Few areas in family-law practice differentiate practitioners as cleanly as First Things First. The ones who do it well build referral relationships that survive economic cycles; the ones who do it casually pick up the occasional case and never quite know why some clients fit and others don’t.
This is for divorce financial coaches who are tired of generic ‘develop your practice’ advice and want specifics about First Things First specifically.
The economics of First Things First engagements for divorce financial coaches usually favor flat-fee or tiered-fee structures over hourly billing. The work is well-defined enough to scope cleanly, and clients usually prefer predictable costs. Coaches who develop reliable scoping templates can produce consistent margins where hourly-billed coaches absorb variable amounts of scope creep.
The standard approach
The conventional approach to First Things First for divorce financial coaches has settled into a recognizable pattern over the past decade. Most practitioners follow a similar intake structure, a similar analytical sequence, and a similar deliverable format. The convergence reflects real practical wisdom — these patterns work for most matters most of the time.
Standard First Things First practice has become well-defined enough that CLE programs, professional standards bodies, and practitioner texts all describe roughly the same workflow. The substantive details vary by jurisdiction and matter, but the structural pattern is consistent across most practitioners doing the work.
Where the standard fails
The standard approach to First Things First fails in identifiable ways. The first is when the matter has unusual structural features (multi-state, international, business-owner with complex compensation) that the standard workflow doesn’t accommodate well. The second is when the parties have unusual dynamics (high conflict, significant power imbalance, financial abuse) that the standard intake doesn’t surface. The third is when the substantive area has been changing recently and the standard analytical methods haven’t caught up.
The standard approach also fails when the practitioner doesn’t actually do First Things First regularly. Practitioners handling one matter every two years can’t maintain the working depth that produces good First Things First outcomes. The standard approach assumes the practitioner has internalized it through repetition; when that’s not true, the standard becomes a checklist that produces checklist-quality work.
Variations that work better in specific contexts
Experienced divorce financial coaches working in First Things First routinely depart from the standard approach in specific ways. They invest more in the intake than the standard contemplates — sometimes 90 minutes or more — because the early diagnostic shapes everything downstream. They produce more interim communication with clients and co-professionals because long matters drift without it. They review their analytical work with peers before delivering, because solo work product has blind spots.
Seasoned practitioners also vary the deliverable format based on the matter. Standard memo format for negotiation-track matters. More extensive written report for litigation-track matters. Oral presentation with supporting materials for mediation-track matters. The same underlying analysis, presented in different formats, lands differently in different contexts.
Matching the approach to the specific case
A practical decision framework: standard approach for matters within the typical range; alternative approaches for matters with specific identifiable variations; new structures for matters that don’t fit any prior pattern. Practitioners who can recognize which category they’re in at intake produce better engagements than those who run the same workflow regardless of matter type.
Choosing the right approach for a specific First Things First matter starts with reading the case carefully at intake. Is this a procedurally clean matter or a contested one? Are the parties cooperating with discovery or fighting it? Is the timeline driven by negotiation or by court calendars? The answers shape which version of First Things First workflow makes sense. For deeper reference, see Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.
If you’re considering First Things First as a focus area and you want one concrete commitment to make: pick the upcoming family-law conference closest to you and commit to attending every year for the next five years.
How VennBoard fits in
Practitioners who handle First Things First repeatedly find that the back-office infrastructure is the difference between a practice that scales and one that absorbs the practitioner. VennBoard provides the structured workspace that lets you focus on the substantive work — the part that actually compounds.
If you’re a cdfa building a focus on First Things First and looking for the operational backbone, visit VennBoard.com to see how it fits into your practice.
Further reading
IRS Publication 504 (Divorced or Separated Individuals)
National Center for State Courts