Separate or Joint Representation?

One troubling question that arises for married couples when they work on their estate planning documents is whether they should have one attorney represent them jointly or whether they should have two attorneys represent them separately. Both these options have their benefits and problems. For example, joint representation is often more economically efficient, and it can build trust among members of the family. However, clients might desire more privacy, which is the primary benefit of separate representation by two different attorneys.

There are several factors that couples might want to consider when deciding whether to have an attorney represent them jointly. An indicator that a couple might need separate attorneys is if there are likely to be conflicts in how they want to divide the estate. For example, if one spouse has children and the other spouse does not, or if there is income gap between the spouses and the poorer spouse is dependent on the other for income. The duration of the current marriage or the number of past spouses can also become a problem. A couple might need separate representation if the couple needed separate lawyers for earlier marital agreements, such as a prenuptial agreement. The most obvious reason a couple might want separate representation is if one of the spouses has a secret that could affect the estate planning of both spouses, such as another partner. 

See Deborah L. Jacobs, Estate Planning For Couples: Should It Be A Solo Or A Duet?, Forbes, Apr. 10, 2012.

Special thanks to Jim Hillhouse (Professional Legal Marketing (PLM, Inc.)) for bringing this article to my attention.