Some 72,000 divorce lawyers in the United States make a fortune from the conflicts that arise when marriages fall apart. The consequences for the people involved: frayed nerves, traumatized children, and a severe financial setback. Legal tech startup Bliss Divorce wants to break this toxic cycle. Using proprietary machine-learning mediation, it guides couples toward fair compromises—without expensive lawyers. We spoke with co-founder and CEO Scott Seidewitz about the taboo subject of divorce and why algorithms can sometimes be more empathetic mediators than people.
Scott Seidewitz wants to fundamentally change the divorce market. Alongside technology experts from Silicon Valley and experienced family law attorneys, he is building Bliss Divorce, a platform that uses algorithms to structure conflicts and help estranged couples reach workable agreements. The idea is to digitize more than legal documents: the platform aims to digitize the path to consensus itself.
Scott, many online divorce services advertise forms and faster proceedings. But take a closer look at the U.S. divorce market, and you’ll see a deep divide. What systemic problem led you to start Bliss Divorce?
Scott Seidewitz: Divorce in the United States is a profoundly destructive experience—not just for the two people separating, but for the entire family. Let’s start with money. A conventional divorce costs a family an average of $20,000 to $30,000. That might not sound like much to wealthy investors, but for the average American household, it can wipe out their savings and threaten their financial security.
There’s a remarkable long-term study from Ohio State University. Ten years later, families that went through a divorce had 77 percent less wealth than comparable families who stayed married. The financial wounds often don’t heal for an entire decade.
And the economic damage is probably only half the story.
Scott Seidewitz: Exactly. It’s just the tip of the iceberg. Worse than financial ruin is the emotional exhaustion. The current legal system is fundamentally flawed. Two opposing attorneys represent the spouses in a strictly adversarial, hostile setting. The system creates the wrong incentives. Lawyers earn more when conflict escalates and the dispute drags on.
I’m not saying lawyers are bad people. But the system rewards them for pushing the maximum demands on behalf of their clients instead of looking for common ground. And who suffers most during this months-long battle? The children. They have to live through their parents’ conflict every day.
At its core, Bliss Divorce is about systematically removing conflict from the process—even when the parents are at odds. We want to resolve things faster, for a fraction of the cost, and with far less pain.
Between Form Filing and Conflict Resolution: Where Legal Tech Has Reached Its Limits
Many online services have already digitized the divorce process, but usually only at the administrative level. They help people fill out forms and document agreements in a legally sound way. But what happens when the spouses can’t agree? Disagreements over assets, support, and parenting arrangements are often where the real conflict begins. That’s where Bliss Divorce comes in: the platform aims not only to document outcomes, but to use algorithms to make it easier for couples to reach an agreement.
Many online services also promise an affordable divorce. What sets Bliss Divorce apart from existing providers?
Scott Seidewitz: We’re the only ones using artificial intelligence to replace lawyers in the negotiation process. Nearly every other platform just handles the paperwork. They essentially write down the agreement the two parties have already reached. But writing down an agreement is the easiest part of the entire process!
The real Herculean task is getting two people who are emotionally devastated, angry, or afraid to sit down together and reach a workable compromise at all. That’s what our technology does. We call it “Digital Divorce Mediation.” It took years to develop and refine these algorithms.
We deliberately don’t rely on generative language models or uncontrolled large language models. Instead, we use machine-learning algorithms to compare precise mathematical and legal parameters. Our AI has a success rate of more than 90 percent in resolving all disputes in divorce cases involving assets worth up to $4.5 million.
$4.5 million is a substantial amount. But divorce isn’t just about account balances; it often involves complex personal circumstances.
Scott Seidewitz: That’s right. Assets are only one part of it. Our platform covers all six essential areas of divorce through dedicated modules: bank and investment accounts, the family home, personal property, liabilities and debt, spousal and child support, and custody, including detailed parenting plans.
Custody is where couples often get stuck on everyday details they hadn’t even considered before: What happens on holidays? Who has the kids on Mother’s Day, and who has them on Father’s Day? How are birthdays divided? We guide both parties through all these questions in a structured way, so each can clearly state what they want.
How does interacting with the software work? Do the estranged spouses sit in front of a screen together?
Scott Seidewitz: Good heavens, no! That would be a recipe for an immediate blowup. Each spouse gets a completely independent account on the platform. They don’t have to exchange a single word throughout the process if they don’t want to. Each person interacts only with the software. That removes a tremendous amount of hostility from the situation.
Before any disputes are addressed, we focus on education. Most people have no idea how divorce works legally. In the first phase, states such as California require both parties to disclose all assets and debts. People often call our support team and ask, “Why are you asking me to import my retirement funds or my IRA account?” Then we explain it in short, easy-to-understand videos: the law requires it. In the United States, you can’t get a legally valid divorce without full financial disclosure.
Once both people have entered their information, does the algorithm take over as mediator?
