Why is the court system still the norm for resolving family disputes?

The latest family court statistics make for sobering reading and, if I’m honest, they reinforce something I’ve felt strongly about for a long time.

Between April and June 2026, 67,843 new cases started in the family courts, up 1% on the same quarter last year. Private law children cases increased by 11%, while financial remedy applications rose by 4%. The overall open caseload continues to grow.
For separating couples, this raises an important question:

Do we really need to still be referring so many family disputes to the court system?

Increasingly, and from both a professional and personal perspective, I believe the answer is no.

Having been through a divorce myself, I know first-hand how all-consuming the process can be. If the One Couple, One Lawyer model had been available to me at the time, it is the route I would have chosen without hesitation. Preserving family relationships for my children was my overriding priority and I believe most people feel the same way at the outset. Too often, however, the adversarial nature of the process causes those priorities to get lost along the way.

A recent podcast featuring Gary Lineker touched on his experience of divorce, during which he was understandably critical of the role family lawyers had played, suggesting they had hindered rather than helped the process with his first wife. While it is disappointing to hear, it is not surprising. The thought of instructing a divorce lawyer when I was going through my own divorce filled me with horror and I suspect that feeling is far more common than the profession has ever been willing to acknowledge. It is precisely that type of experience that makes models such as One Couple, One Lawyer so important.

Court proceedings carry a significant emotional cost that is often underestimated. The delays, uncertainty and inherently combative nature of litigation can take a real toll, not just on the couple involved but also on their children and wider family. Months of waiting, escalating tensions and the adversarial framing of what should be a shared problem can leave lasting emotional and financial damage, even after the final order is made.

That is precisely why alternative approaches matter so much.

Mediation, arbitration, collaborative practice and the One Couple, One Lawyer model can all provide ways of resolving issues outside the traditional court process. The Family Procedure Rules now expressly encourage appropriate non-court dispute resolution (NCDR), and the court can take into account whether couples have made a constructive attempt to resolve matters outside court before proceedings are issued.

What is One Couple, One Lawyer?

Put simply, a couple jointly instructs one specially trained solicitor who provides legal advice to both parties.
It differs from mediation. A mediator facilitates discussions but does not provide legal advice. With One Couple, One Lawyer, the solicitor can advise both parties as they work towards an agreement.
This can mean:

• Fewer duplicated conversations
• Potentially lower legal costs
• A more streamlined process
• Legal advice being given during discussions rather than afterwards
• Greater focus on finding solutions rather than building opposing cases
• A better opportunity to preserve a constructive co-parenting relationship where children are involved.

What I find particularly valuable is how well this model works alongside early neutral evaluation. In my experience, there are often moments when couples become stuck, perhaps over the division of a pension or non-marital assets, and progress stalls.

Early neutral evaluation allows an independent expert to provide a considered, impartial assessment of the issue in question. It gives both parties a realistic indication of the likely outcome without the need to abandon the collaborative process altogether. For couples who genuinely want to reach a swift and relatively painless resolution, it can provide the momentum needed to move forward.

The model is also becoming more visible outside the legal profession. Pep Guardiola and Cristina Serra were publicly reported as using a one-couple, one-lawyer approach to their divorce. Their case demonstrates that this is not limited to straightforward separations or couples without substantial financial or international considerations.

Of course, it is not suitable for every couple. However, where two people can communicate openly, are transparent about their finances and genuinely want to reach an agreement, there is a compelling reason to ask:
“What is the right process for our family?”
Rather than:
“Which solicitor should I instruct to take my spouse to court so I can ‘win’?”

On a personal note, it gives me enormous pleasure to see more people embracing this process within my own practice. Every couple who chooses this path and comes out the other side with their dignity and family relationships intact reinforces my belief that this should become the norm rather than the exception in family law.

We owe it to the families we serve to make that happen.

With court resources under continuing pressure, perhaps the future of family law is not about finding better ways to fight in court. Perhaps it is about helping more families resolve their differences without needing to fight in court at all.