Does the family law industry profit from conflict? - part 2 of 8
What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
Evidence published for review
Every source row behind this page is currently marked unverified: an automated check matched every quote and number to an archived copy of its source, and an independent review pass read every row, but the per-row human sign-off defined in the research methods has not been recorded yet. Check any claim against the sources list before relying on it.
The best-known divorce cost figures come from commercial surveys that do not publish their methods. Court data on case duration and self-representation are stronger. The asset-depletion claim - that litigation goes on while a family can pay - has no direct data either way.
What divorce costs, according to surveys
A financial publisher's reproduction of a 2019 Martindale-Nolo survey reports an average divorce cost of $11,300 and a median of $7,000 [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011]. It lists average attorney fees of $4,100 with no contested issues, $10,400 where a dispute was resolved outside court and $17,700 where a dispute went to trial, and fees of $6,500 for divorces completed in less than six months against $23,000 where the process took more than 30 months [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, Average divorce attorney fees: $11,300 CST-011].
The archived page publishes no method or sample size, its table and prose figures differ slightly, and it also describes $11,300 as a cost per spouse, so the figures may be per spouse rather than per divorce [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011].
In an online panel survey of 1,000 US adults who had finalized a divorce involving custody in the past two years, run for a custody-scheduling software company, respondents reported a median cost of $12,000, excluding support and property division [Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012]. The median was $18,000 when both parents had lawyers, nearly $8,000 when one did, and $500 when neither did [Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012].
The survey is self-reported and cannot separate cause from selection: complex or high-conflict cases may be the ones in which both parents hire lawyers [Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012].
Beyond these self-reported survey figures, no study in the evidence base ties fees to measured conflict level, the number of contested issues or case length. This page therefore does not state that fees rise with conflict as a measured relationship [The Motley Fool (Martindale-Nolo figures), 2025-09-12, The Average Cost of a Divorce CST-011; Custody X Change survey, 2021-07, Study shows parents most likely to settle, sh... CST-012].
How long cases take
In eleven large urban courts (147,436 domestic relations cases disposed July 2016 to June 2017, about 8 percent of the national caseload), 68 percent of divorce cases resolved within 120 days, 76 percent within 180 days and 86 percent within 365 days, after subtracting statutory waiting periods [NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 4 CST-001; NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 21 CST-001]. The national model time standards call for 75, 90 and 98 percent in those windows [NCSC Model Time Standards, 2011-08, PDF p. 24 CST-004].
In Texas, 58% of all family law cases (a total that includes child support cases) were disposed within 6 months and 81% within 12 months for September 2017 to August 2018 [Texas Office of Court Administration, 2019-06-28, PDF p. 4 CST-005].
The same national study found that contested and uncontested cases did not differ significantly in mean time to disposition [NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 4 CST-001].
How cases end
A 1994 review summarizing a California study of 1,124 families reports that custody and visitation issues were uncontested in half of the divorces and settled without court help in nearly one-third more; the remaining one-fifth used court procedures, and 1.5% of all families had custody "decided by a judge" [The Future of Children, 1994, PDF p. 3 CST-007]. The review cautions that the estimates were not intended as incidence statistics and are tied to that state's procedures [The Future of Children, 1994, PDF p. 3 CST-007].
In California in fiscal year 2006-07, 1,551 of 130,213 marital family-law dispositions followed a court trial (1.2 percent in the printed table) [Judicial Council of California, 2008, PDF p. 62 CST-010]. The rest mix settlements with defaults, dismissals and uncontested judgments, so the table is not a settlement rate [Judicial Council of California, 2008, PDF p. 62 CST-010].
The 2018 national study could separate settlements from adjudicated and default judgments in only six courts; there, about 26% of cases resolved by settlement and 33.9% presumably through an adjudicative process, so its data do not show that most cases settle [NCSC and IAALS, 2018, PDF p. 19 CST-001].
Self-representation at filing and at disposition
In Colorado, 67% of the 34,846 domestic relations cases filed in fiscal year 2015 had no attorney for any party, and 75% of the 69,951 parties had none when the data were extracted [Colorado Judicial Branch, 2015-12, PDF p. 2 CST-015]. In the national study's courts, 72% of cases had at least one self-represented party [Texas Office of Court Administration, 2019-06-28, PDF p. 2 CST-005].
