have a topic you'd likeus to discuss on this, please
tell us you If you have a topicyou'd like us to discuss on this
.
Please tell us.
In the meantime, I think we canmove on to the next cases.
Shawn Weber (41:27):
We all have pending this afternoon.
So, mark, if they want to talkto you about their finances in a
divorce, what should they do?
Mark Hill (41:32):
Go to my website.
Pacific Divorce Management isthe company pacdivorcecom.
P-a-c-d-i-v-o-r-c-ecom.
Fill out the contact form.
We will be in touch in a timelymanner.
Shawn Weber (41:46):
Okay and Pete, if they need to talk to you about
the emotional challenges thatthey're going to be facing in
their divorce, what should theydo?
Pete Roussos (41:52):
Also my website wwwpeterroussoscom, that's
P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom, andthe contact me page there.
Shawn Weber (42:06):
Okay, and anybody wanting to get a hold of me to
talk about dispute resolution orto get legal advice, my website
is weberdisisputeresolutioncom.
That's Weber, like my name.
Dispute like we had a fight andresolution like we solved it.
Dot com.
Look forward to hearing fromfolks and looking forward to
talking to you next time.
(42:26):
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the three wise men
of divorce, money, psych and Law.
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe, leave us a
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
(42:48):
positive, bright future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
(43:10):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
It was almost depressing.
I think I need a therapist,pete.
Welcome to the Three Wise Menof Divorce Money, psych and Law
podcast.
Sit down with the Californiadivorce experts financial
divorce consultant Mark Hill,psychologist Scott Weiner and
(00:22):
attorney Sean Weber for a frankand casual conversation about
divorce, separation,co-parenting and the difficult
decisions real people like youface during these tough times.
We know that if you are lookingat divorce or separation, it
can be scary and overwhelming.
With combined experience ofover 70 years in divorce and
conflict management, we are herefor you and look forward to
(00:45):
helping by sharing our uniqueideas, thoughts and perspectives
on divorce, separation andco-parenting.
Pete Roussos (01:01):
So, guys, I got a question for you, something I've
been curious about and you know, I think this would be
interesting for me and, I think,interesting for an audience.
But what are the common mythsand misconceptions about the
family law system that peoplehold?
(01:22):
Ah, the family law system thatthat people hold.
Shawn Weber (01:27):
Ah, the family law system.
Um, I mean, just to be clear.
I remember my professionalresponsibility professor at law
school always saying that, uh,litigation is like a meat
grinder.
You go in a pig and you comeout a sausage, Like imagine that
image, right?
(01:47):
But I think people don'trealize how destructive
litigation can be.
And this is not meant topoo-poo litigation.
It's a tool that is meant forcertain cases.
That's just all you can do andit's inappropriate.
Pete Roussos (02:19):
And the professionals that work in the
litigation system are doing goodwork, I think for the most of
you for the first time in yourpractice as prospective clients.
What are the examples of themyths and misconceptions that
you literally have to clarify ordisabuse them of?
What do you have to explainabout how the system works?
Mark Hill (02:41):
Well, how about ascribing fault in a no fault
system?
Yeah so somebody comes insaying he or she was awful in
the marriage, did terriblethings and therefore I should
get what I want they want theirpound of flesh they want yes,
they want to be paid for theharm they've been caused, on top
(03:05):
of what the normal courtprocess would do.
Shawn Weber (03:09):
Yeah, you caused this, so therefore I should
receive this or you should haveto pay for everything.
Pete Roussos (03:16):
And the reality is in the system that's the myth.
What's the reality?
Shawn Weber (03:22):
Nobody cares whose fault it is in the system, and
it's a court of equity.
And even if it was somebody'sfault, the court isn't going to
determine that.
The court is going to justdivide things according to
equity.
If you're in a communityproperty state, like we are here
in California, you're justdividing the community property
(03:43):
in half.
It doesn't matter if you earnedit during the marriage, it
doesn't matter if you're the badguy or the good guy, we're
dividing in half.
And a lot of people don'trealize that.
Yep, and so then there's thismistake that happens, where
people are thinking well, if Ican just get my story out there,
the judge will see it my wayand give me what I want.
(04:04):
And no, you know, the judge isgoing to apply the law, even if
the law is stupid, even if thejudge doesn't agree with the law
.
Mark Hill (04:13):
I've been told by judges, all we see is two
warring parties and we don'tknow really what the truth is
beyond what has been presentedin a very short format.
Shawn Weber (04:28):
Well, and then, related to that is the, what I
call the myth of justice.
You know, you have that conceptof the, the goddess of justice.
