If you've been involved in a contentious divorce settlement case, the outcome was likely affected by the discovery rules of procedure. Because spouses tend to secrete or minimize the existence and value of marital property, it's important to undertake rigorous discovery of assets.

I've come across an article by Ed Lederman, a prominent Denver attorney, who is critical of Colorado's special divorce discovery procedures. He believes divorce discovery should be handled like any other civil case. I don't agree with the attorney's basic premise that discovery doesn't require different rules for family and divorce law. I think the mandatory discovery is a good approach. The goal, once a divorce case is filed, is for both sides to be prepared to fully disclose all documentation.

There are generally five steps in discovery:

In marital property states, divorce courts are bound to distribute marital property "equitably" — not necessarily equally. Discovery procedures become the tool to facilitate a fair settlement.

Lederman seems to prefer the "no holds barred" approach and does not see the need for special rules for divorce. He also decries the simplified financial affidavit which Colorado put in place. This financial summary, in my judgment, is less complicated and less of a burden for ordinary clients. He strongly argues against the new rule which calls upon parties to attempt to select one joint expert per issue where the value of assets is contested.

It may be that his views are colored by the type of clients he represents. Ordinary parties to a divorce will benefit from joint experts in saving money and time. Colorado is correct in simplifying rules of discovery for settling contested cases with great dispatch. What are your experiences with the discovery process?