The Singapore Law Gazette

Therapeutic Justice in Practice: Reflections from the Bar

I. The Shift to Therapeutic Justice-minded lawyering

1. Family law practice has shifted from an adversarial model to a paradigm that prioritises amicable means of dispute resolution wherever possible, particularly when the interests of children are involved.
2. In a recent article in the Law Gazette, “Redefining Winning: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know About Therapeutic Justice”, the authors explain, inter alia, the adoption of therapeutic justice as the overarching philosophy in the family justice system, the introduction of the TJ Model, and provide suggestions for counsel on the expectations of TJ. The TJ Model’s gradual but pervasive influence in the family law community has led to a marked reduction in acrimony amongst fractured families.
3. Prior to the formal adoption of TJ as the overarching philosophy in the family justice system in 2020, progress had already been made to shift the family justice paradigm away from an adversarial stance. The simplified track for divorce proceedings was introduced in 2015 for spouses who agree on all issues relating to the divorce and ancillary matters. Since then, the proportion of divorce cases filed on the simplified track has increased steadily, from 24% in 2015 to 66% in 2023. Recently, Senior Minister, Coordinating Minister for National Security, and Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam noted that about two-thirds of some 6,000 divorces annually were filed on the simplified track, which has allowed cases “to be resolved even faster, at lower cost, with less friction for the parties and their children”.¹Speech by SM K Shanmugam at the Launch of the “25 Years of Legal Reform in Singapore” Book Series. Of the cases proceeding on the simplified track in 2023, 94% were concluded within six months.²Response by Minister for Law K Shanmugam at the Committee of Supply Debate 2024 at [32c].
4. For cases that proceed further in the Family Justice Courts, the TJ Model assists counsel by providing a concrete, actionable framework to advise their clients, and levels the playing field by setting a standard of conduct expected of litigants and their counsel.³Justice Teh Hwee Hwee: Keynote address delivered at the Family Conference 2024 at [8]. The framework integrates mediation and counselling, which have been effective over the years in helping parties resolve contested cases with minimal acrimony. Of the 1,060 cases that underwent mediation under the auspices of the Family Justice Courts in 2023, approximately 88% were fully or partially settled.⁴Response by Minister for Law K Shanmugam at the Committee of Supply Debate 2024 at [32c]. Settlement rates have remained consistently high.
5. Notably, the TJ Model recognises the important role that lawyers play in explaining the Court’s approach, reducing acrimony, assisting in finding common ground and generating solutions for better outcomes. For example, the TJ Model states that lawyers should consider “whether the instructions from their clients will serve to escalate or prolong the conflict between the parties and / or between parents and children. If so, they should guide their clients towards alternatives that are less inflammatory, and which take into consideration the long-term interests of the family / children”.⁵TJ Model at para 9(b). See also para 14 on “The role of lawyers”.
6. Indeed, the traditional adversarial process may not be the most suitable for divorce proceedings. This process inevitably and almost certainly generates more conflict and tension between parties, and fosters the mindset that one party must lose in order for the other party to win. This is ultimately detrimental to the family unit, especially if there are children involved.
7. However, family law cases are often multi-faceted. Parties are dealing with powerful emotions such as anger, hurt, betrayal, mistrust and grief, and the impact of the court orders is deeply personal. Given the nature of the cases, the practice of family law in accordance with the principles of TJ is not always clear-cut.
8. In this article, we focus on common challenges that lawyers may face in their cases and share practical insights on how learned colleagues have effectively navigated these tensions to achieve positive outcomes for clients and their children. These insights are not intended to be prescriptive, but are shared in the spirit of mutual learning. In a similar vein, Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts, Justice Teh Hwee Hwee, recently invited members of the Family Bar to add their reflections to the growing conversation on TJ, so that others can learn from their experiences.⁶Welcome Remarks delivered at the 5th Therapeutic Justice Annual Meet (TJAM) by the Honourable Justice Teh Hwee Hwee, the Presiding Judge of the Family Justice Courts, 18 September 2026 at [12].
9. The practitioners’ reflections speak to three recurring challenges: (i) how to bring a client who is emotionally affected round to a more constructive approach; (ii) how to advance a client’s case whilst trying to avoid increasing the level of acrimony between the parties; and (iii) what to do when the issues confronting the distressed family go beyond what the lawyer and legal solutions can resolve.