California's Judicial Council reported that family-law petitioners were self-represented at filing in an average of 67 percent of cases, and at disposition in 80 percent of dissolution cases [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009]. The two figures come from different data sources (an average of court-reported local rates, and statewide administrative data counting petitioners only), in a report from about 2004 [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009].
The California report read that difference as showing that "while some litigants may be able to afford representation at the time a case is initiated, they can not maintain it through disposition" [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009]. That explanation is the report's own reading, not a survey of litigants [Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009].
Neither the Colorado nor the California data record why parties lack counsel [Colorado Judicial Branch, 2015-12, PDF p. 2 CST-015; Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009].
The asset-depletion claim
The closest official statement found is that 2010 California task force's: "People who start out with attorneys at the beginning of their cases often run out of money and become self-represented before their cases are over" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002]. A 2008 volume from the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) says of high-conflict families that "The litigation costs drain their finances", citing secondary works [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
No study, audit or court report found measures legal fees as a share of marital or family assets, or when cases settle relative to the assets left. The claim that litigation typically continues until assets are exhausted is neither supported nor disproven by direct data [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002; Judicial Council of California, 2004, PDF p. 14 CST-009; AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013].
The same task force wrote that in some courts "There can be long delays in getting contested matters heard" and that "Clients get billed for this unproductive time, which drives up the costs for representation unnecessarily" [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 16 CST-002].
No source found measures how much billed time court delay adds to a case [Judicial Council of California task force, 2010-04, PDF p. 12 CST-002].
Do a few high-conflict cases use most of the court's time?
The AFCC volume states that high-conflict families "compose approximately 8% to 12% of the domestic relations cases" yet "require about 90% of the family court's attention" [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013]. A 2023 Family Court Review perspective gives an estimate of 5-10% and says such cases "consume a disproportionate amount of court resources" [Family Court Review, 2023-12-17, Abstract CST-006]. Both attribute the figures to works from 2004 [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013; Family Court Review, 2023-12-17, Abstract CST-006].
The 1994 review's own figures put "substantial" legal conflict at 10% of families and "intense" legal conflict at 15% [The Future of Children, 1994, PDF p. 3 CST-007]. A Canadian government review found definitions of high conflict "vague and inconsistent" [Department of Justice Canada, 2004, 4.2 External Markers of High Conflict CST-008]. NCSC guidance cautions that the number of hearings in a case "might also be indicative of multiple, repetitive filings rather than high complexity" [NCSC, undated, Complexity & conflict CST-014].
The primary source for the 90 percent figure could not be found, and no court-records study measuring the share of judicial time used by high-conflict cases was located. This page does not say that a small share of cases uses most court time [AFCC, 2008, PDF p. 11 CST-013; NCSC, undated, Complexity & conflict CST-014].
Sources for this section
0 of 182 rows in the evidence base have a recorded per-row sign-off. What the explainer does not claim.
CST-001 The Landscape of Domestic Relations Cases in State Courts (Family Justice Initiative)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n=147,436 domestic relations cases (about 8 percent of the national caseload) disposed July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 in eleven large urban courts; court administrative case data; time to disposition adjusted by subtracting each site's statutory waiting period; US.
Reliability notes: Court administrative data from eleven large urban courts; not a random or nationally representative sample. Disposition coding is incomplete (only six courts distinguish settlement from default and adjudication; 'presumably' adjudicated). Published by NCSC with IAALS as part of a family-justice reform initiative. Cost and fees were not measured. The same report finds 72 percent of cases had at least one self-represented party and that contested and uncontested cases did not differ significantly in mean time to disposition (pdf p.5 and p.26 of this archive; not quoted). Pre-2020 data.
Pages quoted: pdf p.4; pdf p.19; pdf p.21. Claim tags: C2.2+ C2.4~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-002 Elkins Family Law Task Force: Final Report and Recommendations (April 2010)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: task force report; the findings come from 15 months of information gathering, outreach and discussion, not from a sampled dataset.
Reliability notes: Government task force assertions without a cited dataset in the quoted passages; the $300 per hour and $5,000 retainer figures are unsourced averages. The run-out-of-money statement is the closest official statement to asset or income exhaustion found for claim C2.3 but is anecdotal and does not measure fees as a share of assets. Single state, 2010 (post-recession context).
