When I meet with someone who needs help with a divorce, one of the first things I often hear is that the person believes that most aspects of the divorce either are, or will be, agreed, and they do not want to turn this into a fighting match between attorneys. Sometimes it turns out not to be the case, but many times the person is right -- much is already agreed. Unfortunately, the traditional legal system that we use to dissolve marriages tends to encourage differences and disagreements, and what starts out as agreed can quickly come undone. This is because in litigation, each party, and their respective interests, is generally framed as opposed to the other, when in reality they often share the desire to peacefully and cheaply finalize the decision they have made to legally end their marriage.
I still practice contested litigation - about half of my law practice. It can be professionally challenging to switch from collaborative divorce practice to a litigious mindset in the same day, and sometimes the same hour. Since my preference is for collaborative law, when the transition feels most jarring is when I am faced with a situation where I would like to be trusting of the other attorney or the other party in a litigated case, as I would in a collaborative process. Since in litigation trust is discouraged and risky among professionals, and often entirely absent with divorcing couples, I have to withhold trust to some degree, and be mindful of the circumstances.