"It's All Your Fault!" - Working With High Conflict Personalities by William A. Eddy, LCSW, JD

This is a beginning to intermediate level course. After completing this course, mental health professionals will be able to:

Introduction

This course examines the dynamics of four high conflict personalities that are increasingly common in today’s legal disputes. The instructor provides four key steps and 20 skills to apply in analyzing and assisting clients involved in these difficult cases. Opportunities for mental health professionals in legal disputes are examined. Personal and legal risks are considered for those in four distinct roles: private confidential therapist, court-ordered therapist, psychological evaluator, and expert/consultant/coach for one party. This course provides a good overview of handling personality disorders in any context, especially legal disputes, with numerous interesting case examples.

Course Outline

CHAPTER 1: AN ENDURING PATTERN OF BLAME

“Why does she keep fighting so much? Can’t she see how destructive she is?”

“Can you believe they’re going to court over __________?” (You fill in the issue)

How often have you asked yourself these questions? About coworkers? Clients? Friends? Neighbors? Family? Or someone who is taking YOU to court?

For the past 30 years, I have asked myself these questions while handling disputes in communities, schools, businesses, families, and the courts. Over the past decade, I have observed a dramatic increase in high conflict legal disputes – driven more by personalities than by legal or financial issues. Perhaps half of all legal cases that go to trial today involve one or more parties with a High Conflict Personality – driven more by internal distress than external events.

After handling over 1,000 legal cases from three professional points of view - as an attorney, mediator, and clinical social worker - I have recognized some surprising patterns to the high conflict cases that are increasing in our society and overwhelming our courts:

In order to obtain a “snapshot” of current attorney beliefs about personality disorders in legal disputes, I did a survey of family law attorneys in San Diego County in February 2006. Of the 131 respondents, some of the raw results (I plan to do a separate paper on the full survey results following interviews with many of the respondents) were:

For the next few questions, use the following definition: “Someone with a personality disorder generally exhibits a long-term pattern of distress, extreme thinking, difficulty managing emotions, and frequent interpersonal difficulties. For those with personality disorders, their extreme behavior and distress occurs independent of any one event, such as a divorce.”

While attorneys are not trained in diagnosing personality disorders, their beliefs that personality disorders are significant in their legal cases are important for mental health professionals to know. This knowledge provides opportunities for those who wish to become more involved in forensic work. This course is intended to give you many factors and options to consider in your current and future professional roles.

PERSONALITY DRIVES CONFLICT

I used to think that disputes were about issues – that bigger issues drove bigger, more difficult conflicts. Wouldn’t a million dollar dispute be harder to resolve than a conflict over $5,000? Wouldn’t an argument over a small family inheritance be simpler to settle than the terms of an international business contract?

Let me give you an example of two hypothetical families going through a very similar dispute – divorce. (Many of the case examples in this course are taken from Court of Appeals cases, some come directly from real cases with only names and identifying information changed, and some are inspired by real cases but made up to demonstrate a point.)

Let’s call them the Smiths and the Greens. They are based on the types of cases commonly seen by family law attorneys and mediators. Suppose both families involve a businessman husband who makes $150,000 a year, a teacher wife who makes $50,000, two children, a family residence, a rental condo, and retirement investments worth half a million dollars. The parties themselves can choose whether to go to court or to settle their divorce completely out of court.

The Smiths

Mr. Smith calls a divorce mediator and says that he and his wife want to try to handle the divorce out of court. After meeting together for five or six sessions in the mediator’s office, they reach a complete agreement on all issues. He moves into the rental condo with plans to buy a house in a year or so, while she stays in the family residence and the children reside primarily with her, with very flexible visitation for Mr. Smith. He agrees to give her child and spousal support in the monthly amount of about $3,000, based on guidelines the court might consider given the differences in their incomes. Since she gets to keep the house, he gets more of the retirement investments. They each have an attorney review the Marital Settlement Agreement that the mediator prepared, resulting in some minor edits. Their divorce takes six months and costs them a total of about $4,000.

