When people think about separation, they often imagine conflict — lawyers on opposite sides, fighting it out on behalf of their clients. But in family law, that adversarial mindset doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes. In this episode, Ben and Heather chat to Marius Eden from Ramsden Family Law about how strong professional relationships with “opposing” counsel can make a real difference to how clients experience separation, both legally and emotionally.
Topics discussed include:
AppleSpotifyAmazonPocketcastiHeartRadioGoogle
Benjamin Bryant: Hello everyone. Welcome to today’s episode. I’m your host Benjamin Bryant from Bryant McKinnon Lawyers. When people think about separation, they often imagine conflict. Lawyers on opposite sides, fighting it out on behalf of their clients. But in family law, that adversarial mindset doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes. Today, we’re talking about something that may surprise some listeners: how collaboration between so-called opposing solicitors can often be a real strength. And how, when done well, it can help clients reach better, faster and less stressful outcomes. To explore this idea, I’m joined by my partner and specialist family lawyer Heather McKinnon and our guest specialist family lawyer Marius Eden from Ramsden Family Law. A family lawyer who advises clients across all aspects of family law, Marius is known for his practical and considered approach. Like us, Marius sees firsthand that strong professional relationships, even between lawyers representing different parties, can make a real difference in how clients experience separation, both legally and emotionally. This episode will challenge the idea that good lawyering always means conflict, and show how a collaborative approach can, in many cases, be a powerful tool for helping families move forward. If you or someone you know is navigating separation and feeling anxious about what lies ahead, we hope today’s conversation offers some reassurance and a clearer picture of how family lawyers can work together in your best interests. Let’s get started.
Benjamin Bryant: Welcome back, Heather. Thank you for being here.
Heather McKinnon: I’m glad I turned up, Ben.
Benjamin Bryant: And Marius Eden, thank you for joining us on The Family Matters Show.
Marius Eden: Good to be here.
Benjamin Bryant: Heather, we’re going to start with you. When people hear “the other side”, they often expect conflict from your experience. How helpful or perhaps unhelpful is that way of thinking in family law?
Heather McKinnon: It’s the worst way of thinking. In our profession, we should see our role as problem solvers. How do we get a solution for this conflict? Not how do we escalate the conflict further? Approximately 30 years ago, the profession realised that we needed to get specialists in our part of the world that would give a message to the public that we’re problem solvers, we’re not conflict people. But it persists to this day. There are still lawyers who enjoy combat and whose style of communication is very combative. We just keep working to try and tell people it’s not going to get you out of this.
Benjamin Bryant: That’s right. And we’ve got to help them rise above it. Marius, does that match your experience?
Marius Eden: the other side often make you think there’s two camps, but they should not really be that. As you would know, the rules have changed. The court is now focused on parties, even on opposing sides, to try and take hands and make the matter go away as quickly as possible. It’s not often possible. Sometimes it is, sometimes it’s not. But how the solicitors engage with each other and not finding themselves in two camps: “the other side”. The client comes to you, like Heather’s saying, the practice and the court now expect parties to get away from the other side concept and say, well, we are here to solve the problem. We’re not here to make it bigger.
Benjamin Bryant: And that’s right. And for our clients they’ve got one matter before them: their separation, their ex. But for us, the solicitor on the other side, we’re going to have to work with them tomorrow on the next matter and the next matter. So it’s really important that the lawyers stay above it.
Marius Eden: You’re right. Yeah. That is so.
Benjamin Bryant: And Marius, when we talk about collaboration between opposing solicitors, what does that actually look like in practice and what does it not mean?
Marius Eden: I think what solicitors find, if you deal with the other solicitor on the basis that we’re not opposing each other to create a fight. We’re opposing each other maybe on practice and principle of the matter, but we can collaborate, we can assist each other. We see each other’s side, but not in an opposing way. So to collaborate is to say, let’s see how we can work together with opposing positions to come to a resolution.
Benjamin Bryant: Yeah, I have a great example. Last year I was involved in a property trial, and the judge actually, as an example, got the two barristers for each of the parties to stand up and have them confirm that they could just as easily swap sides with the bar table and go and act for the other side straight away, knowing what the strengths and weaknesses of the matter were, and that they were both in a position to do that. I think it’s a great reminder. Like you said, you’re there on the matter of law and principle, but it doesn’t mean you have to be in the gutter fighting all the other things. Heather, does that align with your practice?
