Daniel frequently handles cases within the conventional family law model. In this model, the parties can, but do not have to, get their resolution in the case from a series of court hearings. It would miss the mark, however, to think of this process as litigation based or court based, because around 19 out of 20 divorces resolve by a negotiated agreement prior to a final trial date.

Daniel can work with you to identify the aspects of your case that appear ready or able to be steered towards mediation, negotiation or cooperation. When the prospect for smooth resolution of a particular point is spotted or developed, your case moves closer to resolution overall, and does so with less cost and less stress than if the same issue had been decided through court hearings.

The fact remains, however, that in a divorce or other family law controversy, there may be a need for your lawyer to prove to the other side that the arguments and evidence to win a particular result in court have been assembled in order to get that same outcome by agreement. And, at times, relying directly on the court process for a resolution to a point of disagreement will be a better option for the client than seeking to carve out an acceptable outcome through the process of negotiation. Daniel can develop the arguments and evidence needed to defend your interests and effectively present your case to the court.

In almost every case, a family lawyer is called on to focus on both parts of the process… building agreements where they are available, building your potential position before the court where they are not.

You, as a client in a conventional family law case, play a crucial role in relation to this issue of steering a case towards or away from a focus on seeking agreement. This is often a fruitful ground for discussion in the initial consultation.