II. Navigating Cases the TJ Way

(1) Getting the client onboard with the TJ approach

10. When a family experiences distress, lawyers are often the “first responders”, advising their clients before the matter even commences in the Courts. Naturally, family lawyers are aware of the critical role that they play from the moment that their clients walk through the doors. This includes explaining the value of TJ approaches and the importance of assessing the conflict from a longer-term perspective. Reflecting this, the TJ Model expressly sets out the expectation for lawyers to explain to their clients the aims of TJ and the Court’s approach under the TJ Model.⁷TJ Model at para 9(b).
11. However, this is not always an easy task. Challenges arise as the clients are often extremely emotional: they may still be working through their disappointment with the other party, wish to seek “revenge” or vindication, and expect their lawyers to be adversarial and help them achieve the outcomes they want.
12. A case in point was cited by Mr Ahmad Nizam, the Managing Director of Crescent Law Chambers, who recalled: “A man approached me and said that “if I engage you, your job is to make sure my wife does not get more than 10-15% of our assets… I engaged in conversation with him and got him to tell me about the things he and his wife had done together and the times they had spent with the children… He had [the] emotional capacity to eventually realise that the wife’s role, while different from his, did not mean she had not contributed to their wealth.”
13. In such instances, some family lawyers have found that it is important to first acknowledge the reality of the client’s experiences, before helping them to refocus their sights on the future. Ms Noelle Teoh, Associate Lawyer at Gloria James-Civetta & Co, said: “I think it is important first to recognise and acknowledge that what they have experienced in the past may have been painful and difficult…. while we cannot change what has happened, we can consider… how they can move forward in a way that is constructive for themselves and their family.”
14. Another approach is to explain how TJ actually aligns with and meets the client’s interests, even if that is not apparent to the client at the start. As Ms Hitomi Yap, Senior Associate at Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC, said: “We … [link] the process to how it benefits [the clients] (e.g. less time and costs spent, less stress during the divorce process, and less impact on the children if there are any)… [Further] since TJ is the expectation for all parties, their spouse would also be subject to the same expectations, and they are not “losing out” by [practising] TJ.”
15. The experiences shared by counsel suggest that a TJ approach is not something the client must simply come to accept automatically. Rather than minimising the client’s emotions and experiences, or persuading the client to abandon his or her preferred positions, counsel may work with the client through a process of acknowledging the client’s experiences, managing expectations and ultimately, reflecting with the client on whether the client’s preferred positions would truly further the interests of the client (and the family’s longer-term interests, especially where there are children). Through this process, a family lawyer can then get the client on board with the TJ approach.