Heather McKinnon: Yeah, People like Marius and some of our colleagues Ben, that we’ve worked with for decades, we’ve probably never had a case go to court. Because we’ve been able to resolve things through mediation, negotiation, getting a joint approach to bringing an accountant in to help the couple with financial planning. Some of the biggest things you see thrown away, if you like, are where a couple are not able to get a collaborative approach with their legal teams. So opportunities for financial planning and tax planning that can be a positive that comes out of separation are lost because they can’t set aside that combative approach. Whereas if lawyers like you and Marius are working on a big property matter, you’ll be able to work with the accountants to look at how you can maximise each of your client’s outcome, and it’s a much better way to live your professional life. You can talk to your colleagues, get on and enjoy each other’s personalities and styles, and not have your blood pressure rise every time you pick up the phone.
Benjamin Bryant: That’s right. And I think it’s really important what you said Heather operating without conflict or being collegial doesn’t mean to say you’re giving in, or either party is being weak. It’s that joint approach. You don’t have to necessarily agree, for example, on the value of the house. It’s not about someone being nice and just capitulating. It’s about working together to come up with a joint approach as to how we can work through this issue together.
Benjamin Bryant: And how important Heather is professional respect and trust between lawyers in achieving good outcomes for clients.
Heather McKinnon: Well, absolutely. But in fact, it’s critical for the non-endangerment of life. In a town like this, where we practice, if we put any sort of foot wrong in a children’s matter, kids can end up dead. I mean, it’s serious stuff. In my time in this regional community, we have seen patricide, matricide, suicide, all those horrible things you read about in the news. Now you don’t want to aid that. You want to be able to do your best to make sure the way you’re handling the matter does not add more risk to that family. That’s the most extreme example of why lawyers need to step above the conflict. I think it’s lost in cities, but here we are critical to maintaining the rule of law. If we fuel the fight, we will see the direct consequences.
Benjamin Bryant: That’s right. Because when we’re practising a regional community, we’re not anonymous. We’re not solicitor number 472. We’re actual people. Marius, your view on professional respect and trust between both sides.
Marius Eden: Again, I need to agree with Heather. I think it’s very important for the practitioner to step above the party’s dispute and have that respectable approach to the matter. Be able to speak with their colleague and step out of the ring. You don’t have to be part of the dispute. You’re there as an innocent, almost bystander. Yes, you’re advocating for your client, but it’s not your problem. It’s not your matter. You can actually stand back and see it for what it is, speak with your colleague, have that trust, and try and build a rapport that can assist the clients in getting the matter resolved. And that is irrespective of whether it’s property or parenting. You can help the clients to move out of the ring try and resolve the matter rather than keep fighting. It benefits no party.
Benjamin Bryant: And I think even in the years that I’ve been practising, there’s been I think there’s been a shift. Like when I was a younger lawyer, I used to be worried that I was going to speak to an accredited family law specialist on the phone about something. Now I relish the opportunity to speak to another colleague on the phone. I find it’s less and less, especially if you go to the cities or you’re dealing with younger practitioners, they will not speak to you on the phone. It’s very difficult. Do you have that experience as well?
Marius Eden: Ben you couldn’t have said it better. You’re engaged in a matter, and the other party is not available to address it on the phone. Correspondence can only go so far. Paper is patient. I agree with you. If practitioners would be more inclined to say, I’m going to phone my colleague on the other side and see how we can advance the matter. I think it will help a lot. You’re perfectly correct.
Benjamin Bryant: And for that you need trust and respect.
Benjamin Bryant: Heather from a client’s point of view, how does a collaborative approach change their experience of separation in terms of stress, cost, time, and outcomes?
