The United States appears as a legal setting in an argument about how professional rules can turn a potentially cooperative divorce into an adversarial contest. The book states that, until recently, lawyers in all fifty states could represent only one member of a divorcing couple, a restriction that could leave the other spouse without advice or compel them to hire a separate lawyer.

Legal Setting

The passage contrasts the United States with England, saying that in both places the rule had prevented one lawyer from advising both members of a couple. It attributes the restriction not simply to law but, more pointedly, to lawyers’ professional code. Its reference to all fifty states gives the example nationwide scope, while “until recently” marks the rule as having changed by the time of writing without specifying when or how.

From Cooperation to Adversarial Representation

The example follows a broader distinction between zero-sum and nonzero-sum situations. Even after a marriage breaks down, the couple may have reasons to cooperate, including their children’s welfare and the cost of paying two lawyers. Yet the one-client rule sends the spouses to separate legal representatives. The passage describes the result as a division into “us” and “them”: each lawyer speaks for one spouse against the other, and the court case is framed as one party versus the other, whether or not the couple themselves feel hostile or have agreed to remain amicable.

Costs and Significance

The lawyers’ separation, the passage argues, can enable a form of cooperation between the professionals at their clients’ expense. Each side may make proposals it expects the other to reject, prompting further counterproposals and more letters and calls. The resulting fees come from the couple’s shared resources, and the process may continue for months or years. The United States example therefore illustrates the book’s larger point: institutions can impose a zero-sum structure on people who have potential reasons to pursue mutual benefit, while the arrangement rewards others for prolonging conflict.