In divorces by mutual consent, the negotiation of the divorce agreement between spouses and their lawyers plays a crucial role in shaping the socioeconomic consequences of divorce. However, the interpretation of gender equality in divorce law remains contested. Lawyers must navigate tensions between their professional rationality, the legal framework, and the gendered organisation of the family. This study explores how Swiss lawyers interpret and apply recent developments in divorce law and case law in light of persistent gender inequalities. It asks how lawyers assess the potential of the law to mitigate or reinforce inequality, and how they balance the legal framework, client interests, and their own values in practice. The analysis, based on qualitative interviews with family lawyers, reveals that, despite being aware of the structural disadvantages faced by women, most practitioners do not actively seek to reduce them. Three main narratives were identified: (a) a purpose-rational narrative, focused on client autonomy and a formal-egalitarian interpretation of the law; (b) a value-rational narrative, in which lawyers actively work to counter gender inequalities; and (c) an ambivalent narrative, where lawyers express concern for inequalities but fail to translate them into action – often due to institutional constraints or dual representation. These findings underline the pivotal yet ambivalent function of lawyers in (re)producing or challenging gender inequality in divorce proceedings.