Three years of Resolution Together: how the one lawyer model is shaping modern family practice
Legal director Hannah Minty reflects on the progress of Resolution Together and the development of the one lawyer two clients model three years after its introduction, exploring how the approach is being used and why recent research offers valuable insights into its impact.
It has been over three years since Resolution – an organisation for family law professionals – introduced their ‘Resolution Together’ model: offering training and guidance for family lawyers keen to embrace the ‘one-lawyer-two-clients’ ('one lawyer') model of working with separated couples.
Resolution Together is a model which allows one lawyer to advise and support two people who are separating, rather than each of them appointing separate lawyers.
The one-lawyer concept has been described by the President of the Family Division as a ‘key’ element of the future family justice system and was seen as a complementary innovation which sits alongside the introduction of ‘no fault’ divorce, which made it possible from April 2022 for a couple to apply jointly for a divorce.
The format seeks to increase access to legal support in a way that encourages collaboration and co-operation, while making it more accessible, in terms of affordability and availability. The cost of appointing one lawyer, in place of each person being individually represented, should – in the right cases – reduce legal costs for separating families when compared with a more traditional model and it is also intended to be a less acrimonious process.
Resolution Together is not the only one-lawyer model which is available to separating couples, but it has been adopted by many family lawyers as a convenient umbrella under which to extend their practice into this new area.
It has been created with the input and support of Resolution, who have worked with the Solicitors Regulation Authority to explore the regulatory hurdles which were previously thought to exist as a bar to providing joint advice to separating couples. One of the notable benefits promoted in the Resolution Together guidance is that the model has been designed so that solicitors practicing in this way do not need to alter their professional indemnity insurance.
However, three years on from the introduction of Resolution Together, it is noted that there are no statistics on the number and types of lawyers providing the service, and it is unclear how far voluntary guidance is being followed. There is also no data on how the model is being applied in practice. As such, a recent study funded by the University of Warwick and undertaken by Dr Rachael Blakey is a welcome opportunity to shine a light on these issues as well as reflecting on the experiences of family lawyers who have worked with clients in this way.
As a solicitor undertaking Resolution Together work, and being part of a firm in which several of my colleagues undertake this work, I have nevertheless at times been aware of the contrast between the support and structure which has enveloped me within my mediation practice from the outset and queried whether it would be a benefit to Resolution Together lawyers to have a similar offering. I therefore read Dr Blakey’s report with interest. The report includes an excellent executive summary for those pressed for time although for those currently practicing in this area or those interested in learning how, in practice, the ‘one-lawyer’ model is working the full (98 page) report offers a very useful insight with anecdotal evidence as to individual approaches, issues and concerns and is a recommended read.
The report
The study draws together finding based upon interviews with 24 family lawyers offering one-lawyer services across England in 2024/2025. Participation was voluntary by invitation and it was clear that many of those surveyed were experienced in this area, having undertaken multiple one-lawyer cases.
The cohort of family lawyers surveyed provides, by itself, an interesting insight into the way in which the model has been adopted. The interview sample was heavily weighted towards firms in the South of England – identified through targeted searches of firms in England & Wales offering this service – and the overwhelming majority of those surveyed had been qualified for more than 10 years, reflecting the perception amongst some participants that it was only appropriate for more senior lawyers to conduct this area of work. Only one third of those surveyed did not also practice some other area of non-court dispute resolution, such as mediation, collaborative law or arbitration.
Key findings
The report focussed on four key areas:
- the client experience of the process
- the extent to which there is uniformity in delivering the one-lawyer format
- the lawyers’ views on and understanding of their role in the process
- the extent to which regulation of the one-lawyer format is sought
A summary of some of the key findings is set out below.
Client experience of the one-lawyer-two-client format
The research looked at reported outcomes of one-lawyer cases, as well as considering the types of cases considered suitable for this model.
The format appears to result in a high proportion of settlements.
For example, one lawyer who had undertaken 30+ cases and other who had jointly advised in 10-14 cases reported a 100% success rate and another who had advised in 15-19 cases reported only one which had not settled. It is suggested that this may be due to the type of cases deemed suitable rather than the process itself.
Participating client feedback was reported to be, on the whole, very positive.
These findings were based on the interviews with the participating family lawyers, and it has been recommended that further research is undertaken on clients’ own experiences and perspectives.
Participating lawyers considered their clients achieved a better outcome.
This is when compared to what, in their view, may have been obtained through another mechanism, because the one-lawyer format led to a stronger post-separation relationship and/or cheaper legal fees.
Suitability was a key consideration.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, suitable cases were those where the separated couple were amicable, with equal power balances and positive communication. More challenging characteristics, such as limited financial knowledge, domestic abuse, or an unequal power dynamic between the couple, were found not to have rendered cases automatically unsuitable for the one-lawyer approach, with consideration being given to whether issues could be mitigated within the format, potentially raising questions about the consistency of screening practices.
Screening for power imbalances is also a key factor.
Concern was expressed by those interviewed about the potential for one person to manipulate the format, with participants describing enquiries which were unsuitable. For example, one family lawyer spoke of ‘getting enquiries from people who have got quite fixed mindsets, attracted to the idea of not having lawyers looking at it or financial advisors look at it’. The report raised concerns about the way in which the model may be being perceived by coercive and controlling ex-partners, who may believe they can use the format to avoid scrutiny and achieve a better outcome for themselves.
Clients participating in the process typically shared certain characteristics.
Clients participating in the model were reported as having high levels of co-operation, trust and amicability. There was an element of self-selection and a high degree of homogeneity in participating clients. It was common for there to be some level of conflict between them but their alignment on one or more factors enabled participation in the one-lawyer format on the basis that joint advice was in both of their best interests.
The majority of cases involved financial issues, rather than arrangements for children.
There was a divergence in the level of wealth of the clients participating in the model, with some family lawyers working with those with modest assets and others working with HNW families.
Conclusion
These findings paint a broadly positive picture of the one-lawyer model in suitable cases, particularly in terms of settlement rates and client experience. However, they also raise important questions about how the model is being delivered in practice, the consistency of approaches adopted by lawyers, and the safeguards required to ensure it operates effectively. These issues are explored further in the second part of this analysis.
About Hannah
Hannah Minty is a legal director in the family and children team. She is a trained collaborative lawyer and mediator. Hannah advises on all aspects of family and relationship breakdown.
Get in touch
If you would like to speak with a member of the team you can contact our family and children solicitors by telephone on +44 (0)20 3826 7520 or complete our enquiry form.