(2) When the client wants to “fight”: advocating without escalating the dispute

16. In many cases, parties in the midst of divorce proceedings find themselves in highly stressed situations. As parties take legal positions on issues such as child-related orders, division of matrimonial assets and maintenance, their perspectives are often coloured by ongoing conflict that continues to unfold. For example, discord could worsen where a parent seeks child maintenance to meet the child’s needs, but the other refuses to contribute unless there is increased access to the child. In such instances, tensions may run high and easily spill over into inflammatory rhetoric and increasingly entrenched legal positions.
17. In such cases, lawyers must weigh the client’s predicament and objectives against the risk that the client’s preferred manner of pursuing them could escalate the dispute to the detriment of the client and the children involved. From there, the family lawyer may then explain and guide the client towards a better solution.
18. Mr Rajan Chettiar, Managing Director of Rajan Chettiar LLC, recalls: “In a contested access matter I handled, the opposing counsel wrote to Court to inform the Court that their client is terminating the interim access and made certain personal allegations against my client… the client wanted a strongly worded correspondence [despite efforts to dissuade the client]… At the mediation session, I explained to the Court why I wrote such a letter and apologised to the Court.”
19. Ms Hitomi Yap has also reinforced to the client that the lawyer’s paramount duty is to the Court, stating that “while we have a duty to advance the client’s interests, this duty is subordinate to our duty to the Court and thus to TJ.”
20. Lawyers also manage such situations by being candid with the client about the consequences of their proposed approaches. As Mr Eugene Chan, Of Counsel of Harry Elias Partnership LLP, says: “…I am candid [with the client] about how the Court may view conduct that unnecessarily escalates conflict…”
21. Under the TJ Model, in making costs orders, the Court does consider whether, among other factors, the party has conducted himself or herself in line with the aims of TJ.⁸TJ Model at para 17(c). As cited in the TJ Model, examples of conduct that the Court may consider include using the court process as a platform to make personal attacks or insult the other party (GHI v PP [2024] SGHC 220); extending the dispute into a “protracted and bitter fight” (Chan Choy Ling v Chua Che Teck [1995] 3 SLR(R) 310); and insisting that the Court addresses each and every point in the dispute, regardless of significance or merit (VDX v VDY and another appeal [2021] SGHCF 2 at [39] and BOI v BOJ [2018] 2 SLR 1156 at ⁹TJ Model at para 19.^[3]).
22. Therefore, the clients’ preferred approaches are not merely questions of “tone” that a lawyer can simply adopt without due consideration. As Ms Angelina Hing, Director of Integro Law Chambers LLC, notes in relation to balancing TJ objectives with legal advocacy: “Personally, the challenge sometimes is when I have clients who feel deep-seated emotions and need to go through the litigation process …and the client insists on expressing his/her feelings in a certain manner in letters or affidavits and keeps inserting their inputs despite attempts to “sanitise” the drafts in keeping with the TJ approach – going through many drafts of this cycle is draining, and sometimes frustrating.”
23. Instead, the lawyer will need to navigate advancing and pursuing the merits of the client’s case, whilst presenting the case in a manner that upholds the principles under the TJ Model. This does not mean that counsel should shy from advancing a client’s case strongly and vigorously where necessary.
24. That said, strong and vigorous advocacy must be tempered with an awareness of the longer-term impact on the family, as illustrated by Mr Clement Yap, Partner at Harry Elias Partnership LLP: “There can… be tension between securing a short-term litigation advantage and advancing broader therapeutic objectives. For example, exhibiting a recording of a child speaking to a parent in confidence, or seeking to have a child testify in Court, may strengthen a client’s legal position. However, such steps may also cause significant harm to an already fragile co-parenting relationship and could adversely affect the child’s emotional well-being… a TJ-focused advocate cannot be concerned solely with the immediate benefit of a particular course of action. Equally important is an appreciation of the longer-term consequences that may flow from it.”
25. This tension is addressed in the TJ Model itself, which provides that lawyers should consider whether their clients’ instructions will serve to escalate or prolong the conflict between the parties and/or between parents and children; and that if so, they should encourage and work with their clients towards alternatives that are less inflammatory, and which take into consideration the long-term interests of the family and children.¹⁰TJ Model and para 9(b). Specifically, lawyers are to adopt a cooperative and constructive approach in conducting court proceedings, for example, by advising the client to: (i) avoid provocative or inflammatory conduct and language in correspondence, court documents and courtroom communications; (ii) file applications only if necessary; (iii) file affidavits that are concise, clear and relevant; and (iv) refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits, such as photographs or video recordings that are unnecessary and/or detrimental to the children’s best interests.¹¹TJ Model at para 14(e).
26. Mr Jonathan Chan, Partner, Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, similarly observed that the litigation process can itself affect the prospects of an amicable resolution. He said: “Another challenge is balancing between preserving the client’s legal position whilst leaving the door open for amicable resolution and safeguarding familial relationships as far as possible… often the filing of court documents itself leads to the escalation of conflict, and entrenchment of parties’ positions, ossification of old wounds… The Courts are mindful of such challenges, and do encourage amicable resolution wherever possible. There is also guidance and case law that controls the nature of the evidence that may be put forth, in a manner to minimise the harm to Children and damage to relationships.”
27. These experiences illustrate that TJ does not require lawyers to cease being advocates for their clients. Some disputes will inevitably require adjudication, and counsel must continue to protect and advance their clients’ legitimate legal interests. The challenge is instead one of making a considered assessment together with the client as to whether a particular step is necessary, having regard to the potential advantage to the client and the wider consequences that may flow from it.
28. In family proceedings, an immediate tactical advantage may therefore not provide a complete measure of whether a particular course is ultimately in the client’s interests. The manner in which the case is conducted may itself affect children, co-parenting relationships and the parties’ ability to move forward after the proceedings have concluded. Where proceedings concern children, these considerations assume particular importance given the principle that the welfare of the child is the “paramount consideration”.¹²WKM v WKN [2024] SGCA 1 at [1].