When they come in to sign the final divorce papers, Ms. Smith brings the children to the mediator’s office for a visitation exchange when they are done. They get out crayons and draw pictures while their parents sign the papers for their divorce in the other room. When the parents are done signing, there are a few tears and brief discussion of some visitation arrangements for an upcoming holiday. When they exit the office, the kids show both parents what they drew. Then they give Mom a kiss good-bye and leave with Dad. It’s not always like that, but it’s not uncommon.

The Greens

Mr. Green calls a family law attorney for a consultation. He wants to mediate his divorce and use the attorney for outside consultation. But his wife won’t agree. She’s really angry and wants immediate payment of spousal support far above the guidelines. Within a week, she files for divorce and obtains a court restraining order against him (without his presence or knowledge) because of an incident two months prior. He apparently broke the lock to a shed behind the family residence to get some belongings when she wasn’t home. He was surprised to find that she had changed the locks.

He says he was never physically abusive with her and she never claims he was. He says that she was never afraid of him, but that she was frequently angry at him and the children, often over minor events or misunderstandings. She demands that the court require him to have supervised visitation with the children for just 2 hours a week, because he is a “violent” person, since he broke the lock to the shed. She gets a temporary order for supervised visitation. He retains the attorney to represent him in court.

Over the next two years, there are eight temporary hearings regarding various issues including the restraining order, parenting plan, and support. Finally, there is a full-day trial. Ms. Green’s second attorney (she fired the first because he wasn’t aggressive enough) presents evidence on multiple issues acquired through numerous subpoenas, depositions, professional evaluations of their parenting plan, and appraisals. At trial, his attorney argues that several of the issues they have contested for two years have been long-settled under the law and not worth disputing. Ms. Green makes several contradictory statements during cross-examination, and is easily angered over minor issues.

Finally, the court orders the restraining order terminated. Mr. Green gets regular visitation, although his ex-wife still yells at him when he picks up the kids. The retirement investments are split equally. Mr. Green is ordered to pay his ex-wife spousal support in the amount of $3,000 per month (about the same as Ms. Smith received by agreement). However, they have to sell the family residence. The legal fees for both sides of this two-year battle end up at about $80,000; ironically, the same amount the Greens receive as proceeds from the sale of their house.

What is the biggest difference between these two types of cases? They both are divorces, which are an emotionally stressful experience with often difficult communication. The incomes, assets, and parenting issues were the same. Yet the Greens’ case appeared complex, seeming to require the use of many legal procedures – deposition, subpoenas, hearings, and a trial. The Smith’s case appeared relatively simple, and cost significantly less – 5% – of what the Greens spent.

You can’t blame the difference on attorneys, as both couples sought the assistance of attorneys at some point. In fact, Ms. Green’s first attorney probably would have settled the case early on, with an agreement similar to the eventual outcome and a significant savings in attorney’s fees. It was Ms. Green’s decision to pursue a highly adversarial approach over two years. Her high conflict personality determined the direction of the entire case.

HIGH CONFLICT PERSONALITIES

High Conflict Personalities stand out. Their emotions are often exaggerated. Their behavior is repeatedly inappropriate. Minor problems become major disputes. They persist long after others let go. There is an urgency and drama to their daily lives. And they always have someone to blame.

Some High Conflict Personalities are more difficult than others, but they tend to share a similar preoccupation with blame – a pattern of blame – that is embedded in their personalities. This preoccupation drives them constantly into one dispute after another, and enables them to avoid ever looking at themselves or changing their own behavior. The best way to explain this pattern is with an extreme, yet true example.

The Brodericks

This high conflict case escalated over a period of several years. The husband, Dan Broderick, obtained a medical degree, but he also got a law degree and built a practice as a highly paid medical malpractice attorney. He and Elisabeth (“Betty”) Broderick had four children and a wealthy lifestyle in the La Jolla community of San Diego. When Betty found out that Dan was having an affair with his legal assistant Linda, she became angry – a common response.

