Arizona Divorce Without Litigation
Resolve differences by committing to collaborate

By using a collaborative approach your divorce can:

  • be less stressful
  • take less time
  • be cheaper
  • result in higher satisfaction

call or text now:


"But my case isn't a good fit for collaborative law."

The only reason two parties cannot use the collaborative method is if they themselves are unwilling to collaborate. Some think that their case is too complex for collaboration, but more complexity just means is they have more to benefit from the collaborative process. Complex cases in litigation are notoriously costly, time-consuming, and stressful, and litigation gives a judge the power to decide all the complex issues. With the collaborative approach, parties can expect to save money, time, and sanity, and they themselves will be in control of the outcome. Are you willing to collaborate? Text or call.

Divorce is Hard

Collaborative divorce will not make all your problems go away. However, using the collaborative process, parties can take control of their outcome instead of passing decision-making to a judge. They can take an approach where two parties negotiate an acceptable end rather than be two adversaries who fight to the bitter end. And the collaborative process can completely bypass the unnecessary stress, time, and much of the expense that litigation often adds. The process will be difficult, but the benefits to be had make collaborative law a sound choice. Ready to get to work? Text or call.

"What are my divorce options?"


The most expensive, longest process, with lowest average satisfaction. Parties often engage in discovery fights over disclosure of information and take every opportunity to take advantage of the other side for mistakes. In the end, a judge who doesn't know the parties and never will know the parties will decide their fates. If you are looking for a fight, litigation is the way to go, but it comes at a high cost. Why, then, would the non-fighting types choose litigation? Since you can't force someone to collaborate, litigation is the only option when one party refuses to collaborate. Also, many people litigate simply because they don't know a better way.

Collaborative law

The parties agree to collaborate rather than litigate to resolve their differences. The parties voluntarily disclose information and do not punish or take advantage of one another for mistakes in the process. Since both parties are represented by attorneys, they can be confident that their interests are represented. Depending on the circumstances, they may hire other professionals to help, as well, such as a communications expert, an accountant, and a child expert. In collaborative law, the people who know the case best--the parties themselves--ultimately decide the outcome.


The two sides sit down with a professional who works out their differences. Often if mediation breaks down the parties will resort to litigation--no agreement prevents the parties from doing so. Mediation without attorneys can be very cost effective and is a viable option for people who have a limited budget and still have some differences that need to be worked out. If parties are not represented by attorneys they are not afforded the same level of protection as collaborative law and litigation, so they should meet with an attorney to discuss their case at least once.


If parties have a very simple case, are completely in agreement with everything, and are comfortable figuring out the divorce process they can file for divorce themselves. Even parties who are planning to do it all themselves should meet with an attorney at least once to discuss their case so they can make sure there is nothing important they are missing.

Too often divorce is approached as a fight. The litigation process is set up as an adversarial system, but just because you are splitting up it does not mean you have to be adversaries. That's why I take a different approach: collaboration.

call or text: