(Yes—even the “harmless” ones)
One of the most common and most avoidable mistakes people make during a divorce is communicating too freely, too casually, or too confidently with their spouse or others about divorce-related matters.
Text messages. Emails. “Just a quick call.” A well-intended explanation to a mutual friend or to a family member. A reply meant to calm things down. A message written late at night when emotions are high.
From the client’s perspective, these communications often feel reasonable, honest, or even necessary. From a legal perspective, they are often landmines. That’s too bad, but it’s the reality of the situation.
Divorce Turns Ordinary Communication Into Evidence
In a divorce, everything potentially becomes evidence. Not just what you say in court, but what you write, text, email, post, forward, delete, or “clarify” afterward.
That includes:
- messages to your spouse
- messages about your spouse
- messages to family, friends, or coworkers
- messages written “just to explain” or “set the record straight”
- messages written while upset, tired, or trying to be accommodating
- messages that are self-pitying
Courts do not evaluate these communications the way people would outside of the divorce context. They are read in isolation and while keeping in mind the other spouse’s competing narratives. What you meant is usually irrelevant (and hard for a court to determine in the best of circumstances). What you wrote is what matters.
You Don’t Know What You’re Conceding
People routinely make admissions without realizing it. A single sentence intended as empathy, compromise, or de-escalation can later be framed as:
- an admission of fault (“I know I haven’t always handled things the right way, and I take responsibility for how this affected you and the kids.”)
- a concession on custody or parent-time (“It probably makes sense for the kids to stay with you most of the time right now until things settle down.”)
- an acknowledgment of financial responsibility (“I’ll just cover the mortgage and child expenses for now so we don’t have to fight about it.”)
- a waiver of rights (“I’m not worried about what the decree ultimately says as long as we keep this informal between us.”)
- evidence of instability, guilt, or bad faith (“I can’t deal with this anymore. I’m exhausted and don’t trust myself to make good decisions right now.”)
Once said or sent, you don’t get to explain it away. And you don’t get to take it back.
Each of these statements sounds reasonable, even mature to the person writing it, because it reflects empathy, flexibility, or emotional honesty; but to a judge reading it months later, stripped of context and paired against an opposing narrative, it can read as a deliberate concession, a factual admission, or evidence of impaired judgment.
Running a proposed communication by your attorney helps ensure you’re not accidentally handing the other side ammunition.
Silence Is Often Strategic (Even When It Feels Wrong)
Many clients feel pressure to respond immediately. Silence can feel rude, evasive, or unfair, especially when the other party is demanding answers, explanations, or reassurance.
But silence is not misconduct. Silence is often the most disciplined and legally sound response available.
An experienced and wise (and yes, a decent) attorney can help you determine:
- whether a response is required at all
- whether it should be written, oral, or deferred
- whether it should come from you or from counsel
- whether responding now helps—or hurts—you later
What feels like “just being reasonable” or “just being honest” or “just blowing off steam” in the moment can look like inconsistency or weakness when read back months later in a courtroom.
Third Parties Make Things Worse, Not Better
Clients often assume communications with third parties are “safe.” They aren’t.
Friends, relatives, new partners, coworkers, and therapists can all become witnesses. Messages sent to them can be:
- subpoenaed
- forwarded
- re-told inaccurately
- quoted selectively
Even supportive messages can be reframed as evidence of hostility, obsession, or poor boundaries.
Before looping others in—or responding to them—it’s wise to get guidance on what not to say as much as what to say.
Your Attorney Sees the Traps You Don’t
This isn’t about lawyers being controlling. It’s about pattern recognition.
Divorce attorneys have seen the same mistakes made hundreds of times, often by intelligent, well-intentioned people who assumed they were being careful. They’ve seen the damage these mistakes do.
Running communications by your attorney allows your attorney to:
- spot hidden legal implications
- rephrase without escalation
- preserve your credibility
- protect your long-term objectives
- keep today’s emotions from sabotaging tomorrow’s outcome
That quick “Can I send this?” email or phone call can prevent months of damage control later.
Why This Deserves More Thought Than It Gets
In a divorce, communication is not just communication. It is strategy, evidence, and risk—wrapped together. If a proposed message touches on money, parenting, responsibility, intent, blame, fault, cooperation, or boundaries, assume it matters legally because it probably does. And can you think of any communication that doesn’t touch (at least potentially) on at least one of these subjects? Get the picture?
Running it by your attorney first isn’t paranoia. It’s discipline. It’s prudence.
And discipline and prudence in divorce win far more cases than unguarded disclosure ever does.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277