You know that it's always on aseal at the courtroom or there's
a statue of a lady thereholding the scales of justice
and she's blindfolded, she'sblind and and and she's going to
(04:49):
apply the law blindly.
Um, that doesn't really happenthere.
There's no such thing asjustice or fairness at court.
Um, the court strives forfairness and justice, but you
know, we've always said thisbefore fair is the f word, um,
(05:10):
it's like or, as mark says, it'slike beauty.
It's in the eye of the beholder.
What you believe is a fairoutcome may not be what the
other person believes is a fairoutcome.
And, uh, the court's not ableto just make something feel fair
to you.
All the court can do is applythe law.
Pete Roussos (05:31):
Well, within that construct of applying the law,
how much room, if you will, isthere for the biases that, as
human beings, we all have?
A judge has, or that attorneyshave, you know what?
How is?
How do you think of bias in thecontext of the legal process?
Shawn Weber (05:56):
Well, I think I think number one.
You know there is an aspirationto be non biased.
When you're a judicial officer,it's in the judicial canons
that you shouldn't carry a bias.
But the reality is, is allthese judges they're human
beings.
They'll be the first to tellyou we are human.
You know, I think I was tellingyou guys before we started
recording.
I went to a judicial temperamenttraining one time and there was
(06:18):
a commissioner there that Iknew pretty well and he was
distraught that he took a test.
There was like an online testwe were all supposed to take to
kind of show us what ourunconscious biases were and he
was distraught that he had abias in favor of white European
men.
And then the person that wasfacilitating the training was a
(06:40):
black female judge and she hadtaken the same test and she
reported to all of us.
Yeah, it kind of surprised me Ihave a bias in favor of white
European men, you know.
So you never know what kind ofbias your judge is going to
bring.
And there were.
You know, judges are receivingtraining to control their
unconscious biases, but you know, sometimes some are better at
(07:03):
it than others.
Unconscious biases, but youknow, sometimes some are better
at it than others and you knowso many of the issues in family
law like custody parenting.
I mean there are laws and caselaw that they're supposed to
kind of guide the judge'sdecision, but the reality is
everybody has a bias and they'regoing to be influenced by their
bias.
Sometimes they don't even knowthey have it by their bias.
(07:26):
Sometimes they don't even knowthey have it, and so there's
some risk there that you'll goand you won't even know what
bias this judge has and it caninfluence you.
You know it can influence yourdecision in a way that's maybe
negative for you and maybe comeout as a way that you feel is
not fair or just.
Mark Hill (07:41):
And I've heard, sean, that basically in family law
it's a little different thanother areas of the law where
there are very few appeals thatget upheld.
So there are very few appealsbasically.
So it's what your judge decidesis what you're going to get.
And the reason for that ispeople walk out of divorce court
(08:04):
and it's not unusual to seeboth sides really upset and
dissatisfied.
And you know, given theopportunity, I think many people
would appeal.
But I've heard attorneys tellclients no, you don't want to
appeal this, even though I thinkwe had a really good case.
Very little gets overturned onappeal in family law.
Shawn Weber (08:29):
Yeah, I mean there are certain rules that have to
be applied in a certain way andjudges do a good job of just
kind of covering themselvesenough to show that they
followed the law.
But then those areas where theyhave discretion, there's not
really much you can do.
Pete Roussos (08:41):
What are the areas where judges have discretion?
Shawn Weber (08:46):
um, I think a big one is parenting and determining
what's the best interest of thechild.
Um, there are certain likeburdens of proof that can shift
depending on what's going on,like if you have a person that's
an alcoholic or you have aperson that's abusive of you
know, like an abusive personthat's been violent with
domestic violence.
There are certain proceduralevidentiary questions that come
(09:11):
up as a result of those actionsand burdens of proof shift
around.
But for the most part, what isin the best interest of the
child?
That is very subjective and thejudge is going to try their
best to figure out well, what isin the best interest of this
child.
But at the end of the day it'sreally up to the judge what's in
the best interest of the childand as long as a reasonable
(09:34):
person could make a cogentargument in favor of what the
judge is saying, then that willsurvive on appeal.
It's only when a judge doesn'tfollow one of the burdens or
doesn't make a required findingthat there could be, or there's
just a blatant abuse ofdiscretion, which is very hard
(09:54):
to prove, can a best interest ofthe child finding be overturned
.
It's very difficult.
Another area is in the area ofspousal support, the amount of
spousal support, especially inCalifornia, it's a very wide
range of discretion that thejudge has to determine.
They're not allowed to use acomputer system to just tell
them what the number should be.
(10:15):
They have to just kind of makea judgment call based on the
factors.
