Yes, it’s true that Ann appeared on the Dr. Phil Show “Anatomy of a Divorce”.

Being on the Dr. Phil show was exciting, but also nerve-racking, as every inch of the case was documented. Ann had cameras in her office, her home office, and her car.

The case began when the couple jointly decided to appear on the Dr. Phil show. This happened after the husband had filed for divorce. When they decided to appear on the Dr. Phil show, each client then found an attorney to represent them. Amy chose Ann, after interviewing multiple attorneys.

Amy wanted to take a collaborative approach. She thought that looking forward and trying to resolve things in a non-confrontational manner would protect her long term interests and the interests of her children.

It was very difficult because the clients were under so much stress because of the taping, and because of the taping that occurred before the show even started! Ann was surprised to listen to clandestine tapes of her client that were secretly made by her husband…

After seeing the client (Amy) safely through temporary orders, it became clear that Amy wasn’t comfortable with a collaborative approach to her divorce.

It is always difficult when a client and an attorney are out of sync. Because Ann feels strongly that a client should be in complete control of their case, and because Ann felt she was getting mixed messages from Amy, she advised Amy that she perhaps wasn’t a good fit for the case. Ann helped Amy find a new attorney to complete the case.

When clients feel that they are not being represented the way they want to be represented, then it is not a good situation for either the client or the attorney. In this case, Amy had said she wanted a collaborative style, but when she perceived that the other side was not collaborative, Amy became unhappy with the collaborative approach.

This is a difficult situation – when the attorney and client disagree on how to approach a case. The client may feel unrepresented, even when they are getting the best possible representation.

Ann believes that regardless of how the other party behaves, it is best to remain reasonable, and open to the possibility of mutual agreement. A lot of “aggressive” behavior in a divorce is designed to make the other person react – when you are reacting, you are usually not making good decisions. In the end, there are only two ways to resolve a divorce: by mutual agreement, or by letting a Judge decide. Judges – for the most part – really don’t care what has been said or done before a case gets to them. They care about the facts. No amount of screaming, threatening, or cajoling, changes the facts.

What bad behavior DOES change, is a party’s ability to respect the other party after the divorce, and it affects their ability to successfully co-parent.

The other dangerous part of a nasty divorce is that when a divorce slips into a series of threats and posturing, clients tend to make decisions based on anger, fear, and in reaction to the other side. When this happens, they often make decisions for the wrong reasons – which they later come to regret.

Ann and Anita feel very strongly that an approach to divorce should be based on the client’s needs, and not their immediate wishes to “squash” the other spouse. Even when the other spouse, through their attorney, is behaving in a way that seems mean-spirited or ridiculous, Ann and Anita encourage their clients to stick to the high road. In the end, if you end up in court, to the extent that the behavior of the parties does influence the outcome, you never lose by staying reasonable and fair. When both parties act like idiots, how could a court ever distinguish between them?