Five Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome Mistakes CDFAs Should Stop Making

There are roughly two camps of practitioners on Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome: those who treat it as a niche worth investing in and those who treat it as something they pick up as cases arrive. The camps diverge financially within five years and don’t recover the gap.

Intended for divorce financial coaches comparing their current approach to Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome with what experienced practitioners in the area actually do.

For divorce financial coaches, Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome sits at the intersection of financial analysis and client communication. The technical work matters but the client-facing translation matters as much. Coaches who can explain a complex Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome finding to a non-financial client in plain language produce engagements that drive better client decisions than coaches whose deliverables only the attorney can interpret.

The standard approach

The recognized standard for Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome engagements involves five identifiable phases: intake, scoping, analytical work, deliverable production, and closing. Most divorce financial coaches who have handled the work for several years would describe their process in these terms, even when they don’t use the same labels.

Standard Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome 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.

When conventional practice misses

The standard approach also fails when the practitioner doesn’t actually do Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome regularly. Practitioners handling one matter every two years can’t maintain the working depth that produces good Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome 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.

Practitioners who do Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome consistently see the same standard failures across years. Matters where the analytical methodology produces technically correct results that don’t fit the specific situation. Matters where the standard intake misses important context. Matters where the standard deliverable format doesn’t serve the actual case need. Recognizing these failure patterns at intake — and adjusting — is one of the markers of mature practice.

Variations that work better in specific contexts

Alternative approaches that work better in specific contexts: tiered engagement structures (separate diagnostic, analytical, and closing engagements with separate fees) for high-uncertainty matters; collaborative engagement structures (multiple divorce financial coaches working as a team) for unusually complex matters; phased engagement structures (initial consultation followed by deferred full engagement) for clients who aren’t yet ready to commit to full scope.

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. For deeper reference, see Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Choosing the right method for the matter

The skill that develops over years isn’t memorizing more approaches — it’s recognizing matter type quickly and selecting the right one. This pattern-recognition can’t be taught directly; it accumulates from handling matters repeatedly and debriefing what worked and what didn’t.

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.

If you’re considering Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome 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 Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome 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.

For divorce financial coaches ready to see how VennBoard supports Avoid the Shiny Object Syndrome engagements, visit VennBoard.com.