Scott Seidewitz: Exactly. Both parties enter their positions in the six modules. The AI compares their responses and immediately identifies where they already agree and where they differ.
The system then sends tailored questionnaires to both sides to understand their priorities and willingness to compromise. Their answers feed into the algorithms, and the system proposes specific compromise options. In 90 percent of cases, one of those options is accepted outright or after minimal adjustments made with the help of the software.
Users can also turn to our digital divorce coach at any time. It’s an AI assistant with strict safeguards that explains legal basics and helps people through emotional moments without giving inaccurate advice.
The Psychology of the Machine
Why can a dispassionate machine succeed where experienced therapists and mediators often struggle? The answer lies in behavioral economics. In highly emotional negotiations, people are prone to what’s known as the “reactive devaluation” effect: they reject a proposal simply because it came from the other side. The machine disrupts that dynamic.
Isn’t it paradoxical that an emotionless computer could be better at de-escalating conflict than an empathetic person?
Scott Seidewitz: It sounds counterintuitive at first, but it’s backed by research. There are compelling behavioral studies on negotiation. When the same compromise proposal comes from a neutral machine, the parties are much more likely to accept it than when it comes from the other party or their lawyer.
You may still feel frustrated, but psychologically, it’s much harder to get angry at a computer than at your ex. The machine has no agenda. It doesn’t judge. It simply calculates a fair mathematical model. Of course, we still have moments when people get triggered—when they happen to run into each other or old wounds resurface, for example. Sometimes they call our customer service team while upset. But so far, we haven’t had a single case where that permanently stalled the process. People calm down and return to the platform.
What happens in the nearly 10 percent of cases where the AI falls short?
Scott Seidewitz: For that remaining 10 percent, we bring in a human mediator online. The advantage is that the mediator doesn’t have to start from scratch and spend hours gathering basic information. Usually, only one or two specific issues remain unresolved. The human mediator focuses on those details, and the divorce agreement is complete.
Where are the absolute limits of your technology? Are there divorces where you say Bliss Divorce can’t help?
Scott Seidewitz: Yes, there is a limit, and we’re very open about it. Both sides need at least a minimal willingness to reach an agreement and move on with their lives. They don’t have to like each other. They can disagree completely on almost every issue. But they have to be willing to engage with the resolution process.
If one party isn’t interested in a fair solution and is focused solely on punishing their ex, destroying them emotionally, or draining them financially, our algorithm gives up. No software can fix pathological revenge-seeking. Unfortunately, in those cases, people have little choice but to hire armies of lawyers and fight a drawn-out, costly divorce battle in court. Fortunately, that’s the minority. Most people simply want a fair outcome, to protect their own interests, and to finally move forward.
The Evolution of the Business Model
In Silicon Valley, startups tend to rush unfinished products to market with aggressive marketing. Bliss Divorce took the opposite approach. After a disappointing launch with an early prototype, or MVP, the founding team hit the brakes and spent years quietly fine-tuning its algorithms.
You don’t often hear about startups deliberately slowing their growth. You launched your first MVP with just two modules. What were the toughest lessons from that early stage?
Scott Seidewitz: We started with two modules for dividing assets and required a human mediator to be involved in every case. The user feedback was a real shock. People hated having to work with a human mediator. Without realizing it, we had recreated the very problem we wanted to eliminate: human friction, scheduling issues, and emotional tension.
It suddenly became clear that a minimum viable product built around human labor wasn’t solving the problems of the existing system. We had to automate the process radically. So we decided to scale back growth completely instead of chasing users blindly, like many tech startups do.
Instead, we spent several years painstakingly refining the algorithms with small groups of cases. So far, we’ve guided more than 120 real cases from start to finish, all the way through final court approval. We’re now seeing the results of that patience: in the last 44 divorces we handled, the AI resolved every dispute completely on its own in 41 cases.
That kind of development work must require deep legal and technical expertise. Who’s behind it?
Scott Seidewitz: We’ve brought together an exceptional core team that’s putting its heart and soul into this. Our CTO, Dan Hirsh, left a 13-year career at tech companies such as Intel and McAfee to build these algorithms with us. We’ve known each other for many years through my work as a consultant.
On the legal side, we work closely with Robert Sanders, a well-known California family law attorney, and Randy Kessler from Atlanta. Randy is the former chair of the American Bar Association’s Family Law Section—one of the foremost authorities on U.S. family law, who regularly appears as an expert on CNN and Court TV. The fact that leading attorneys of this caliber are not only helping develop the platform but have also invested their own money in Bliss Divorce shows how ready the system is for disruption.
From Client to Customer: The Economics Behind the Business
The numbers in the U.S. divorce market are enormous: more than one million divorces a year represent a market of around $2 billion in direct service fees alone. Add to that a fragmented landscape of 72,000 law firms. Economically, traditional legal services resemble a black box: opaque hourly billing meets clients in the midst of a major life crisis. Bliss Divorce offers a software-based, fixed-price model in its place.