Heather McKinnon: You know, the first one is it’ll save you thousands of dollars. So if you’ve got a team that work together on a property settlement, you can get the job done quicker, faster and for little expense. You end up in a conflict where people are in camps, and you’ll lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. So cost is a big driver. Time. Lack of stress in how you’re transitioning what is a very stressful event? All of that depends on problem solvers not getting into the ring. As Marius said, stay out of the ring, look above the problem and see whether you and your colleague can help the family to transition in a calm, peaceful way. If we all approach our work that way, it will help Australia generally. We don’t want to see this increasing level of conflict at every area of dispute. We want to try and get people back to calmness and collaborating to solve problems without violence, without threat and respecting professions. That’s our role. But if we’re going to do that, our generation need to keep that message going to our younger colleagues.
Marius Eden: I agree with that Ben. One example, and I think Heather and you will agree with me. Sometimes you hear a client will say to you, my wife or my husband says, uh, your lawyer, you say my lawyer is a bum or, you know, get into that personal, uh, sort of accusations. If you can say to a client, I’m not going to discuss my colleague, there’s trust between us. We work together to your benefit. As Heather says, it saves a lot of time and money. It can only assist parties.
Benjamin Bryant: Absolutely. And I think also what we discuss with our clients, lawyers can’t compel parties to do anything. Lawyers don’t have that power. No matter what we put on our letterhead, it’s not actually going to get the result you think it may. In fact, it might have the opposite result. But lawyers are not the mere mouthpiece for a client. If a client just wants a mouthpiece, don’t engage a lawyer. Just do the correspondence themselves and say whatever they want themselves. That’s not what we’re here to talk about. What we’re here to talk about is the practitioners actually rising above it, and the collaborative approach having a real positive effect on the actual process. What plays out with that is really quite important.
Benjamin Bryant: Marius, without breaching confidentiality, can you share an example where a collaborative approach between solicitors clearly led to a better result?
Marius Eden: I have, actually Heather was involved in one. We had a fairly substantial property matter. Heather and I met in Heather’s office and discussed valuations, discussed how we can advance the matter. Because when there are businesses involved, you don’t want to engage with the other side on a format where the business may falter or there are issues the business can’t continue. And Heather and I actually assisted the parties discussing the matter. Obviously, you go back to your client, and you discuss that with your client’s blessing and go back to your client and report what has been achieved. It actually works. And it doesn’t say you give up your client’s position. It just opens the floor for debate more than on correspondence or in a courtroom.
Benjamin Bryant: Yeah. So you at least appreciate where the other person’s coming from. Marius, that just reminded me of the old Round Table conference. Yeah, we used to do that all the time. But interesting. There we go. Heather. What about you without breaching confidentiality.
Heather McKinnon: I think definitely it’s when you have mature colleagues on the other side in a children’s matter is where a collaborative approach absolutely helps. We often get a situation where because of our experience, our age, our parenting histories or whatever, we can see what a young couple are doing that’s damaging kids. So we sort of step-in in that parenting role and try and get them to look at another way of managing the kids. What listeners may not be aware of is, our primary responsibility is to the children. It’s not to the parents, it’s not to the court, it’s actually to the children. And so you’ve got to remember that ethical obligation you have at all times to try and absolutely focus on what can I do here to improve the pathway for the kids, which may not necessarily be what your client thinks you should be doing. It’s a very tough role to play, isn’t it, Marius? You have to say to a client, I’m not going to do what you want me to do, but that’s our job.
Marius Eden: That is so true. I once had a client in a parenting matter who said to me, every time I walk out of your office or on a weekend, I think to your words where you say always do the right thing by the children. If you instil that, like you say, the best interests of the children, that’s our duty. Our duty is to help our clients to focus on what is relevant. And that is, in a parenting matter, do what is in the children’s best interest. Whether you like it or not. That’s irrelevant. Focus on the children.
Heather McKinnon: And so we would pick up the phone, as you said. And if we’ve got, you know, a seven and a nine-year-old in a case and we know something’s wrong, then in a collaborative approach, you ring your colleague and say, hey, in that file, these little ones, this is happening. Do you reckon we could get, this person to try and help. If I say to my punter, “I think you’d benefit from some family counselling”, will you support that with yours? And we try and get some sort of common sort of approach going forward. It does work.
