Written by My Collaborative Team member, Alfred Zeiler, CPA, CBA, CVA
In collaborative divorce cases, we talk a lot about assembling the right professional team—attorneys, a neutral facilitator (mental health professional), and a financial neutral. But what happens when one spouse has substantial investable assets and little to no experience managing them? That’s when we might bring in an investment advisor or financial planner.
It’s important to understand that the role of an investment advisor in this context is very different from that of the financial neutral. The financial neutral is a core member of the collaborative team, working impartially with both spouses. The investment advisor, on the other hand, serves just one client and their fiduciary duty lies solely with that individual—much like the attorneys.
This can present challenges.
In a litigation setting, an advisor might recommend a growth-heavy investment strategy to keep projected income low, which could justify higher alimony. That kind of strategy might be more acceptable in an adversarial process, but in a collaborative case, that kind of positioning doesn’t fit.
The collaborative process is built on transparency, open communication, and shared problem-solving. It’s an interest-driven process, not a position-driven one. Instead of taking firm stances, the team works to uncover each spouse’s underlying concerns and goals. From there, we help build options—creative, flexible, and informed pathways forward. Option-building is at the heart of successful collaborative resolutions.
So when an investment advisor enters the process trying to frame outcomes in a way that maximizes their client’s financial benefit, it can inadvertently derail the very spirit of the process. And some advisors, particularly those who are experienced in the financial aspects of divorce, may unintentionally overstep by making assumptions about how alimony should be structured. For instance, they might assume a portion of alimony should go toward savings or suggest that support should be calculated without considering investment income until a “maximum need” is met. These types of assumptions can interfere with the collaborative team’s work, both financial and emotionally.
That’s why clear communication is essential.
As the financial neutral, I work directly with the investment advisor to provide context—sharing what alimony or need options have been discussed, including assumptions about type of support, duration, terms, etc. I also make sure they’re aware of other sources of income, such as employment or Social Security, that may affect the plan. Most financial planners are perfectly capable of incorporating this information once it’s made available—they just need to know what to work with.
I ask investment advisors to prepare multiple scenarios, all using a moderate risk profile:
- A balanced portfolio with a reasonable mix of growth and income.
- An income-oriented portfolio emphasizing steady cash flow from investments.
- A growth-oriented portfolio skewed toward long-term appreciation.
These options allow the team—and the client—to better understand the financial implications of different choices and build solutions around shared interests.
When investment advisors understand and respect the principles of collaboration, they can be a valuable part of the process. But they need to be brought in with clarity around their role, and with guidance from the collaborative professionals already involved.
Because in collaborative divorce, it’s not about “winning.” It’s about helping clients build a sustainable future, guided by their interests, supported by professionals, and built through thoughtful, informed, option building.