Pages quoted: pdf p.12; pdf p.16; pdf p.16. Claim tags: C2.1~ C2.2~ C2.3~ C2.5+
Cited in: How family-law fees are set and billed,What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
CST-004 Model Time Standards for State Trial Courts (2011)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: model standards document; counts 27 states and DC with overall divorce time standards.
Reliability notes: A recommended benchmark, not data on actual case duration. State standards vary and many are looser than the model. Used here only as the yardstick for the compliance figures reported in the Landscape row. Third-party copy: the NCSC document as hosted on the Texas Judicial Branch website (txcourts.gov), not the NCSC site.
Pages quoted: pdf p.24; pdf p.24; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C2.2~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Texas figures: administrative court filings for the state fiscal period Sept 2017 to Aug 2018; the national figures summarise the NCSC Landscape study sample. Presentation slides; no methods text.
Reliability notes: Slide deck summarising other data; the 72 percent figure is derivative of the NCSC Landscape row. The Texas 40 percent counts petitioners only at the time of filing and so is not comparable to 'at least one party' measures; Texas family law totals include IV-D child support cases, not just divorce and custody. Contrasts with Colorado (75 percent of parties without counsel) and California (80 percent of dissolution petitioners pro per at disposition).
Pages quoted: pdf p.2; pdf p.3; pdf p.4. Claim tags: C2.5~ C2.4~ C2.2~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: narrative synthesis / perspective article; no original data or sample.
Reliability notes: Perspective piece, not an empirical study; the 5-10 percent range and the 'disproportionate' claim are cited to secondary works (2004) that were not located or verified in this evidence base. No measure of share of judicial time is given. Authors are affiliated with a prevention-science institute and a county court that run parent-education programs, so the article advocates for such programs. Full text via PMC author manuscript; quote is from the abstract. The 250,000-500,000 conversion applies 5-10 percent to all domestic relations filings, which include protection-order, support, paternity and adoption cases (see DAT-006), so it is not a count of separating parents.
Pages quoted: section: Abstract. Claim tags: C2.6+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-007 High-Conflict Divorce (The Future of Children, vol. 4 no. 1, Children and Divorce)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Secondary review of a study of 1,124 families with 1,875 children recruited from divorce filings in two California counties and reinterviewed at one year and two and one-half years.
Reliability notes: Secondary summary (the primary book was not accessible); the copy was obtained from a third-party host (the journal's own site copy could not be located), but its page headers read 'Children and Divorce, Vol. 4 No. 1, Spring 1994' and 'The Future of Children'; the review itself says the figures 'were not intended as incidence statistics' and that the proportions are linked to California's and the local county's procedures and could differ elsewhere. Two California counties and a study that is now decades old (filing years are not stated in the quoted passage), so age and generalisability are limited. The 10 percent 'substantial' and 15 percent 'intense' legal-conflict figures give about 25 percent [derived: 10 + 15 = 25], a larger share than the 5-10 percent usually quoted. The review elsewhere (pdf p.12) describes 'high-conflict' families as about one-tenth of all divorces.
Pages quoted: pdf p.3; pdf p.3; pdf p.3. Claim tags: C2.4+ C2.6~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-008 High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration (2004-FCY-1E)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: literature review and policy options paper.
Reliability notes: Canadian government review, not US data, and about twenty years old; included because it documents that the definition of 'high-conflict' is contested, which limits what any percentage claim in claim C2.6 can mean. It reviews literature rather than court records.
Pages quoted: section: 4.2 External Markers of High Conflict; section: 4.2 External Markers of High Conflict. Claim tags: C2.6~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Court-reported averages from trial court action plans plus Judicial Branch Statistical Information System (JBSIS) statewide administrative data; reference years not stated in the quoted passage; California.
Reliability notes: Official state judicial council report, old (circa 2004) and California only. The 67 percent figure is an average of court-reported local rates; the 80 percent figure is from statewide administrative data and counts petitioners only. The explanation that cost is the reason is the task force's characterisation, not survey data from litigants. The inference that litigants run out of money is the report's own reading ('These data suggest'). The archived copy shows no cover date; 2004 is the date commonly given for this plan. The third quoted sentence (pdf p.52) is from an appended paper, 'Description of California Courts' Programs for Self-Represented Litigants', dated November 2003, not from the task force's own findings.
Pages quoted: pdf p.14; pdf p.14; pdf p.52. Claim tags: C2.5+ C2.3~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statewide administrative counts of dispositions reported by all California superior courts via JBSIS, fiscal year 2006-07 (family law (marital): 130,213 dispositions); California.