Benjamin Bryant: And I think it’s also important to note that it’s for all matters at any stage of the process. But Marius, you’ve mentioned the high-end property matter. Heather you’ve mentioned the parenting matter. But we get clients all the time saying, oh, but have you ever dealt with a narcissist or my husband or my wife’s different? They’re a real piece of work. Even last week I was involved in a matter in Lismore and there were four parties, four solicitors, four barristers, basically all in the room. Very complex parenting matter with lots of layers and nuances. And again, that was able to be resolved because of the collaboration between the lawyers nutting through the issues, managing the risk, doing the what-ifs, reality testing with their clients, doing all of those sorts of things. So that was a very complex, you basically cannot get any more layered or complex that this particular matter, and that was able to be resolved. So I think there’s something really to be said about it.
Benjamin Bryant: And Marius collaboration doesn’t mean agreeing on everything, of course. How do you handle genuine disagreement without matters becoming adversarial?
Marius Eden: I think reality testing Ben is very important there. If there’s an intractable dispute and you cannot collaborate on everything, you need to explain to the client how far you can go in relation to correspondence or discussions, and in the court. It is so. I mean, not every matter can be resolved. And then you have to follow the rules, and you go through the court. But at least if you put to your client the limitations of going to court and try and always keep the door ajar for collaboration with the other side, it can help. Heather and you will know how often, even at court, a matter settles. There’s always that little chance. Don’t close the door on collaboration. Doesn’t matter what the dispute is. And I think Heather will agree. You can always go the extra mile to try and resolve the matter.
Heather McKinnon: And I think what is really important in that context is that we model rational behaviour. So you’ll get irrational clients saying, I saw you smile at them, or you shook his hand or whatever, and you have to normalise it and say, this is how rational people act in the world. It’s a really interesting dynamic when you’re doing the education of the client and maintaining that professional relationship with your colleagues.
Benjamin Bryant: Yeah. And Marius I think it’s important. Two things that you said. One was reality testing clients, a very important part of our role. But also managing their expectations. And like you say, sitting down and explaining to your client, well how far you can take it. Because not everything can be resolved. Not all matters are resolvable, or parties are not willing for it to be resolvable. Sometimes there is a real stumbling block. And I think as long as good practitioners are managing their client’s expectations, then at least you can say, well, we knew this was on the cards. We’ve already had this conversation. There’s no option, there’s no outcome that hasn’t been presented to them or they haven’t realised that they weren’t already aware of. And I think that’s really important. I think if all practitioners are doing that, we’ll be in a much better position.
Marius Eden: You’re right. One example I want to give you Ben, is where sometimes clients are just very difficult. I once had a client, I think it was his third or fourth lawyer, and he wanted to change lawyers. And I straight up said to him, well, my friend, can you tell me who’s the problem here, you or the lawyers? So sometimes client needs a strong hand where you say to them, well, this can’t happen or this can happen so that they know what the boundaries are from what they’re looking for.
Benjamin Bryant: And Heather we’ve touched on this already, but how much does the way lawyers communicate, particularly early on, influence whether a matter becomes constructive or combative?
Heather McKinnon: Absolutely. From day one, you need your correspondence to be professional, to be short, sharp, to the point. Not get down into the gutter. It sets the tone and it’s very important. But I think having a chat with your colleagues at the beginning of the matter, picking up the phone and introducing yourself if you don’t know them and saying, can we start to look at what we’re doing here? How quickly can we get the balance sheet? The valuers. It makes a huge difference. But I agree, Marius, it’s interesting. I’ve just been asked over the last few years to do education with the legal profession in New South Wales on this very point, because the judicial officers are really picking up a change in the society generally, and in our courtrooms, where there’s this general breakdown of civility. And we’re trying to lead people back to civility. But it’s not just in what we’re doing. You’re seeing it in the broader community. But lawyers have a big role to play in getting us back to calmly resolving conflict.
Marius Eden: I agree with that. The start of a matter is basically like the foundation for a house, Ben. If it starts skewed, the whole house is going to be all stuffed up and not built correctly. Heather is correct. That first piece of correspondence, I think, is very important to set the tone of where the matter goes.
Benjamin Bryant: And what happens. Question for both of you what happens if a client doesn’t want to do the professional approach, doesn’t want to rise above it, and they want to use you as a mouthpiece? What happens in those circumstances?