However, she handled that anger in a manner that drew national attention. The following is compiled from news reports in the New York Times, 9/20/91, p. A8; San Diego Union, 10/23/90, p. B2; People Magazine, 10/21/91, p. 65-68; and San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/11/91, p. A10; and 9/15/99, p. B4.

After finding out about his affair, Betty burned Dan’s custom-made clothing in the backyard. She broke windows, spray-painted inside the house, and wrecked his bedroom. She spread cream pie all over his fancy sweaters. When he moved into his own home after the divorce, she drove her car into his front door.

When the divorce became final in August 1986, he received custody of their four children. Betty claimed that the system was stacked against her because Dan was so well-connected as an attorney. She complained that he harassed her with legal paperwork. She complained that the financial settlement was inappropriately low. Her anger remained strong even years after the divorce, despite being encouraged by those around her to get on with her life. One of her young sons told her that two years was long enough for her to be mad at his father.

You would think she was doing well after the divorce. She had a car, a home in La Jolla with an ocean view, and she was getting $16,000 per month in spousal support. Apparently, she bought a pistol in 1989 and even cleaned it in front of her sons, who were 10 and 13 at the time. She reportedly told them that she was going to use it to kill their father. It was around this time that Dan and Linda were preparing to get married.

After his wedding, Dan finally decided to let Betty have custody of their two sons in the hope it would bring some peace. However, during the first weekend that she had the boys, she reexamined their legal papers and came to believe that there were loopholes that would allow him to prevent her from having custody. She woke up early on November 5, 1989, and claims she felt she couldn’t go on.

She went to Dan and Linda’s house, opened the door with a key she took from one of her daughters, and confronted them in their bedroom. She says she intended to shoot herself in front of them, but apparently swung the gun around, shooting wildly. She was so agitated, she claimed, that she left the house without even realizing that she had killed them.

Two years later, at the time of trial, she considered herself the victim. Linda shouldn’t have allowed herself to get involved with a married man, she complained. And Dan shouldn’t have bullied her with a flood of legal papers. She had no remorse and said she wasn’t to blame for their deaths.

At first, many people felt sympathetic toward Betty. Her first trial ended with a hung jury because two jurors preferred manslaughter, believing she did not intend to kill Dan and his new wife. One of those jurors was especially sympathetic to Betty’s dramatic and tearful testimony – he said he was surprised that she didn’t kill him sooner, after how he treated her.

The second jury saw the case as much more about Betty and her own behavior. They didn’t accept her efforts to shift responsibility on to Dan. They believed that her problems were brought on by herself and that she distorted reality. She blamed her aggressive and destructive behavior on Dan. The second jury didn’t buy it. They saw her behavior as aberrant and wondered about her sanity, but determined that she knew what she was doing and made her own conscious decisions.

The prosecution and witnesses directly explained the problem as a person with a Borderline Personality Disorder who stalked her victim and premeditated his murder. Psychiatrists and psychologists testified for both sides. Even a defense psychologist said she got her only identity from her husband. One of the prosecution psychiatrists said that her hostility toward Dan would not have changed at all, even if she got everything she wanted in the divorce – including an increase to $25,000 per month in spousal support – because it was really about her drive to stay pathologically connected, not about the money.

It seemed as though she got her identity and attention from her husband – at first by being married to him and then fighting with him. After the fight appeared to be over, she couldn’t stand it. I recently attended a program on stalking presented by the Deputy District Attorney, Kerry Wells, who successfully prosecuted her. She said Betty still doesn’t believe she did anything wrong even 12 years later – a perception that fits with the pattern of a personality disorder.