There's a list of factors amile long in the family code
about what they're supposed toconsider.
They have to consider thefactors.
If they don't consider thefactors, it can be overturned.
Pete Roussos (10:28):
Sean, can I just jump in and ask you?
It's interesting, because am Icorrect in my understanding that
child support is much moreformulaic?
Shawn Weber (10:38):
Yeah, that's a guideline.
That's just a formula.
There's very few circumstanceswhere a child support order can
be anything but the guideline,but with spousal support it's
not that way, and so the judgehas an enormous amount of
discretion, and as long as thejudge is able to show that he or
she considered the mandatoryfactors that you know it's a
(10:59):
list of factors like did someonegive up career so that the
other person could have a career?
Did someone perform moredomestic duties than the other
person?
You know things like that, noneof which have anything to do
with what is the number thatshould be the spousal support.
Pete Roussos (11:18):
Hey guys, can I actually try to steer this a
little bit?
I'm just thinking about thisconversation, and what I'm aware
of is regular listeners to thepodcast have heard us many times
talk about why we are suchbelievers and devoted to the
practice of mediation,collaboration, alternative to
(11:39):
sport, dispute forms ofresolution, right, and what we
talk about is how, when peoplego to court, they're ceding
these decisions about thesemonumentally important things in
their lives to somebody else.
So you know, folks who listento this know where we stand
vis-a-vis litigation versus whatwe do, and so I'm wondering
(12:02):
this is a long-winded way ofsteering, if you will, something
that's more in our let's go toour wheelhouse.
What are the myths and themisconceptions that people have
about mediation andcollaborative divorce?
Because there are also, I think, a bunch of those that we've
(12:25):
heard and that we talk about.
Mark Hill (12:28):
If I don't have a strong attorney fighting for me,
I'm going to end up losing.
Shawn Weber (12:35):
Yeah, or one myth that people come in with is it's
either going to be A or B.
You know, like I call it thefalse binary, it's going to be
either I win or he or he wins.
You know, you know it's it's.
It's a false binary, andwithout understanding that, in
mediation, what sometimes welook for is is the chance for
(12:57):
both to win or both to lose.
Similarly, similarly.
Mark Hill (13:09):
I mean, there are some financial issues that, if
litigated, the judge is requiredto choose A or.
B, Whereas in alternativedispute resolution we can be a
little grayer and say well,maybe a 40-60 split here might
work for you guys.
But the judge doesn't have thatchoice.
They have to pick A or B, andthat is probably not what at
(13:32):
least one of the participantswanted.
Pete Roussos (13:34):
Well you know, go ahead.
Pete, I think regular listenershave heard the two of you say I
think a number of ourdiscussions.
I've heard the two of you say Ithink a number of our
discussions and it just is sostriking to me one because of
the realism of it but that areally successful, healthy
mediation often means that bothparties are a bit disappointed.
Shawn Weber (13:56):
Yeah, I kind of joke with my clients.
If you're both disappointed atthe end of the day, then I've
done my job, you know.
But what it means is they'vecompromised.
You know they're in the popularculture today, especially with
the politics out there, there'sthis kind of this notion that a
compromise is some kind of adirty word, like we shouldn't
compromise.
And uh, we, as mediators andalternative dispute resolution
(14:19):
practitioners, understand that acompromise is actually a good
thing.
It means you've gotten, youknow, you've managed risk.
If you go to court, you knowyou, like Mark said, the judge
has to pick a, pick an answer.
It's not like you can go in andsay, well, I have this
appraisal that says that thehouse is worth a million five,
(14:39):
and I have this other appraisalsays the house is worth two
point five.
So, judge, what do you think?
And the judge could split thebaby in half, you know, and pick
a middle number.
Judge is not allowed to do that.
He has to either pick the onepoint five or the two point five
.
Pete Roussos (14:54):
A myth that I have encountered is people thinking
that if they go into a mediationprocess, they actually can be
more secretive.
Shawn Weber (15:06):
Yes, yeah, it doesn't work very well that way
or the fear corollary to that,the fear that my spouse is going
to be more secretive and sotherefore I'm at risk if I go
into mediation.
What we found is it's just theopposite that people are more
likely to share information in amediation context than they are
(15:27):
in a courtroom situation, andthe reason for that is simple.
I mean, when we're in lawschool, we're taught, when
there's a discovery request thatcomes our way, to share as
little as we can legally getaway with, whereas in mediation,
because people are not justcompletely under the gun the
whole time in this adversarialbattle, people are more likely
(15:48):
to share, and the good news is,mediation can't continue unless
there is sharing going on inthis kind of process is helping
people who are ending theirmarriage get to a place where
(16:09):
both parties feel like they'resharing sacrifice fairly, and
because it's mediation they getto decide what fair is.
