We did the equivalent of that (collaborative law) in France. It worked really well. The lawyer laid out what we needed to come to an agreement on, and pointed out the "flaws" in our initial agreements in regard to whether the judge would sign off on the agreement. It worked well for us overall. But we were both reasonable and there were no MAJOR conflicts and my EX was racked with guilt for asking for the divorce so he was, perhaps, even more reasonable than he might have been if the tables had been turned.<br><br>
It is actually a guarantee of the neutrality of the lawyer(s) that they can't continue to represent you if it becomes adversarial... And an incentive for them to keep it fair and consentual. After all, they lose clients if an agreement can't be reached, and since they can't keep on either party, there is less risk that they will "woo" the party with the highest ability-to-pay if (or when, if they're secretly looking to higher fees) it becomes adversarial.