LOOKING FOR THE PATTERN

These case examples (the Greens and the Brodericks) show that one High Conflict Personality can completely drive the direction of a legal dispute. You may have noticed that I did not indicate whether the husbands had High Conflict Personalities. From my experience, sometimes both parties to a dispute have High Conflict Personalities, but in many cases there is only one High Conflict Personality – the other party is fairly reasonable, simply trying to avoid the conflict or trying to get it under control. This is similar to the spouse of an alcoholic who tries to cover up, apologize for, and manage the alcoholic – but isn’t an alcoholic himself.

Another characteristic of these case examples is how self-sabotaging these personalities can be. Ms. Green lost the family residence to the parties’ attorneys’ fees because of her own decision to use a highly adversarial approach. Betty Broderick lost her freedom (she got a 35-year sentence) and lost her $16,000 a month spousal support. This is one of the most striking characteristics of High Conflict Personalities – their actions are so self-sabotaging and out of proportion with external events that they seem beyond comprehension. However, there is logic to their behavior if the personality patterns can be identified.

The importance of looking for the pattern in understanding personalities – to analyze past behavior and predict future problems – is demonstrated in the following case example decided by the California Supreme Court.

Mr. Gossage

Eben Gossage graduated from law school in 1991 and passed the bar exam on his first try. However, when he applied to the California State Bar to become a practicing attorney, a difficulty arose with the final requirement of the process – the moral character determination. Apparently, he had legal problems in the past, which he attributed to an addiction to drugs and alcohol.

Specifically, when he was 20 in 1975, he killed his 19-year-old sister during an argument. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and served two and one-half years in state prison. After he got out, he apparently turned his life around. He stopped using drugs and alcohol.

During law school many years later, he performed community service, volunteered with a battered women’s support group, and joined Amnesty International. After passing the bar, he assisted nonprofit groups, lobbied about the harmful effects of pollution on city residents, volunteered in local political campaigns, volunteered as a university math tutor, and helped drug-addicted youth prepare for their high school equivalency exams.

In 1996, the Bar Court held a hearing on his moral character, and numerous people testified on Mr. Gossage’s behalf. The Bar Court became convinced that he had sufficiently rehabilitated himself, and decided that he was qualified to practice law.

However, the California Supreme Court reviewed the case. They had concerns. The following quotes are from the Court’s decision in 2000:

“Gossage presented testimony [to the Bar Court] by 20 lay witnesses, most of whom he met after he was last released from prison and many of whom said they knew him well. They included his girlfriend and other personal friends, . . . college and law school professors, and prominent public officials . . . . The foregoing witnesses described Gossage as an honest person who had expressed remorse for killing his sister and for committing drug-related crimes. No one had seen Gossage under the influence of drugs or alcohol since he was last released from prison in 1983.

“Five mental health professionals interviewed Gossage shortly before the State Bar Court hearing. These individuals opined that Gossage had successfully overcome any substance abuse problem or personality disorder afflicting him in the pre-1983 period, when he killed his sister and committed other serious crimes. None saw any sign that Gossage presently suffered from a diagnosable mental disorder or psychopathological condition. However, the Committee’s witness, Dr. Feinberg, could not eliminate the possibility that Gossage’s failure to resolve the traffic citations during law school promptly was the product of a ‘residual’ inability or unwillingness to abide by societal rules. One of Gossage’s witnesses, Dr. Carfagni, similarly suggested that receiving four to six traffic tickets over a three- to five-year period might reveal the presence of an antisocial attitude or personality.” (Emphasis added) In Re Eben Gossage, On Admission (2000) 23 Cal. 4^th 1080, 1092-93; 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 130.

The California Supreme Court ultimately denied Gossage’s application. The Supreme Court was concerned that on his application for admission to the bar he mentioned only four of his 17 criminal convictions – which included forgeries, driving with a suspended license, failure to register his vehicle, several failures to appear in court for automobile violations, and failure to finish paying fines. The Supreme Court noted that many of these offenses occurred during the six-year period that included his law school education, from age 33 to 39, and that he “repeatedly violated state traffic laws and sustained several misdemeanor convictions for mishandling these matters in court.” Gossage, supra, at 1088.

Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Bar Court’s approach:

“The majority examined each incident during this period, but did so in isolation, finding excuses or mitigation in each case. However, the majority again omitted and misstated relevant facts, and it never confronted the ominous implications of the pattern of misconduct committed while Gossage was preparing to be a lawyer...” (Italics are the Supreme Court’s) Gossage, supra, at 1094.

Instead, the Supreme Court agreed with the dissenting opinion of the Bar Court panel:

“The dissent observed that when his more recent misconduct is viewed in light of his prior crimes, there is no meaningful period in Gossage’s adult life when he has not incurred convictions and otherwise shirked legal responsibilities. The dissent perceived a dangerous tendency in Gossage to excuse his misdeeds, including those committed after he entered law school, when he should have been more sensitive to the rule of law.” (Emphasis added) Id. at 1094-95.

The Bar Court made a common mistake by looking only at Mr. Gossage’s many rehabilitated behaviors and interpreting them as indicating a change in his moral character. The Supreme Court, however, looked at the whole picture of Mr. Gossage’s conduct, which revealed his ongoing antisocial pattern of breaking societal rules.

PERSONALITY DISORDERS

As the reader of these materials is a mental health professional, this section will be a brief overview of how personality disorders and maladaptive traits appear in legal disputes. The fundamental characteristics of personality disorders lead many into high conflict disputes:

Paraphrased from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.

From my experience, observations, and legal research, the parties most often involved in High Conflict disputes appear to come from Cluster B Personality Disorders: Borderline, Narcissistic, Antisocial, and Histrionic.

Persons with Cluster B personality disorders appear to have characteristics that draw them into intense, ongoing conflicts on a regular basis – much more than the other clusters. The personality researcher, Theodore Millon, identifies most of this group as “Interpersonally Imbalanced” personalities. (He puts Borderlines in another category and includes Dependents in his Interpersonally Imbalanced group, but I find that Cluster B accurately identifies the four High Conflict Personalities I most often see driving legal disputes.)

In contrast, Cluster A includes Paranoid (suspicious), Schizoid (asocial), and Schizotypal (eccentric) personality disorders. People with these personality types are much less likely to tolerate intense, ongoing conflicts because of their personality types.

Cluster C includes Avoidant (withdrawing), Dependent (submissive), and Obsessive-Compulsive (conforming) personality disorders. Those in Cluster C have generally adopted methods of avoiding conflicts, and do not seek to prolong disputes. However, I have seen Cluster C personalities frequently involved in disputes aggressively promoted by Cluster B personalities. They often seem to get into relationships with Cluster Bs as the more passive partner – one who tolerates ongoing abuse because of their withdrawing, submissive, or conforming Cluster C personality style.

Eben Gossage was identified as possibly having an Antisocial Personality Disorder. He was able to collect at least 20 committed witnesses on his behalf. Did they all know about his ongoing antisocial behavior – continued violations of the law? Or were they swept up in the emotions of this man who had worked so hard to overcome his past? Whatever the reason, his drive to become an attorney (at the same time as he was continually breaking minor laws) kept a dispute going in the courts for almost a decade and ended up before the California Supreme Court.

Betty Broderick was identified as possibly having a Borderline Personality Disorder. At first, she was able to gather a lot of sympathy after she killed Dan Broderick because of her emotional drive. She was a Persuasive Blamer for a long time. It took two juries to convict her of murder, several years after it occurred. While she is no longer that persuasive, she still believes that Dan and Linda are to blame for their own murders.

Gloria Green spent two years getting the family court judge to seriously consider – and mostly agree with – her numerous allegations against her husband. It was not until the final trial that most of her blaming claims were fully analyzed and determined to be unfounded.

A THEORY OF THE PATTERN OF BLAME

Mental health researchers have studied cognitive distortions for many years. Common cognitive distortions that appear in high conflict cases include:

Since the cognitive distortions of those with personality disorders generally cause them to interpret events as all external, they desperately seek something or someone else to blame. It is a psychological process of diverting attention from one’s own unacceptable behavior onto the behavior of another. It appears to be a sincere, but misplaced, effort to change the cause of their distress and problems.