The two of them together yeah.
Pete Roussos (16:17):
Yeah, yeah.
Shawn Weber (16:19):
Or what's a good business decision, like, maybe
we can't even get to agreeingwhat fair means?
Like I mentioned, fair is kindof the F word.
So then, well, what's a goodbusiness decision for you,
what's going to make sense asfar as this particular issue, so
that you can reduce the risk ofwhat could happen to you at
court and you can end thisconflict and the other thing
(16:40):
that happens in.
You know, when you're at court,you know there's different
reasons why people have conflict.
You know there's, there's andthere's different reasons, or
let me rephrase that there'sdifferent methodologies for how
people resolve their conflict.
You know some people resort topower.
You know I'm going to havepower over you, I'm going to,
you know, maybe I'm going to beviolent, I'm going to force you
(17:01):
to do something, or I'm going touse some kind of legal
authority that I have.
Or there's rights where we'retrying to figure out who's on
the right side, and that's thatwe see power and rights brought
forth in a litigation context.
But what you don't see inlitigation context is what are
the party's interests?
And what we found is, withinterest based negotiation, is
(17:24):
you can actually get people moreof what they want if they can
agree than if you went to court.
And one of my favorite examplesof this is you know, there's a
parable of two old ladiesfighting over an orange.
You've heard that one.
Pete Roussos (17:39):
No, no, I don't know.
Shawn Weber (17:40):
OK, so two ladies fighting over an orange, and so
then they go to the magistrate,or whoever the person is that
decides these things, and hecomes up with a solution.
The solution is we're justgoing to cut the orange in half
and each of them gets half anorange.
They should all be happy, right?
Well, no, because what reallywas going on is when you look at
the interests of what thesewomen had.
(18:00):
One woman's interest was shewanted the zest from the peel,
and the other one wanted thepulp, you know, and they could
have both had 100 percent ofwhat they wanted If the
magistrate would have stoppedfor a moment to figure out what
their interests were.
But when you go to court, it'sjust about applying the law.
(18:21):
So we're just going to cutoranges in half, we're going to
just apply the law, no matterwhat the interests are, and so
you can't get creative at court.
I mean, it's one of thestrengths of court the judge is
always going to apply the law,right.
But the negative to court isthat the judge must apply the
law.
Pete Roussos (18:37):
Yeah, are there myths and misconceptions, or
what are the myths andmisconceptions that you see
vis-a-vis cost of mediation andcollaborative?
Shawn Weber (18:56):
How people think about the costs of those
processes.
Well, I mean, I don't know whatyou think, mark, but I think
that people, when they hear howmuch a mediation, how much a
mediator, will bill per hour,they kind of get nervous that
this is going to be just asexpensive as going to court.
So I might as well just hire anattorney, because they may have
a similar hourly rate.
But what they don't realize ishow much more hours are spent in
(19:17):
court and how much those hoursare completely out of control
with all the experts that youhire, whereas in mediation and
collaborative you have a lotmore control over the cost.
You spend a lot less time.
You pick your experts togetherat the beginning and really
control their costs, instead ofletting them be picked at the
end, when it's out of control.
And so with litigation you tendto have more of a runaway train
(19:42):
.
Mark Hill (19:44):
And I think, sean, that they don't really have a
good understanding of whatthey're in for.
I think in mediation and incollaborative we do a fairly
good job of laying out whatcosts could be, and we don't
know.
I mean, you know, people ask mehow much this is going to cost.
I use an old English expressionhow long is a piece of string?
(20:05):
The longer you pull on thatball, the longer it will be.
So it's not easy to determineit.
But then you get this retainertalk.
Oh yeah, just give me $5,000and we can get going on your
case.
Oh well, 5,000 is not bad,that's okay, I can afford that.
But what that won't even do isget you through your
declarations and the necessarycourt forms done.
Shawn Weber (20:27):
Yeah, that's just your first retainer.
Mark Hill (20:29):
Exactly.
Shawn Weber (20:30):
And it's going to keep going, and keep going, and
keep going until that case isdone, and you could be in six
figures before you know it.
Pete Roussos (20:37):
One of the things that a discussion that I have
with prospective therapy clients, because I'm often asked how
long is it going to take.
But I will talk about how.
My experience is that it almostalways takes longer than
clients want it to and that it'stherefore also more expensive
(21:01):
than clients hope it will be.
And I'm wondering if there's aparallel in your practices.
You know, does mediationtypically?
