A single lawyer argue for both petitioner and respondent in the same case (assuming he is a disinterested but sincere and loyal lawyer).
#In a case of mutual divorce generally lawyer is same or lawyers are from same legal firm. # Petitioner and the Respondent do not trust, so same lawyer cannot argue. As people believe for argument two are needed. However parties in disagreement can arrive at a consensus and can settle the matter. Same can be granted in court of law. # Ego of parties in disagreement leads to prolong litigation. As no one wants to budge. # Court of law always want that the petitioner and respondent should compromise legally. But parties in disagreement want to go ahead with everlasting litigation. Thus appeal goes on till the Apex court. # Everything is possible but people do not want. # So whatever people want becomes a practice in any field.