Marius Eden: I think the solicitors should maybe take a breath and see whether they can further act in the matter. Because it’s not only what the court will do, but their own reputation is at play.
Benjamin Bryant: Heather, do you agree?
Heather McKinnon: Absolutely. Our retainer agreements all provide it’s a two-way street. If we form the view that the client is not listening to the advice, we have the responsibility to sever the retainer and tell them to go somewhere else.
Benjamin Bryant: And Heather, how do you explain collaboration to clients who expect the lawyer to go in and fight for them?
Heather McKinnon: It’s the conversation we’ve had here this morning that it’s an antiquated way of resolving conflict. It’s expensive. If you go down the path of adversarial litigation. We’re much better to try and solve it in this way. When we use the term collaboration, there’s an actual model of collaborative lawyering, which requires people to contractually agree they will never go to court. That’s different to what we’re talking about in this general conversation, where we’re saying we shouldn’t need that. Professionals should be able to talk to each other and just get on with it. That’s what we would like to see, a much better understanding from the general population that lawyers who maintain ethical and professional standards in the true sense of the word are going to get you a much better result than those who fight.
Benjamin Bryant: Yeah, I have, um, two sayings or analogies that I like to say with clients, Heather. One is, if you engage a pit bull, you’ll end up with a dog’s breakfast. And the other one is, at this point in your life, you don’t actually need a sniper. You think you need someone in the trenches next to you. But what you actually need is a war strategist. The analogy is perhaps not a very politically correct or appropriate analogy to use in a family law setting, but it works. That’s what people understand that they understand what they’re actually engaging is for. We’re not boxers to jump in the rings with them. Marius, how do you explain it?
Marius Eden: It’s very simple. I agree with both of you. You can still fight in inverted commas. There’s not necessarily have to be blood. You can advance your client’s position without, as you say, having the armour available to do so. If a client wants a fight, I think the question would be why do you want that? And what is the outcome you seek? Because if the outcome you seek is still what we can give you without a fight, then stop the fight. We’re not going to help you in that way. And I think that’s the approach. You should just do that reality testing again. What do you want to achieve with the fight?
Benjamin Bryant: Yeah, I think that’s great. Marius, again, going back to the intention, because a lot of the time, if they want the fight, it’s an emotional response. It’s not a legal, it’s not a tactic, it’s just an emotional response.
Marius Eden: You will remember, and Heather in mediations you would know, sometimes clients vent. And you allow them to vent, without abuse, obviously. And the moment they’ve done that, suddenly they’re happy and they’re willing to resolve and talk. They just want to hear themselves.
Benjamin Bryant: Yeah, absolutely. And in the situations where collaboration just isn’t appropriate, how do you recognise and manage that while still acting in your client’s best interest? Heather.
Heather McKinnon: Well, I was talking to one of our younger lawyers this morning. Ben. There’d been a six-page letter coming overnight, and I just ruled and said, go back with three lines. Don’t get drawn into the vortex of conflict. That’s not going to be productive for anybody. So even if you can’t get them to the table, you just keep mirroring the appropriate behaviour. And you’ll get a lot of flak. Why aren’t you doing this? And we’ve asked this. And don’t get drawn into it. Just stand and think. Breathe and think. How do I manage this matter? To reduce conflict, not fuel it.
Marius Eden: I agree with that. Try and limit what the client wants and still address the core issues.
Benjamin Bryant: And that’s a wrap. Thank you so much for being here guys.
Marius Eden: Thank you. It was great.
Benjamin Bryant: And that brings us to the end of today’s episode. A sincere thank you to Marius Eden from Ramsden Family Law for joining us and sharing his perspective on how collaboration between solicitors can positively shape outcomes for clients. And thank you, as always, to Heather McKinnon for bringing decades of experience and a steady focus on what truly helps families move forward. Remember, this episode is just one part of our growing podcast library. We cover a wide range of topics, from parenting arrangements and property settlements to emotional wellbeing and practical decision making, all designed to help people feel more informed and less overwhelmed during separation. You can find all episodes of the Family Matters show at bryantmckinnon.com.au or by searching for The Family Matters Show wherever you get your podcasts. Until next time, thanks for listening.