Shawn Weber (21:14):
take longer than people expect it will take.
Yes, it takes longer thanpeople expect it will take.
And but then what I have toteach them is that if you were
to litigate this, multiply thattime, dive by 10, you know, and
it'll take much longer becausethe wheels of justice turn
slowly, part of why it's soexpensive.
You've got this relationshipwith this attorney who's your
zealous advocate, but the wheelsof justice are turning slowly.
(21:36):
You know it's hard to get to ahearing, and so every minute you
spend with that attorney iscosting you money.
Mark Hill (21:42):
And everything that your soon-to-be ex-spouse's
attorney sends to that attorneyrequires a response.
Shawn Weber (21:50):
Yeah.
Mark Hill (21:51):
Which has a cost associated with it.
But I mean people come intoalternative dispute resolution
with unrealistic expectationstoo.
I mean I always tell peopleit's probably going to cost you
more than you want it to takelonger than you hope it would
and be more emotionally painfulthan you anticipated and be more
emotionally painful than youanticipated.
(22:11):
Be aware this is not easy, thisis difficult, and I tell people
it would be unrealistic toexpect the divorce to be that
much easier than the marriagewas, wouldn't it?
And sometimes that will getpeople's attention.
They will understand you knowthat no matter what you use,
which process you select, therewill be challenges with it and
(22:38):
unrealistic expectations can bevery frustrating when they're
not addressed up front.
Shawn Weber (22:44):
Well, it related to the money that you spend on the
process too.
You know, a lot of times when Iused to litigate I'd have
somebody it's a custody case.
I love my child and money is noobject.
I'll spend whatever I have tospend and pretty soon they
realize money is an objectbecause it's finite.
You only have so much and therewill be a point I don't care
(23:05):
how rich you are where you willrun out of money if money really
is no object.
And uh, the other thing isspending more money isn't
necessarily going to help yourchild more.
In fact it could actually harmyour child more.
You know, like if you getengaged in a really adversarial
process where the parents are ateach other's throats I mean, we
(23:25):
know from research that hurtskids and also from experience.
We watch it happen real, realtime.
You know they always say no onehates war more than a warrior.
You know and I think that'strue no one hates litigation
more than somebody who'sactually litigated and has been
in the trenches and knows whatit's like.
Mark Hill (23:44):
Yeah, very true.
Pete Roussos (23:46):
Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
How common is it also thatpeople will think, oh, if I
could just get on the other sideof the divorce.
Once we get done with thedivorce, things will be better
between us.
Shawn Weber (23:59):
Oh yeah, that happens a lot.
People think that once thetrial happens, it's over.
The battle is when you're inlitigation and you you're
engaged in a process thatencourages conflict, an
adversarial process.
You're not feeling better aboutthe other person at the end of
the day and the conflict willcontinue, whereas in mediation
(24:24):
and collaborative practice wetend to kind of, because it's a
non-adversarial process, we'retrying to find solutions.
The agreements that the partiescreate for themselves tend to
be more lasting and enduringthan the ones that are imposed
upon them by a judge, becausethey created it together.
Pete Roussos (24:43):
I think there's also, particularly when coaches
are involved and there's aninterest on the part of the
parties to try to create ahealthier process between them.
I think that sets the stage fora healthier and more
collaborative post-divorceco-parenting dynamic.
Shawn Weber (25:03):
Well, you know, I was on a call this morning on a
very difficult case wherethere's two attorneys, there's a
parenting coordinator, a mentalhealth professional, and the
conversation that these threeprofessionals were having was
they're, these parents aredestroying their kid.
It's going to have apersonality disorder.
This kid's going to have aproblem.
They better be saving theirmoney for the therapy bills
(25:23):
we're worried he's going to have.
You know, all kinds of problemswhen he gets older, including
suicidal ideation and drug usage.
You know the worst casescenarios right, Because we've
seen the movie before.
And that brings up a point.
Mark Hill (25:38):
Well, it brings up a point that you raised earlier, I
think, when we were chattingabout this, before we started
recording, which is the fantasythat you go through a court
trial and everything's ended,everything's complete, it's not
ended.
Shawn Weber (25:53):
Yep, it's not ended .
You're going to have I mean, Iused to make more money as a
litigator doing post-judgmentmotions than I ever made in the,
you know, the main case.
Pete Roussos (26:05):
Really.
Shawn Weber (26:05):
I always made more money on the post-judgment?
Yeah, because it keeps going.
It keeps going.
You've got a relationship withthis client until the kids are
grown and you know you can do alot to short circuit that in
non-adversarial processes.
