The major aims of this study were to validate a previously identified classification of divorce attorneys as either psychologically-minded and cooperatively-oriented Counselors or more technically-oriented and competitively-motivated Advocates (Kressel, Hochberg, & Meth, 1983), and to assess practitioner attitudes towards divorce reform, especially divorce mediation. Eighty-one members of the New ... [Show full abstract] Jersey State Bar Association's Family Law Section were interviewed. A subset of these respondents (n=46) had previously been classified as Counselors or Advocates based on their responses to a forced-choice questionnaire which tapped the same major areas as the interview. Sixty-three percent of the attorneys (n=27) on whom both a questionnaire and interview were available were identically classified by both methods. This concordance rate was not statistically different from chance. Of the full sample interviewed, nearly all respondents espressed considerable dissatisfaction with current legal procedures. The most commonly mentioned complaints were excessive court delays, inadequate judges, and problems with opposing counsel. Divorce mediation was unpopular with more than half the respondents, although nearly 30% were favourably disposed to it. Overall, the findings are consistent with the notion that the lawyer's role in divorce is highly stressful. Methodological and conceptual explanations for the inability to validate the typology are considered, as well as the implications of the respondents views for legal reform and the acceptance of divorce mediation.