Persuasive Blamers

I call persons with these personality disorders or traits in legal disputes, “Persuasive Blamers.” They convince others to see things through their cognitive distortions, especially in the courts and other dispute resolution settings. They help generate an Enduring Pattern of Blame, with identifiable characteristics in many disputes.

Not all of those with Cluster B personality disorders or traits appear to be Persuasive Blamers. Some of those in therapy are willing to look somewhat at their own behavior and are less likely to focus blame on others. Some in this Cluster are also unpersuasive with their dramatic emotions and cognitive distortions. However, some of those with Cluster B personality disorders or traits become High Conflict Personalities because of their Cluster B characteristics – high intensity emotions, personalization, projection, and so forth. There appears to be a consistent pattern of those with these High Conflict Personalities (“HCPs”) when they engage in legal disputes.

Targets

In most high conflict cases, the Target is someone with whom the HCP has or had a close relationship. This is often a spouse, former spouse, neighbor, coworker, business partner, or professional – especially one with whom the HCP had an emotionally close relationship, such as a doctor, lawyer, minister or priest. Any of these persons can become Targets because of some misunderstanding – such as a phone call that was not returned – which triggered rejection feelings which “deserved” an attack.

In divorce cases, the other spouse is an easy Target to blame for all of the problems in the marriage – and for the divorce. HCPs have difficulty tolerating the idea that these problems could be partially their fault. Society assumes that marriages and divorces are partially the responsibility of both parties, except in cases of extremely bad behavior by one spouse. Therefore, High Conflict Personalities blame their former spouses for extremely bad behavior.

A wife becomes an unfit mother, a slut, a slouch, a controlling witch, and so forth. A husband becomes a spousal abuser, a child abuser, a deadbeat Dad, or a child molester. The HCP’s cognitive distortions lead them to believe their former spouse is capable of the behavior of a monster – because of the monstrous bad feelings of being rejected, or some other distortion. In some cases, the HCP knows that the allegations are not true, but feels driven to make them by his cognitive distortions. “She was always an unfit mother and the children don’t feel safe with her,” he says, after she spent 5 years as the primary parent without incident. He feels he has to dominate her and the children to feel in control in the divorce. These are the extremes of behavior that fit the extremes of emotions the HCP feels.

Negative Advocates

While the average person spends some of their emotional energy on reflection and self-change, HCPs appear to put all of their emotions into attacking their Target – to try to get them to change, to stop doing something, to compensate them for their troubles, or simply to divert attention from their own bad behavior. Not surprisingly, Targets don’t respond positively to these emotional demands. Therefore, the HCP starts pursuing others to help blame the Target. Essentially, they are seeking family, friends, and/or professionals who will help advocate for their cognitive distortions.

HCPs are not seeking help for problem-solving ideas and general support. When High Conflict Personalities are in a conflict, there is nothing to discuss or negotiate. Problem-solving ideas are irrelevant. They are seeking Advocates of Blame. When most people try to give them problem-solving ideas, it is not what they want. It makes them feel disbelieved or partly responsible. Since the HCP cannot tolerate the idea that they might be part of the problem, they will keep searching until they find Advocates who agree with them that they are totally blameless. In order to be totally blameless, they must get Advocates to agree that there is a Target who is totally blameworthy.

Such Advocates can be family members, friends, or professionals. Attorneys and mental health professionals are particularly thought of as attractive Advocates because attorneys “have to represent you” and therapists “have to like you.” At least, that’s how HCPs seem to think – and this appears to be the general public perception.

