Apparently if you and your spouse are not going at it tooth and nail and can sit down and work out things- like division of property etc one should use a mediator. BUT a mediator''s suggestions are not binding so you also have to make use of a lawyer. Where is the cost saving if you go to a mediator-and then have to go to a lawyer? Now you have two bills. Doesn't the lawyer have to do whatever he/she would do anyway in order to ascertain division of property etc??? Hence when you go to the lawyer after your mediation scenario the lawyer does what you would pay him/her to do if you just went to them in the first place. Seems to me
they would have to do all that to ascertain the validity of what the mediator has come up with. So my take on this is if I use a mediator and a lawyer my expenses for their services together would be greater than if I just used a lawyer in the first place. Please enlighten me. Bomar
they would have to do all that to ascertain the validity of what the mediator has come up with. So my take on this is if I use a mediator and a lawyer my expenses for their services together would be greater than if I just used a lawyer in the first place. Please enlighten me. Bomar
Comment