Decision support

One Lawyer vs Two Solicitors

Addresses: Isn't it safer for each of us to have our own solicitor?

Two solicitors each represent one side and are structurally required to negotiate — this typically costs more and takes longer. One lawyer advising both of you removes duplicated fees and adversarial positioning, but only works if there's no serious conflict of interest.

The traditional model — one solicitor per person — exists to protect each party’s individual interests. It also means you’re paying two sets of fees, and structurally, two solicitors negotiating on your behalf will often take longer and cost more than a single joint process, even when you both want the same outcome.

When two solicitors make sense: there’s a real conflict of interest, a power imbalance, safety concerns, or one of you isn’t willing to disclose finances honestly.

When one lawyer makes sense: you’re both willing to be transparent, there’s no serious conflict, and you want to avoid the process itself creating an adversarial dynamic that wasn’t there to begin with.

Related: Is This Right For Us?

Frequently Asked Questions

Won't one lawyer favour whichever of us instructed them first?

No — the lawyer's duty is to both of you jointly. If a genuine conflict of interest arises, joint advice stops and you're referred to separate solicitors rather than the lawyer continuing to favour one side.

Is it definitely cheaper than two solicitors?

Usually, because you're not paying for two sets of fees and two sets of correspondence between solicitors — but the exact saving depends on complexity. [TODO: confirm comparative pricing example.]

Read all FAQs