Reliability notes: Official statewide count, but the data are from fiscal year 2006-07 (about 18 years old) and the 'other before a trial' bucket mixes negotiated settlements with defaults and uncontested judgments, so it cannot be read as a settlement rate. Covers dissolution, legal separation and nullity (marital), not post-judgment custody motions. Trial by declaration may be counted as trial. The column mapping (ninth column = family law (marital)) was checked against the table header and the separate dissolution table.
Pages quoted: pdf p.62; pdf p.62; pdf p.62. Claim tags: C2.4~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-011 The Average Cost of a Divorce (reproducing Martindale-Nolo Research 2019 survey figures)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Method not published in this archived copy (secondary reproduction of a 2019 Martindale-Nolo survey; respondent count and sampling not given). The original Nolo page could not be archived (blocked).
Reliability notes: Commercial survey seen only through a secondary financial-publisher website (its page says some listed products come from partners that compensate it); the underlying Nolo page was blocked (HTTP 403; Wayback copy HTTP 402). Respondents are self-reported and the page does not describe how they were sampled, so costs cannot be treated as representative and the survey cannot show fees as a share of assets. Medians are given for only some categories. Averages are pulled up by high-cost cases. Table and prose figures conflict slightly (for example $10,600 versus $10,400; $20,379 versus $17,700), apparently because one lists total costs and the other attorney fees; treat them as approximate. 2019 data. The page also repeats, without a source, that divorce 'older studies' show a 77 percent wealth drop, which is not used here.
Pages quoted: section: The Average Cost of a Divorce; section: The average cost of divorce; section: Average divorce attorney fees: $11,300. Claim tags: C2.1+ C1.4+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
-
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n=1,000 US adults who finalized a divorce involving child custody in the past two years; online panel (Pollfish); margin of error 4% as stated by the company; self-reported.
Reliability notes: Commercial survey by a software vendor, via an online panel; self-reported costs and outcomes, no verification against court records. 'Settlement' is not defined in the quoted text, and the cost figure excludes support and asset division. Causal direction is unclear (the company's cofounder says more research is needed): complex or high-conflict cases may be more likely to involve two lawyers. Median, not mean. 2021 data.
Pages quoted: section: Study shows parents most likely to settle, share custody when both have attorney (+ other stats); section: Attorneys and custody outcomes; section: Other divorce and custody findings. Claim tags: C2.1+ C2.4+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-013 Innovations in Interventions with High Conflict Families (Introduction)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: introduction to an edited volume; figures attributed to other 2004 works (not examined).
Reliability notes: This is the most-repeated form of the 'small share, most of the attention' claim, but the passage gives no method and 'attention' is undefined. The primary study it cites could not be located in this evidence base, so treat 8-12 percent and 90 percent as unverified assertions of the professional association. The 'litigation costs drain their finances' sentence is likewise an assertion, not a measurement of fees against assets. The editors and chapter authors work in this field and have a professional interest in interventions for these families.
Pages quoted: pdf p.11. Claim tags: C2.6+ C2.3~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim,What the evidence cannot show
CST-014 Family justice performance measures (Family Justice Initiative)
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: n/a: guidance web page; no sample.
Reliability notes: Guidance for courts, not data. Relevant because it suggests that courts lack a standard measure of the share of court time used by high-conflict cases; the 'disproportionate resources' claim therefore has no standard court-data definition. Undated page (copyright 2026).
Pages quoted: section: Complexity & conflict. Claim tags: C2.6~
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim
CST-015 Cases and Parties without Attorney Representation in Civil Cases, FY 2015
Sample, method and reliability
Sample or method: Statewide administrative court data, all Colorado domestic relations cases filed July 2014 to June 2015 (34,846 cases, 69,951 parties), extracted December 2015; counts entered attorney appearances.
Reliability notes: Official statewide counts, a full population rather than a sample, but one state and one year (2015). Measures attorney appearance as of extraction (December 2015); per the report, a party whose attorney ever entered an appearance stays counted as represented even after withdrawal, and counsel entering after extraction are not captured. It does not record why parties lack counsel, so it does not speak to cost as a reason. Domestic relations here include administrative support orders.
Pages quoted: pdf p.2; pdf p.2; pdf p.1. Claim tags: C2.5+
Cited in: What cases cost, how long they take, and the asset-depletion claim