(3) Recognising that one lawyer cannot do it alone – working across the Bar and across disciplines

29. A further theme that emerged from the practitioners’ experiences is that even when family lawyers do their best to practise in accordance with TJ principles, there are limits to what one lawyer can achieve alone. This is because cooperation between counsel may be required to fashion constructive solutions, and the issues underlying a family dispute often extend beyond legal solutions.
30. In relation to cooperation between counsel, Ms Sophia Rossman, Senior Associate at Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC, said: “[The TJ approach] only works if all lawyers involved… are prepared to focus on practical solutions and avoid taking an unnecessarily adversarial approach.”
31. Mr Shaun Ho, Partner at Withers KhattarWong LLP, also said that the greatest challenge to implementing the TJ approach may be: “counsel who may have a different view as to how family disputes are to be resolved… This means that a lawyer who may not have been exposed as much to the idea of TJ, or who simply do not believe in it, may practice in a different way.”
32. Cooperation between counsel does not mean that lawyers must necessarily agree on all the substantive issues or compromise their clients’ legal positions. Rather, it allows those disagreements to be addressed without unnecessary personalisation or escalation, and creates space for proposals to be discussed, refined and potentially agreed upon. Under the TJ Model, lawyers are expected to facilitate problem-solving and collaborate with the Court and the other party to generate options and solutions, and make reasonable proposals.¹³TJ Model at para 14(d).
33. Often, all that is needed is a call.
34. Mr Ho said: “I am very grateful that the vast majority of my learned friends at the family bar practice in a very TJ-oriented manner already. It is not difficult for us to pick up the phone and talk to each other. Correspondence is rarely nasty. Submissions in Court are never personal and we keep it to the issues.”
35. However, even when lawyers are collaborative, there will be cases where legal interventions alone are not sufficient to resolve the problems on hand. Often, entrenched perspectives may be driven by psychological, emotional and relational issues that a court order cannot, by itself, resolve.
36. The challenge is for the lawyer to recognise when something more than legal intervention is needed.
37. Ms Chan Yu Xin, Partner at WongPartnership LLP, described circumstances in which the appropriate response may be to bring the matter into the court system so that other forms of support can be engaged: “If the client’s objectives do not meet TJ objectives, and the client does not undertake therapeutic work on his or her own accord, it would be appropriate to bring the matter into the court system so that it may be triaged quickly and parties may receive the multi-disciplinary support needed to put parties on the path to healing as soon as possible.”
38. Recognising when other forms of support may be needed requires additional expertise. Under the TJ Model, the requisite competencies and skillsets of judges and family lawyers include soft skills and techniques, such as interpersonal and communication skills, knowledge of basic social science concepts, familiarity with the different types of therapeutic or other related support services and knowledge of wider multi-disciplinary topics such as housing and rental options.¹⁴TJ Model at para 21.
39. On the non-legal skills that family lawyers need to develop and how they acquired them, Ms Sophia Rossman, Senior Associate, Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC, said: “A key non-legal skill is learning how to communicate with clients in a way that can sometimes be akin to counselling. This includes listening to them, understanding what is driving their concerns, managing expectations and helping them work through the immediate emotions so that they can make considered decisions. I developed this mainly through experience and speaking to many different types of clients…”
40. Ms Rossman added: “…Lawyers are not counsellors, but we should be able to recognise when a client or child may benefit from additional support and know where to direct them.”
41. Ms Lee Wan Sim, Senior Associate, CNPLaw LLP, said: “… emotional intelligence, including being sensitive to the parties’ past experiences in their relationship and their emotions/stress about the legal process. This emotional intelligence is what I learned along the way in practice, when managing clients, spending time to talk to them and understanding their situation.”
42. These skills do not turn lawyers into counsellors. Rather, listening and emotional intelligence may help the lawyer understand what lies behind the client’s stated position and, importantly, recognise when the client’s or child’s needs extend beyond what the lawyer (and the law on its own) is equipped to address. These skills are also relevant to knowing when and how to draw on the support available beyond the legal process.
43. Where such needs are identified, lawyers should be familiar with leveraging the support available within the wider family ecosystem. Ms Remya Aravamuthan, Managing Director of High Street Chambers LLC, said: “Familiarity with community counselling and therapeutic services is extremely important for family lawyers. In my experience, referrals to qualified counsellors or therapists can provide significant relief and support, especially in contentious cases involving children. These professionals help children navigate the trauma and anxiety that often arise from high-conflict divorces…”
44. Mr Shaun Ho, Partner, Withers KhattarWong LLP, described what may lie beneath the legal positions adopted by parties: “…Underneath the surface, the litigants are grappling with fear (of uncertainty, of instability), with trust issues, and / or guilt over being embroiled in disputes with family (or soon to be ex-family)… Sometimes, counselling / therapy can also provide clients with epiphanies that may lead to them being able to come to an amicable resolution of the matter.”

