Why are clients willing to pay for coaching during divorce litigation? Because feelings really do matter to our clients

"You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free..." John 8:32

For more than 35 years now, since my third year in law school as a clerk in a boutique family law firm, I have had the privilege of listening to family law litigants tell me their stories. Most are disturbing and sad, tragic for the children involved, some are funny, and all involve the clients expressing their deepest desire to "tell their story" in their own way, and have someone really understand what they have experienced and what they fear.

As a pioneer and innovator in this unique niche in the litigation consulting industry, I frequently have to help family lawyers figure out a way to explain the value of my services to their clients. As litigants have become more and more cost conscious, lawyers have become more and more reluctant to talk to their clients about how a talented and experienced coach and consultant could help them and their families navigate a very trying and expensive process. This reluctance is a combination of prudent business and professional judgement and of a failure to understand the depth of the emotional strains faced by their clients who feel victimized by a system they don't understand and can't control. Some of my more empathic lawyer friends have truthfully told me they call me because they "really don't want to listen to that ..." and they know I will not only listen and help the client, but then provide them with legally relevant information that will help them win victories for their clients.

As a shrink who operates in a world full of trial attorneys, I have taken a fair amount of mostly good-natured ribbing about being interested in our client's' "feelings".  (To be honest, there are times when the attorney part of me doesn't care much about those feelings either.)  Now, advances in brain imaging and monitoring have provided the scientific foundation for why "feelings matter" to our clients. The research exposed participants to a very confusing and stressful set of unfamiliar circumstances (sounds like family law litigation to me-just saying). The imaging and monitoring technology showed a brain clearly in chaos: rapid, spiking EEG waveforms, and an overall chaotic pattern of brain over-activity (recognize any clients yet?). Only one intervention was required to completely change the brain wave patterns to normal, rhythmic, stable, modulated, and calm: correctly labeling the "feeling" being experienced. Even I was impressed with the speed and the totality of the measured and experienced effect. 

Who knew? I do now, and so  do you. Labeling feelings helps the brain organize itself. Knowing the truth about what the feeling is (an accurate label) allows the brain to change the way it functions and return to normal, and it happens fast!

The other value that skilled coaching brings to family law litigants (and their lawyers) is the developing the ability to perform relevant and critical litigation tasks at a high level of skill.  Lawyers seldom remember that the most widely experienced fear for 2/3 of our clients is: fear of public speaking (testifying). And as my clients have told me, this fear is magnified because they believe that if they fail to perform, they will lose their children (and that could actually happen).  

Teaching people the rules of evidence relevant to their testimony, the psychology of non-verbal persuasion in the courtroom for witnesses, cross examination and direct examination skills, and replacing fear with confidence provides clients with just the value that the credit card commercial claims: it's priceless.  

For parents in custody litigation, knowing they did their part in contributing to putting on a good case, even if they didn't get exactly what they wanted, provides peace of mind that eludes litigants who do poorly in a deposition or in court. More of my clients have wished aloud that I had been hired sooner than have complained about my fees or that I was hired at all (the ratio is about 1000 to 1--there's always one). 

As lawyers, even family lawyers, it's easy to ignore, minimize, or brush off those messy "feelings" that come with family conflict and the resulting chaos. Just remember, it's not the client's "will power" that needs adjustment, it's their brains.  There's help for that. 

Now you know the truth...Call me.

Why Narcissists are a Threat to Truth and Justice--And Not Just in Family Courts

The narcissistic paradox: Narcissists have the ability to inspire confidence in their grandiose assertions about themselves without a shred of evidence of their competence.

For those of us who must deal with narcissists (Narcissistic Personality Disorder or NPD) as a part of our personal or professional life, whether as clients, partners, spouses, employers or bosses, few relationships are more challenging and frustrating. Literally millions of dollars are spent each year on professional counseling by the hapless victims of these charming, successful, and intelligent but toxic people to try to figure out how to live with inevitable scars resulting from a relationship of any kind with a narcissist. 

The personal suffering of the millions of victims of NPDs has been well documented over the last 20 years or so by many talented and articulate writers. Both the DSM-V and Sam Vaknin (a self-admitted NPD himself) have clearly explained the characteristics of NPD, and I won't repeat that list here. Rather, I want to address the toxic and systemic impact of narcissism on the functioning of the courts, particularly the family court system, and the Courts' decisions about conservatorship of children.

As we all learned in law school, our system of justice is predicated on the principle that out of the conflict of two trained advocates zealously representing the differing interests of their clients before an objective trier of fact, the truth will rise like a Phoenix out of the fires of conflict. I contend that in too many family court cases where an NPD is a party, this fundamental assumption about how truth is uncovered and justice is administered is fatally flawed.

First, when a NPD divorces, their spouse is already at a significant disadvantage. Spouses of NPDs are inevitably grossly wounded by their relationship, and many are so wounded that they have symptoms similar to those of combat veterans and PTSD sufferers. Worse, the isolation that they have lived with as a normal feature of their marriage has prevented them from realizing that the criticism, threats, insults, and humiliations that they suffered in private were NOT their fault, and they are NOT worthless human beings. As a result, they are difficult clients to represent because they have such low expectations that anyone can help them, and have to learn to stand up for themselves again. 

This background of humiliation and intimidation makes meeting with a divorce attorney a surreal experience where they are asked about details of their married life they frequently know nothing about: money, property, investments, and other assets. Inquiries about the children are more comfortable, and these moms are frequently very engaged with their kids (sometimes overly so). As mom's attorney begins to prepare for negotiating the terms of temporary orders for visitation, conservatorship, and support, the spouse's unease grows as she realizes that the odds of an agreement without a fight are very low. Furthermore, she knows how persuasive her NPD husband can be and how fearful she is of facing him in court.

