Building credible proposals for divorce settlements

Divorce settlement negotiations can be among the most challenging aspects of family law practice. Emotions often run high, stakes are significant, and missteps in approach can escalate conflict or lead to deadlock. Whether facilitating discussions directly between clients, working as a mediator, engaging in collaborative law, or exchanging settlement correspondence, success often depends on preparing credible proposals that encourage co-operation rather than confrontation.

Why proposals – plural, not singular

A key professional mindset shift is to work with clients to develop multiple potential settlement options, rather than one “ideal” offer. Presenting a fixed position limits flexibility and often entrenches opposition. When clients enter negotiations committed to a single outcome, they’re more likely to dig in, prompting the other side to do the same.

Professionals can guide clients toward seeing proposals as starting points, not ultimatums. Realistically, any option put forward will likely be adjusted before agreement. This flexibility signals a willingness to work toward mutual resolution rather than simply pressing for the other side’s acceptance.

Many parties instinctively open with a proposal and then wait for a counteroffer—a dynamic that often invites immediate pushback. Once the discussion devolves into positional bargaining, negotiations can become a battle of wills. Even if a deal is reached, both parties may feel dissatisfied with the concessions they made.

An alternative is to encourage interest-based negotiation, a method developed through the Harvard Negotiation Project. This approach shifts the focus from “winning” to problem-solving, prioritising underlying interests over stated positions. By first identifying what each side truly needs, professionals can help the parties brainstorm creative, mutually beneficial solutions that better meet both clients’ goals.

The downside for family law practitioners: this requires speaking to the other spouse’s counsel rather than exchanging correspondence. The practice of exchanging letters to negotiate a settlement unfortunately often reinforces positional bargaining, as each side sets out demands in writing and waits for a counterproposal. By contrast, speaking directly—whether in a structured phone call, hybrid mediation or a roundtable meeting—creates space for constructive dialogue, enabling the parties to explore underlying concerns and interests rather than simply restating fixed positions. 

Taking time to prepare

An instructive parallel can be found in hostage negotiation strategy. In such scenarios, negotiators never open with demands or immediate offers. Instead, they prioritise understanding the other party’s motivations, pressures, and desired outcomes. Only once they understand the drivers behind behaviour can they propose solutions that stand a real chance of acceptance.

The same logic applies in divorce settlements. Before crafting proposals, professionals should take time to gather information, listen, and understand the other side’s situation and mindset. Preparing viable proposals is as much about anticipating the other party’s priorities as advancing the client’s.

This preparation includes:

• Analysing relationship dynamics – consider the parties’ history, communication styles, and conflict patterns when predicting how proposals might be received. Example: if one spouse has historically been the decision-maker in the marriage, the other spouse may respond very positively to being given a voice to now express their own position as well.
• Identifying external pressures – recognise outside factors influencing the other party’s decision-making, such as financial strain, new relationships, career pressures or family expectations. Example: a parent who is keen to marry their new partner may be particularly keen to move things along swiftly; it might help to put forward proposals that allow them to proceed swiftly and to position them in that light.
• Anticipating sticking points – plan for areas of likely resistance and prepare alternative options to address them. Example: if parenting schedules during the holidays are likely to be contentious, prepare scenarios that balance various options and incorporate some of the other spouse’s key interests.
• Pinpointing underlying interests – move beyond stated demands to uncover what the other party truly values and why. Example: a request to stay in the family home after the divorce often reflects a wish for stability and reduced change for the children. Creative solutions that account for this ask, even without staying in the family home, should be explored to try to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
• Recognising priorities – not all issues hold equal weight; knowing which matters are most important to the other side can inform proposal design. Example: if one party values immediate cash rather than ongoing payments over time, they may be open to trading a greater share of liquid assets in return for waiving spousal maintenance.

Positioning proposals to align with at least some of the other party’s key interests reduces resistance and creates opportunities for constructive engagement.

Building credible proposals

In professional practice, a credible settlement proposal is one that is:

• Realistic – it can be implemented without undue hardship. Unworkable proposals erode trust and risk escalating conflict. Example: suggesting one parent should pay school fees they clearly cannot afford sets negotiations up for failure; proposing a shared contribution proportionate to income is more viable.
• Aligned with agreed-upon criteria – early in the process, facilitate discussions between parties about what constitutes a “good” arrangement. Document these criteria and use them as benchmarks for evaluating settlement options. Criteria might include ensuring each parent lives within walking distance of the children’s school, minimising the number of asset transfers, or keeping financial arrangements as simple as possible. Example: if both agree that “continuity of the children’s education” is a priority, one of the criteria could be to test proposals against whether they allow the children to remain in the same school.
• Balanced – it addresses both parties’ needs and priorities. Extreme, one-sided offers tend to stall negotiations and damage rapport. Avoid framing proposals solely as “opening positions” with the intention of making large concessions later; this can undermine credibility. Example: this might seem obvious but unfortunately it is not uncommon. Rather than proposing one parent keeps the house, all savings, and half the pension, offer a division where each has secure housing, balanced liquidity, and retirement security.
• Flexible – it can adapt as new information emerges. Come prepared with tiered proposals or multiple pathways to meet the same goals, demonstrating adaptability and problem-solving intent. Example: if one spouse is particularly concerned about their ability to support themselves after retirement, be ready to suggest alternative options that allow them to acquire or build up a sufficient pension pot before they exit the workforce.

Credibility in proposals is about more than fairness; it is about demonstrating seriousness, reasonableness, and a genuine willingness to move towards resolution.

The role of professionals in shaping proposals

One of the greatest challenges for solicitors and mediators is balancing their duty to advocate for clients with the need to keep negotiations constructive. Clients often arrive with rigid views shaped by friends’ experiences, online calculators, or assumptions about “what’s fair”.

Professionals play a crucial role in:

• Managing expectations – helping clients understand what the law provides, and where there is discretion, reduces disappointment later.
• Encouraging perspective-taking – asking clients to consider what the other party might need or fear can shift entrenched thinking.
• Highlighting the costs of conflict – both financial and emotional. Many clients are more open to compromise once they see the price of prolonged litigation.

Communication strategies during negotiation

How proposals are communicated is almost as important as their content. Tone, timing and format can all affect how an offer is received.

• Timing – introducing a proposal too early, before adequate information is exchanged, risks rejection. Conversely, delaying too long can stall progress.
• Framing – present proposals as options for discussion, not demands. “Here are two ways we could structure maintenance; which do you think would work better?” invites dialogue.
• Language – neutral, non-accusatory phrasing reduces defensiveness.
• Transparency – providing supporting documents or rationale builds trust.

Example: Instead of emailing a blunt proposal that “the children must live primarily with our client,” a solicitor could frame it as: “Given your client’s work commitments and the children’s current school routine, one option might be for them to live mainly with my client during the week, with extended weekends and holidays spent with yours. We would welcome your thoughts on whether this arrangement could work or whether we should explore alternatives.”

Final thoughts

Settlement negotiation is not a debate to be won; it is a structured problem-solving process. For divorce professionals, building credible proposals means helping clients develop multiple, well-considered options, grounded in a clear understanding of both parties’ interests. With thorough preparation, objective analysis, and effective communication strategies, practitioners can increase the likelihood of durable, workable agreements—ones that serve clients not only in the immediate aftermath of divorce but in the years to come.

Credible proposals do more than resolve disputes; they lay the groundwork for healthier co-parenting relationships, more secure financial futures, and reduced reliance on court intervention. In short, they enable separating couples to close one chapter of their lives with dignity and to move into the next with stability.

[email protected]