What makes a good divorce lawyer? Experience, judgment, preparation, and the willingness to tell a client something the client does not want to hear all belong on the list. But there is another quality that is harder to teach: understanding what divorce feels like to the person sitting across the desk.

Rachel Wolfe recently profiled Indiana divorce lawyer Dana Eberle in The Wall Street Journal. Eberle has been divorced twice. Her first divorce involved a difficult parenting dispute; her second ended on remarkably friendly terms. Those experiences have informed how she practices law. What interested me was not the novelty of a twice-divorced divorce lawyer. It was the tension between empathy and judgment that her story illustrates.

I’ve practiced family law long enough to know that clients rarely arrive at a lawyer’s office with a neatly defined legal problem. They arrive with fear, anger, grief, embarrassment, and sometimes a detailed list of grievances accumulated over years. They may ask about property division when what really worries them is whether they will be able to afford their home. They may argue about a parenting schedule when what terrifies them is becoming a visitor in their child’s life.

A lawyer who hears only the legal question may miss the problem that needs solving.

Listening Is Not the Same as Agreeing

One detail in Wolfe’s article stayed with me. Eberle recalls feeling dismissed by the lawyers handling her first divorce. She wanted to be heard, but remembers being told which fights she should abandon. Now, when clients become emotional, she makes room for that emotion.

That is a useful reminder for lawyers. Clients do not need us to endorse every complaint. They do need to know that we understand why it matters to them before we explain why pursuing it may be unwise.

There is a world of difference between saying, “That issue isn’t worth fighting over,” and saying, “I understand why that feels unfair. Let’s talk about what a judge can do about it, what proving it will cost, and whether winning would actually improve your situation.” The legal advice may be identical. The client hears it differently.

Of course, listening has limits. A divorce lawyer is not a therapist, and an initial consultation cannot become an endless inventory of marital wrongs. But efficiency is not measured solely by how quickly we identify the applicable statute. Sometimes a few minutes spent understanding the real concern saves months of unnecessary litigation.

The Parenting Plan Is for the Children

Eberle’s experience also raises a problem I see repeatedly: parents understandably want as much time with their children as possible, but the schedule that feels best to a parent may not work best for a child.

Consider a parenting plan that requires frequent exchanges to ensure neither parent goes too long without seeing the children. On paper, it may look balanced. In practice, it can mean constant packing, forgotten homework, conflicting routines, and a child who never quite knows where to settle. That does not mean frequent exchanges are always bad or that week-on, week-off parenting is always better. Age, school, distance between homes, the parents’ ability to cooperate, and the child’s particular needs matter.

The question should not be, “How many days can I get?” It should be, “What arrangement gives this child a stable, workable life while preserving meaningful relationships with both parents?” Those questions sometimes produce different answers.

Tennessee’s parenting-plan system is supposed to focus on the child’s best interest. Yet it is easy for negotiations to become a contest over numbers. A residential day can take on symbolic importance far beyond its practical value. The lawyer’s job is to bring the discussion back to the child, even when doing so disappoints the person paying the bill.

Peace Is a Goal, Not a Requirement

Eberle’s two divorces also illustrate why I distrust sweeping advice about how people should divorce. An amicable separation is usually preferable to prolonged litigation. But telling everyone to “just get along” ignores the cases in which cooperation is impossible or unsafe, or in which one party will not provide information, follow agreements, or respect boundaries.

Some disputes genuinely require a judge. If a parent is being denied contact with a child, allegations are being weaponized, or financial information is being concealed, a lawyer who reflexively urges compromise may be doing the client no favor. Civility does not require surrender.

The distinction I try to make is between necessary conflict and optional conflict. Necessary conflict protects a child, enforces an important right, or resolves a material issue that cannot otherwise be settled. Optional conflict often seeks vindication, punishment, or a judicial declaration that one spouse behaved badly. Divorce courts are ill-suited to providing emotional closure.

A good lawyer should be capable of fighting hard without treating every disagreement as a fight worth having.

Caring Without Taking Over

Near the end of Wolfe’s article, Eberle describes reminding herself that a client’s divorce is not her own. She also says, “But if you don’t care, you shouldn’t be doing this job.” That is the line that best captures the challenge of family-law practice.

Indifference is not professionalism. Neither is becoming so personally invested that the lawyer loses perspective. The client needs someone who cares about the outcome but can still evaluate a weak argument, identify an unreasonable demand, and recommend a settlement when the evidence supports one.

I have seen how easily a client’s understandable anger can become the organizing principle of a case. Lawyers are not immune to that pull. We hear one side of a painful story, often for months or years. If we are not careful, we can begin to confuse loyalty with agreement. The better service is sometimes to say, plainly and respectfully, “I don’t think the court will see it that way.”

Personal experience can deepen a lawyer’s empathy, but it does not automatically make someone a better lawyer. Having been divorced is neither a qualification nor a disqualification. What matters is whether the lawyer can turn personal or professional experience into sound judgment for someone whose circumstances may be very different.

The point I took from Eberle’s story is simple. Divorce clients need more than legal knowledge and more than sympathy. They need a lawyer who will listen carefully, tell them the truth, protect what matters, and help them distinguish the battles that must be fought from the ones that will only prolong the pain.

Source: Rachel Wolfe, “What a Twice-Divorced Divorce Attorney Has Learned About Ending a Marriage,” The Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2026.