And I think related to that isthe myth of this concept that if
(26:26):
I get a really good zealousadvocate, a gladiator that's
going to fight my war for me,that's going to be good for me
and my family, that's going tobe, and really what that ends up
doing is it ends up there's alot of costs associated with
hiring that person that youdon't realize, and one is the
absolute destruction of therelationship with the other
(26:46):
person.
And so, you know, I'm alwaysasking my co-parents, you know,
do you want to dance at yourdaughter's wedding?
And I, you know, I'm alwaysasking my co-parents, you know,
do you want to dance at yourdaughter's wedding?
And I, you know, we've we'veheard those stories of people
where the other person doesn'teven come.
You know, neither parent comesto the wedding because they're
afraid the other person is goingto be there, or it's just this
uncomfortable, awful thing.
(27:06):
Would you like to have a?
You know, could you imaginehaving a parenting relationship
where you're not having to go tobed at night worried about what
the other person is going to do.
Pete Roussos (27:16):
I shared this before in one of our discussions
, but this goes back probably 18years the case that I had where
I, when I was still doing courtordered therapy and had a woman
that I was working with.
Both parties were court orderedinto therapy and at some point
(27:40):
in time I asked her you know,how much have you spent on your
divorce process so far?
And it was half a milliondollars and there was no light
at the end of the tunnel forthem.
So she and her soon to beex-husband well, not so soon to
be ex-husband, but at some pointin time would be ex-husband
(28:00):
hated each other and they hadhired two attorneys who hated
each other.
And it was this perfect storm avery, very costly process in
financial terms and in emotionalterms, and just brutal on their
children.
And, among other things, thatcase was the reason why I
(28:23):
thought well, I'm not doingcourt-ordered therapy anymore,
in large part because myexperience was that people who
are court-ordered generallydon't want to really participate
and it was useless.
But it also steered me evenmore fully into collaborative
work.
Shawn Weber (28:39):
Yeah, that's interesting.
You know, I've done mediationswhere attorneys are involved and
sometimes the attorneys areworse than the parties.
You know, and you see theseparties looking at you.
Please, god, help me.
You know, you know, and you seethese parties looking at you.
Please, god, help me.
You know, and, and and then yousee these attorneys just ready,
loaded for bear, ready to goafter each other because they
think that's what they need todo.
(28:59):
Or maybe, like you said, theyactually don't like each other.
It has nothing to do with theparties, it's just they're
animus towards each other.
Um, and having to wrangle theseattorneys to think you know,
what are you doing to thisfamily?
You know, I remember thiscouple of attorneys, one time in
particular, where they werejust arguing like I was the
judge and I'm the mediator.
(29:20):
I'm like, look, you understandthat I don't have the authority
to decide anything, right?
So all of this effort thatyou're spending arguing your
legal case is not helping you.
Can you come up with a proposalthat the other person might
accept?
You know, and and kind oftelling them you look, you're
destroying this family andyou're destroying the children
that are in this family.
(29:41):
Um, usually that doesn't go overwell, but sometimes I'll have
an attorney that kind of shocksthem into better behavior.
But yeah, this myth of thinking, well, if I hire the nastiest
attorney I can get that's goingto help me and my family, it'll
probably end up costing you moremoney than you have.
They'll probably end updropping you at the end of the
(30:04):
day because you can't affordthem anymore, and so when you're
most vulnerable, they'll dropyou like a hot potato because
you can't pay their bill, andthen you'll be stuck hanging the
bag, holding the bag.
You know they don't care thatit's your life.
Pete Roussos (30:27):
Well, I think, as you're talking about that, sean,
what?
But that I think, asprofessionals, we have a
responsibility to help ourclients develop realistic
expectations.
So I wonder about folks whoconsult with professionals who
are less scrupulous, who arewilling to encourage unrealistic
(30:51):
expectations about what youknow, what might happen in a
court process?
Shawn Weber (30:57):
I mean, I've seen it a lot and I've actually
worked with attorneys that actedlike this and they would give
you, you know, like Markmentioned earlier, the retainer
talk, I'm going to get you allof these things.
He's, you know, we're going toget his left leg in a bag and
he's going to pay all yourattorney's fees.
He's, you know, we're going toget his left leg in a bag and
he's going to pay all yourattorney's fees.
And aren't I great, I'm goingto do this for you.
And then you get into the caseand then the person's telling
(31:21):
you well, you know everything Isaid about.
You know, I looked at the courtstuff and it's actually it's
going to be more like this.
And then you're verydissatisfied with your
representation because theperson that encouraged you to
retain them then startsbacktracking on all the retainer
talk because, of course, theycan't give you all of that stuff
.