Second, increasingly crowded family court dockets mean that time allocated for temporary hearings is declining. This trend favors NPDs, who can make damaging and completely specious allegations about their wounded spouse in their hearing testimony with no fear of being successfully challenged by their spouse's attorney with contravening facts.  
Two more core characteristics of the NPD style only make the challenge of finding facts in a short hearing even more difficult. NPDs respond to challenges of their outrageous fictions in two predictable ways: first, they "double-down" on the allegations and make even more grandiose and fictitious claims about their own character, accomplishments, and parenting ability; second, they increase their personal attacks on their spouse, again with no regard to the actual facts or the effects of those attacks on the mother of their children.

One ironic NPD characteristic is actually helpful to the insightful attorney representing the spouse of a NPD. One of the primary ways that NPDs cope and protect their grandiose views of themselves as "all good" or perfect, is to blame their opponents for actions they themselves are doing. For example, in a recent case, an NPD dad accused his ex-wife of substance abuse, but when the court ordered drug tests, the results showed that HE was using cocaine and pot, while his ex had nothing but prescription drugs ordered by her doctor in therapeutic doses in her blood. [Multiple instances of this pattern are currently in evidence in the race for president of the US]. 

Bottom line: If you want to know what an NPD has done or is doing that they know to be wrong or "bad", listen to what they are accusing their opponent of doing!

The problem for family courts who do their best to find the truth and administer justice for children and families is this: While our legal process is the best in the world for catching witnesses in a lie, that process takes time in court for painstaking fact-checking in cross examination and the requisite pre-trial preparation to work. In a world where Twitter's 140 character limit now sets the standard for meaningful communication, NPDs have substantial advantage, and the same goes in Courts who only have time for a 45 minute hearing to make a decision. 

The abbreviated hearing system is tilted toward the charm, confidence, and baseless but alarming allegations of the NPD litigant whose lies are unlikely to be successfully challenged in 20 minutes. As I teach my coaching clients, confidence is a large component of how people (and Courts) evaluate witness credibility, and NPDs have the charm, intelligence, cunning, and confidence to be very credible sounding witnesses while they spout an ever changing string of outright lies.

The system is likewise tilted against the shell-shocked spouse of the NPD who knows the allegations are completely false but largely because of her toxic relationship with the NPD appears anxious, confused, uncertain, and is unable to defend herself agains the lies and be an effective witness for herself and her children. And she knows that after the hearing is over, regardless of the outcome or what the Court orders, the NPD is going to do exactly what he wants to do anyway because that is what he has always done.

Advanced Practice Tips and Tools for Attorneys Representing the Spouse of NPDs:

1. If your client looks unusually anxious, depressed, hopeless despite being married to a highly successful, professional, executive, or especially political, man suspect NPD in the man and get the wife to confirm the list (Google narcissistic personality to find everything you need).

2. Suspect hidden assets and extramarital relationships as well as substance abuse from the outset. NPDs will do or say anything to get what they want or think they deserve.

3. Remember, whatever the NPD is telling his attorney about your client is mostly self-serving lies, and the opposing attorney is most likely "under the spell" of the charming and persuasive NPD. Remember the old joke "Q: How can you tell when X is lying? A: His lips are moving" was written about NPDs.

4. Take the time to prepare your client to testify in the hearing by first, getting a good marital history that you also need to prepare for cross examination of the NPD spouse, and second, by coaching and practicing her direct testimony and the expected cross examination. (Some witnesses freeze when they hear the enormous lies and incomprehensible allegations about themselves for the first time in court; they just can't process it fast enough)

5. NPDs only back down when they are humiliated in public, in my experience. Their grandiose and perfect self image is the most important thing in life to them; if that's damaged or in danger, they lose interest in litigating and are more likely to be amenable to settlement.

Research shows that witness training improves the accuracy of testimony

Traditionally, both judges and lawyers looked on witness "coaching" with considerable suspicion. Judges were concerned about lawyers subverting the judicial process by using their witnesses as a "mouthpiece" for the lawyer to improve their cases. Lawyers were suspicious of other lawyers for the same reason. No one considered the plight of the witness very much.

Fear of speaking in public is the single phobia endorsed by more than 2/3 of all respondents in surveys of the US public--no other fear comes close to these numbers. Testifying in court is not only "speaking in public", it is also accompanied by the very common fear that testifying falsely will lead to a jail sentence (I know of no research detailing the prevalence of this myth, but my guesstimate is that nearly 2 out of 3 witnesses believe it.) Lawyers who live their professional lives in the courtroom frequently don't appreciate how intimidating the setting and the jargon can be to someone experiencing it for the first time. And, when the witness believes that their children are on the line, the fear and pressure rise exponentially.

The research cited below nicely highlights the primary value of witness training: IMPROVED accuracy of the testimony! What Ellison and Wheatcroft found was that training witnesses about the rules and tactics of cross examination led to a REDUCTION in errors in responding accurately by more than 66% to complex questions on cross examination. Accuracy of answers to simple cross examination questions improved by 52%. Just as importantly, witnesses reported having the confidence to ask the cross examiner to clarify questions.

More than 25 years of teaching people how to testify effectively has convinced me that witness training, done right, not only helps the witness but significantly aids the administration of justice. This research confirms that belief. Of the hundreds of people whom I have trained, NOT ONE has ever said the training about how to testify effectively, especially how to handle cross examination, was a waste of time. Not one.

Now that the advantages of witness training to the system as a whole have been documented, there is no reason not spend the time to provide witnesses with the tools they need to testify accurately. Justice would seem to require it.


Ellison, L. & Wheatcroft, J. (2010). "Could you ask me that in a different way please?" Exploring the impact of courtroom questioning and witness familiarization on adult witness accuracy. Criminal Law Review, 11, pp. 823-839.