Comparing Advantages and Disadvantages of Uncontested vs. Contested Divorce

An admittedly biased comparison, argued honestly

Let's get the disclosure out of the way: I run a flat-fee uncontested divorce practice, so you can guess where this article lands. That said, I intend to argue it fairly - including the genuine disadvantages of the uncontested route, and the situations where a contested divorce isn't just an option but the correct one. Here's the comparison, category by category.

Cost

An uncontested divorce through my office runs $850 to $1,200 or so in attorney fees, flat and quoted down to the dollar, plus the $150 filing fee. A contested divorce starts with a retainer - commonly several thousand dollars - and bills hourly against it, with the total determined by how long the disagreement lasts. Nobody can tell you the final number in advance, because nobody knows. When the marital estate is modest, it is entirely possible for a contested case to spend more on attorneys than the value of what's being fought over, which is a math problem worth doing before the fighting starts.

Time

Uncontested: 45 to 60 days, give or take, with the mandatory 30-day waiting period making up most of it. Contested: commonly a year or more, between discovery, motions, continuances, and crowded court dockets. Time isn't just an inconvenience, either - it's a year or more of your life spent with the divorce hanging over it.

Privacy, control, and stress

These three travel together. In an uncontested case, you and your spouse decide every term - who keeps what, how the Parenting Plan works, whether maintenance is paid - and in most of my cases neither party ever appears in court. In a contested case, those decisions are progressively handed to a stranger in a robe, the details of your marriage become the subject of testimony, and the process itself has a way of turning two people who merely disagreed into two people who genuinely dislike each other. I know no one wants to go through a divorce at all, but there is a real difference between a hard chapter that lasts six weeks and one that lasts eighteen months.

The honest disadvantages of uncontested divorce

Now the other side of the ledger. First, an uncontested divorce requires a complete agreement - property, debts, custody, support, all of it. "We agree on almost everything" is close, but close doesn't count; both parties must be ready, willing and able to sign the paperwork. Second, nobody in an uncontested case is evaluating whether your deal is a good deal - I prepare the paperwork to reflect your agreement, but I don't referee it. If you suspect your spouse is hiding assets, or you're agreeing to terms because you feel pressured or unsafe, the uncontested route's efficiency works against you, because it will efficiently finalize a bad agreement.

When contested is the right call

And that's precisely when you should hire a contested divorce attorney: when there's no agreement and no realistic path to one, when assets are being concealed, or when there's abuse or intimidation in the picture. I tell clients straight up - if you do not know that your spouse will sign, then do not waste your money on me. A contested case needs an advocate, and that is a different job than mine.

To recap:

• Uncontested wins on cost, speed, privacy, control, and stress - it's not particularly close.
• Uncontested requires full agreement on every issue, and nobody referees the fairness of your deal.
• Contested is the right tool when agreement is impossible, assets are hidden, or safety is a concern.

Thank you for reading. Please feel free to contact me for more information.