For the first time, Brad Pitt has spoken publicly about his divorce from Angelina Jolie, offering rare insight into how the former couple chose to handle their separation. In a recent GQ Style interview, Pitt explained that they deliberately avoided court proceedings, citing the emotional toll and adversarial nature of litigation. His comments have sparked broader discussion about whether resolving a divorce outside the courtroom is a practical and effective option for separating couples.
on Global News, Shulman & Partners LLP weighed in on the issue, providing legal context around why many families choose alternative dispute resolution methods such as mediation or arbitration. The discussion highlights how privacy, efficiency, and the desire for finality often drive couples to seek solutions beyond the traditional court process, while also acknowledging that court involvement is sometimes unavoidable.
Brad Pitt’s reflections on his divorce emphasize a concern shared by many separating couples: the emotional and practical cost of litigation. In his interview, Pitt described court proceedings as an environment that intensifies conflict, where parties can spend months or even years focused on proving fault rather than moving toward resolution. To avoid that dynamic, he and Angelina Jolie chose to address their separation privately.
Shulman & Partners LLP explained that this approach is particularly common among high-profile individuals, where privacy is a significant concern. Court proceedings are public, meaning financial disclosures, parenting disputes, and personal details can become accessible to others. However, the same considerations apply to non-celebrities who want to limit stress, protect children, and keep sensitive information confidential.
Importantly, resolving matters outside of court does not mean avoiding legal scrutiny. It was emphasized that regardless of whether couples choose mediation, arbitration, or negotiation, lawyers must still conduct full due diligence. This includes reviewing financial disclosure, assessing support obligations, and ensuring parenting arrangements are workable and fair.
The discussion also clarified the difference between mediation and arbitration. Mediation is a collaborative process where a neutral third party helps couples reach agreement, but cannot impose a decision. Arbitration, by contrast, allows an arbitrator to make binding decisions on issues such as spousal support, custody, and access. Arbitration can provide structure and finality while maintaining privacy and efficiency.
That said, court proceedings remain necessary in certain circumstances. They noted that urgent issues such as child abduction, unpaid support, or time-sensitive disputes may require immediate court intervention. Additionally, when one party is unwilling to cooperate or negotiate in good faith, litigation may be the only viable option.
Ultimately, most separating couples share a common goal: finality. Whether through court or alternative processes, reaching resolution allows families to move forward and begin the next chapter of their lives. The appropriate path depends on the facts of each case, the level of cooperation between parties, and the urgency of the issues involved.
Watch the full Global News segment here.
This media appearance is part of Shulman & Partners LLP’s ongoing contributions to Canadian family law discussions. Explore more of our media features in our In the Media archive.