There are 72,000 divorce lawyers in the United States—that’s a powerful lobby. How has the legal profession responded to your model? Aren’t you worried about lawsuits from bar associations?
Scott Seidewitz: We operate strictly within the legal requirements for dispute-resolution software and legal self-help platforms. As for what lawyers generally think of us? Honestly, I hope a lot of them are starting to sweat. What many law firms deliver is neither good nor affordable service for families.
We constantly hear shocking stories: clients pay a $5,000 or $10,000 retainer up front. After a month in which almost nothing has happened, their lawyer tells them the retainer is gone and asks them to send another $10,000. No price transparency, no predictability. We have some forward-thinking attorneys on board as investors and advisors who welcome change. But the broader market is defensive. We’re challenging a system that has profited from inefficiency for decades.
Let’s talk about the economics. How exactly does Bliss Divorce make money, and how scalable is the revenue?
Scott Seidewitz: We combine a traditional software-as-a-service (SaaS) model with success-based fees.
The key advantage is that the cost of providing our software—our cost of goods sold—approaches zero. Our main operating expenses are marketing to acquire customers and customer support. That makes the model fundamentally high-margin.
You mentioned the post-divorce market, which has a lot of potential for follow-on business.
Scott Seidewitz: Absolutely. Divorce is a legal transaction, but above all, it’s a life-changing event. Once the process is over, people start over. They need to open new bank accounts, apply for their own credit cards, update their insurance, often change their last name, and completely rethink their estate planning. Some want to start dating again after a while and use dating apps.
We connect people with all these services through a curated affiliate network. We don’t monetize that aggressively; instead, we offer users reliable partners as they start fresh. We’re using our new funding to expand this significantly.
The Expansion Strategy: From California to the World
Family law in the United States is governed at the state level. That creates a regulatory hurdle that makes scaling harder, but also a substantial barrier to entry for competitors. Once you’ve navigated the complex legal landscape, you can build a market position that’s difficult to catch up with.
You’re currently raising $500,000 to $600,000 through Wefunder. What milestones are coming up in the next few months?
Scott Seidewitz: We’re investing that money directly into growth. We’re bringing our chief marketing officer, Lindsey Ellison, who has been working with us part-time, on board full-time. We’re expanding the marketing team, strengthening support, and investing heavily in performance marketing, SEO, influencer partnerships, and AI search optimization.
Our roadmap is clearly laid out. We started in California, the largest U.S. state by population. Next, we’ll roll out the platform in Texas. Both states follow the “community property” principle. After that, we’ll expand to the remaining eight states that use this legal framework.
Then we’ll adapt the software for states that follow “equitable distribution.” Our goal is to operate in 30 to 32 of the most populous U.S. states.
What do your financial projections look like if that plan works?
Scott Seidewitz: We’re targeting a 10 percent market share in each market we enter over a period of three to four years. In the first year after our current funding round, we want to generate around $8 million in revenue in California alone.
In the second year, with Texas added, we’re targeting operating cash-flow break-even so we can fund further growth entirely from our own revenue. If we’re established in about 30 core states in five years and reach 10 percent market share in each, we’re talking about around $150 million in annual recurring revenue.
What happens after that? Do you have a plan for smaller states like North Dakota or Wyoming?
Scott Seidewitz: At some point, smaller states stop making economic sense. It’s not practical to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars adapting software for a state with only one million residents. At that point—perhaps three to four years from now—we’ll face a strategic fork in the road: Do we go international or expand into other areas of legal conflict?
For example, we’ve already been contacted by an investor group from Brazil. Brazil has more than 150 million residents, and family law is regulated centrally at the national level there—a huge and highly attractive market.
At the same time, our principle is this: if our algorithms can resolve the highly emotional disputes involved in divorce, they can do it anywhere. Contract disputes in business, landlord-tenant disputes, shareholder conflicts—the mechanics of finding compromise are mathematically the same. If we expand into those areas, our growth could shift from linear to exponential.
To wrap up: Looking back over the past few years, why take on such a difficult challenge in such an emotionally charged industry?
Scott Seidewitz: I’m often asked, “Scott, why work in divorce? It’s such a negative, sad industry.” I see it the other way around. Of course, it’s tragic when a marriage ends. But it’s an unavoidable part of human life.
As a society, we have a choice. Do we keep standing by while an outdated, greedy system emotionally destroys families, traumatizes children, and wipes out their savings? Or do we use the most advanced technology available to make this unavoidable transition as gentle, fair, and affordable as possible?
We’re not just building a highly profitable company in a billion-dollar market that’s ripe for change. We’re giving families back their dignity and financial future during the darkest hour of their lives. And that’s why every day spent working on this project is worth it.
Scott, thank you for sharing such deep insights into your company.