48. Looking ahead, practitioners expect the family lawyer to become increasingly familiar with the work of other professionals in the family justice ecosystem. Mr Ahmad Nizam observed: “Family Lawyers will be more familiar with social services sector. This will help them see things beyond only a legal lens… Mixing and exchanging experiences with social workers and counsellors is like chicken soup for the soul. Their care and empathy will rub off on you.”

49. Mr Rajan Chettiar similarly envisaged a broader skillset: “[A good family lawyer] must be familiar with social sciences which are relevant to the conflicts faced by children and the family. They should possess various soft skills such as mediation and collaborative family practice. They must be able to work effectively with other members of the family law ecosystem such as family therapists, psychologists, divorce coaches and financial experts when solving clients’ problems. They need to be good problem solvers.”
50. The point is not that the family lawyer should assume the functions of these other professionals. Rather, TJ recognises that different participants may bring different expertise to bear on the issues faced by a distressed family. Effective TJ-minded lawyering may therefore require both the skills to appreciate what is driving the dispute and the insight to recognise the limits of what the lawyer can resolve. This means identifying what legal solutions can address, what requires therapeutic and other forms of intervention, and how the different stakeholders can work together to reach a constructive and sustainable outcome.

III. Concluding Thoughts: the Future of TJ-minded Lawyering

51. Family lawyers are uniquely placed to reduce conflict, help clients focus on enduring outcomes, and connect families with the support they need to move forward constructively. In this way, the responsibilities of a TJ family lawyer are not merely aspirational but key drivers of its success.
52. The experiences shared by our learned colleagues illustrate that the practice of TJ is not always straightforward. It calls for an assessment on when and whether there is a need to reframe a client’s immediate instincts, when a litigation step may ultimately do more harm than good, and when the lawyer should look beyond legal solutions altogether.
53. This broader conception of family lawyering under the TJ Model does not displace the lawyer’s role as an advocate. However, truly advancing the client’s interests in the family context may require the lawyer to look beyond the mere achievement of the client’s stated legal objectives, and address harder questions about whether the steps taken unnecessarily add to the conflict or carry longer-term consequences for the family and children.
54. As Ms Remya Aravamuthan, the Managing Director of High Street Chambers LLC, notes: “The primary challenge lies in embracing the shift towards [the TJ approach] and guiding all parties to engage meaningfully in this transformative process…achieving genuine change – where parties integrate new perspectives and move towards healthier lives – requires time and patience.”
55. The reflections of the lawyers also underscore that TJ cannot depend on the efforts of any one participant. Indeed, the TJ Model describes the common mission of family justice participants as helping parties arrive at timely and enduring solutions with minimal conflict, so that relationships may be preserved as far as possible, healing can begin and parties can move towards the best possible future for themselves and their children.¹⁵TJ Model at para 11.
56. As Ms Angelina Hing said: “I have found the work especially meaningful and fulfilling when everyone within the family law ecosystem plays their respective roles effectively, and there is a strong flow of communication and collaboration…When we recognise that we are all working towards the same goal, each within our respective roles, the process becomes far more constructive.”
57. We are heartened by the willingness of our learned colleagues to share how they bring the principles of therapeutic justice into their everyday practice. Their reflections (from how they support clients through difficult decisions, to how they engage opposing counsel, to knowing when to draw on support beyond the law) offer valuable, ground-level insight into what therapeutic justice can look like in practice. We hope these experiences will encourage and guide family lawyers to continue working together towards a mode of practice that better serves the families that they represent.

This article is a product of a collaborative initiative by representatives from the Family Law Practice Committee of the Law Society, the academia and the Family Justice Courts to further increase awareness of therapeutic justice. The views expressed are the authors’ own.

The authors would also like to extend their heartfelt appreciation to Andrea Ang for her contributions to the article.