You know one thing that I youknow, a good piece of advice for
(31:43):
anybody engaging an attorney isyou want somebody that's
willing to give you the bad newsat the beginning.
If it's all good news, besuspicious, you know, because
it's probably wrong.
So find somebody that's willingto give you the bad news along
with the good news.
Tell you where your case isweak and not just assume that
(32:06):
everything's going to be justawesome because you've hired
them yeah, and also, if you'vehired somebody, and everything
in their marketing, everythingin their messaging and their
advertising is all about warfare, or winning, or winning You're
going to be entering into a veryvulnerable legal arrangement
(32:28):
with this person.
Don't think for a minute.
They're not going to beat youto death too.
You know they're going to.
If you guys get into a pointwhere there's a dispute over
your bill or something, they'regoing to turn on you so hard
because that's what they do.
It's kind of like there's thatparable about the Native
(32:49):
American person that picks up arattlesnake and the rattlesnake
tells him please take me downthe mountain, and I just need
the help to get down themountain.
And then when he gets to thebottom of the mountain, he bites
the, the boy, and the boy'slike well, wait a minute, I
helped you here.
Why did you bite me?
well, you knew what I was whenyou picked me up yeah you know,
(33:09):
and I think you know, if youknow what this person is, that
they're a nasty piece of work,you want to think twice about
entering into a complicatedlegal arrangement with this
person.
Yeah, plus, also, I've learnedthat the nasty attorneys don't
get better results.
The really smart attorneys arethe ones that understand that
(33:33):
this is a human process and arewilling to negotiate with their
opposing counsel.
They're willing to be humanabout it.
Those people tend to do betterat court.
Mark Hill (33:45):
But they don't always have the conversation that
settlement will be necessaryearlier enough in the case.
In the case, usually thatmessage is delivered later and
it's a shock to the clientbecause they expected going into
court and it's Al Pacino andjustice for all.
I'll just tell my story andI'll get everything I want, like
(34:05):
they told me before, and thereality is that message should
be delivered early on, that anydivorce ends up with some form
of compromise, either one youare engaged in or one that is
enforced upon you.
Shawn Weber (34:21):
That's true, that's true.
Pete Roussos (34:25):
I wonder if that's a question that would be good
for people who are thinkingabout a divorce process.
You know, is there one questionthat would be one of the most
important things that they couldask professionals that they're
consulting with?
And would the question be youknow, in your experience, what
(34:47):
are the compromises that I'lllikely have to make in order to
have a healthy and successfuloutcome?
Shawn Weber (34:55):
I think that's a good question to ask your
attorney.
Mark Hill (34:57):
I think even asking the question what did you, mr
Attorney or Ms Attorney,consider a good and successful
outcome?
Because that's not always thesame thing.
Shawn Weber (35:12):
The attorney sees that their client would see and
that's a lot of thedisappointment we see at the end
of these cases there's thatwonderful movie on netflix I
think I mentioned it before onthis podcast marriage story um,
with adam driver and scarlettjohansson.
(35:32):
Um, you know, the whole premiseof the movie is they start off
in this divorce context and theystart with a mediator and that
didn't go well and so theyimmediately each went to their
attorneys and it became a warand there's a.
There's a scene in the moviewhere the two high powered
attorneys are speaking for themin court and you watch these
(35:55):
people recede in importance, youwatch them absolutely lose
control of their own lives, andit's kind of a turning point in
the film, you know, and theseattorneys are just doing what
they've been trained to do, yes,yes, and the judge is just
doing what that person can do.
(36:16):
The judge doesn't really careabout you as much as they'd like
to say they do.
You know they're just.
You're just one, two morelitigants that they had that day
.
They've had 40 cases that dayand you're just another one and
there's nothing that's specialabout your case for them.
And you know, you're askingthese people who, um, don't know
(36:39):
you, to decide their lives.
And I there was a litigated caseI had years ago was a custody
case, um, and I remember goingbefore the judge and these
people were at each other'sthroats, you know, and I go
before the judge and the judgestands up there and he points
his finger at my client, says,do you love your children?
And then my client's like, yeah, I love my children.
And then he points his fingerat the other parent do you love
(37:01):
your children?
Yes, I love my children.
Well, I don't love yourchildren and you're asking me to
make a decision about wherethey're going to go to
elementary school.
Can you please go out in thehallway and figure this out?
I thought that was a wise judge, actually.
Yeah.
Yeah, because because we wereable to, uh, reach a settlement
(37:23):
at that point, you know, when itbecame very clear you're asking
a stranger in black robes todecide the life and fate of your
children.
Come on, do you really want todo that or do you want to stay
in charge?
And staying in charge means youwork with your co-parent or you
work with the other person onthe other side to reach an
agreement.
And you know another myth, youknow I've had so many people say
(37:47):
well, you don't understand myhusband or my wife.
They're so charming and they'regoing to be able to just take
advantage of you and they'regoing to fool you and just know
if you get a good trainedmediator or a good trained
collaborator.
There's no fooling going onhere.
We've seen it all and we canspot the imposters a mile away.
(38:08):
And what we're going to provideyou is just a very balanced
process where you can have aconversation with this person,
and the reason you're hiring aprofessional dispute resolver is
not because you're gettingalong with this person.
You're hiring a professionaldispute resolver because we have
training to help you bridgegaps, you know.
Pete Roussos (38:31):
A lot of food for thought here.
Yeah, we've done it again.
Shawn Weber (38:36):
It was almost depressing.
I think I need a therapist,Pete.
Pete Roussos (38:42):
No, guys, I appreciate that we're talking
about this because I do thinkthat expectation setting is so
fundamentally important to whatwe can do for people who you
know they don't know what theydon't know and they don't know
(39:02):
what they think they know that's, that's false or wrong or
likely to um, you know, causethem to to struggle in a process
.
Mark Hill (39:12):
So I think and and the other.
Yeah, peter, and the otherthing I'm I just occurred to me
is that people are going throughan alternative dispute
resolution process and we knowthat it's going to take them a
year or 10 months or 14 monthson average to get through it,
(39:32):
and we may have even told themthat at the outset.
But they get frustrated becausethe costs are going up and the
lack of progress from theirperception because they have a
challenging situation or achallenging spouse on the other
side gets them to a point wherethey start to throw their hands
(39:52):
up in the air and say, you know,I should, I would have been
better off in litigation.
Why am I doing this?
If I just hired an attorney,this would be over by now.
And of course, I see the smileson your faces as I'm saying
this.
But the reality is there is nocontrol going, divorce going on.
(40:13):
This is not a double blind drugstudy where somebody's getting
a placebo.
There's nothing to compare itto, it's frustrating, it costs
money, it takes too long, ithurts, it doesn't go away.
When you walk out of themediator's office or walk out of
the courtroom and go to bedthat night, you take it with you
.
So I think, being realistic,that it is a process it's
(40:37):
certainly not an event that isgoing to have its difficult
times, and that the team youestablish around you is there to
support you and will help youget through this.
The better the team you have,the more information you have,
and the more information we have, the better decisions you can
make.
Shawn Weber (40:58):
All right.
Well, here we are.
Mark Hill (41:00):
Yeah.
Shawn Weber (41:02):
We've done it again .
Mark Hill (41:06):
Look forward to your feedback.
Anyone that's listening we'd bevery pleased to hear from you.
If you have a topic you'd likeus to discuss on this, please
tell us you If you have a topicyou'd like us to discuss on this
.
Please tell us.
In the meantime, I think we canmove on to the next cases.
Shawn Weber (41:27):
We all have pending this afternoon.
So, mark, if they want to talkto you about their finances in a
divorce, what should they do?
Mark Hill (41:32):
Go to my website.
Pacific Divorce Management isthe company pacdivorcecom.
P-a-c-d-i-v-o-r-c-ecom.
Fill out the contact form.
We will be in touch in a timelymanner.
Shawn Weber (41:46):
Okay and Pete, if they need to talk to you about
the emotional challenges thatthey're going to be facing in
their divorce, what should theydo?
Pete Roussos (41:52):
Also my website wwwpeterroussoscom, that's
P-E-T-E-R-R-O-U-S-S-O-Scom, andthe contact me page there.
Shawn Weber (42:06):
Okay, and anybody wanting to get a hold of me to
talk about dispute resolution orto get legal advice, my website
is weberdisisputeresolutioncom.
That's Weber, like my name.
Dispute like we had a fight andresolution like we solved it.
Dot com.
Look forward to hearing fromfolks and looking forward to
talking to you next time.
(42:26):
Thanks for listening to anotherepisode of the three wise men
of divorce, money, psych and Law.
If you like what you heard, besure to subscribe, leave us a
review and share with others whomay be in a similar place.
Until next time, stay safe,healthy and focused on a
(42:48):
positive, bright future.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
This podcast is forinformational purposes only.
Every family law case is unique, so no legal, financial or
mental health advice is intendedduring this podcast.
If you need help with yourspecific situation, feel free to
(43:10):
schedule a time to speak withone of us for a personal
consultation.
Popular Podcasts
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com