When potential Advocates don’t believe the HCP (which is very common initially), then the HCP escalates her emotions even higher: louder voice, higher pitch, she gets in the listener’s face, she blames the listener for not caring, and comes up with ever more dramatic allegations against her Target. She might become more manipulative – behaving seductively, tearful, helpless, and offering rewards. Or she might give up and look elsewhere for another Advocate. The goal of releasing their internal distress gives HCPs enormous energy with which to engage in an ever-escalating, high conflict dispute.

Customer Service Representatives have stories about HCPs who call with complaints about the oddest things. Then their emotions escalate. It would be laughable, except that the way the representative handles the call can make the difference between whether the company is sued or not. Even though the lawsuit may seem frivolous to the company, it may feel deadly serious for the HCP. Even though the HCP may lose the lawsuit, the time and money spent on the case can be enormous. This is an area where training by mental health consultants is invaluable in preventing potential lawsuits for businesses, large and small.

While most potential Advocates may feel empathy for the emotional distress expressed by the HCP, they are not persuaded by the real facts of the dispute. It will take more persuasive facts to win them over. Thus, those with High Conflict Personalities begin to generate distorted information that fits how they feel. Their feelings create their facts. While mental health professionals often recognize this, most businesspersons and legal professionals truly do not understand. Thus, they become absorbed in trying to determine who is lying, or investigating fictional information for days, months, or years in the structured legal process.

Emotional Facts

Much of today’s legal disputes are about what I call Emotional Facts – emotionally-generated false information accepted as true and appearing to require emergency legal action.

Researchers of false allegations of sexual abuse have studied “Stereotype Induction,” by which young children are given a false impression of a man. Then they have observed how the children spontaneously generate negative “facts” about that man that grow and grow – but were never true. (See Ceci & Bruck, Jeopardy in the Courtroom, Chapter 10.)

If persuaded of the Emotional Facts against the Target, the Advocate will feel a sense of urgency and feel compelled to do things on behalf of the HCP. The Advocate will persuade new Advocates. They will persuade each other. Advocates will start generating new Emotional Facts themselves, and the case will escalate, much like rumors that demand urgent action.

Of course, the Target generally has two choices: Give in to the mounting attack – which many victims of domestic violence and small businesses do – or fight back and also obtain Advocates. Interestingly, many Targets are not HCPs themselves and do not have practical experience at the adversarial approach to problem-solving. They are not by nature highly persuasive. They generally are trusting – sometimes over-trusting – of others, and therefore believe that others will see the truth without the need for persuasion. The Target may decide to involve a dispute resolver – mediator, ombudsman, arbitrator, court – or may decide to wait and see if the HCP calms down or goes away.

Persuading Dispute Resolvers

Inevitably, many HCP disputes escalate to involve a dispute resolver. This is often the court. As the cases in the following chapters demonstrate, this can be either because the HCP brings the case to court as a plaintiff or the Target takes the HCP to court as a defendant.

Some high conflict disputes resolve in mediation, if the mediator is able to handle the mediation in a way that satisfies the High Conflict Personality. This may involve some emotional or financial concessions that are acceptable to the Target. However, the HCP may be unwilling to negotiate meaningfully regardless of what the mediator does. If the Target is an insurance company or other large organization, it may have a policy of not settling cases with little or no hard evidence. So, the case goes to trial.

In court cases, those with personality disorders or traits start out very convincingly about their cognitive distortions. They are usually much more aggressive than their Targets. They know right away that this is an adversarial process. Some Targets are shocked by the emotional intensity and Emotional Facts generated by their former spouse, neighbor, coworker, or client. They didn’t know this adversarial side of the HCP because they were previously in a collaborative relationship. Other Targets know exactly what to expect because of previous blaming.

Targets are generally at a disadvantage in court. They trust the court to be a finder of fact; they know the facts are in their favor, so they are confident they will prevail. They start out trying not to escalate the dispute, and generally take a problem-solving and settlement-oriented approach. They behave respectfully in court and defer to the all-knowing authorities.

Unfortunately, the authorities aren’t really all-knowing and can only base their decisions on the information the parties provide. The court system – an adversarial system – has many procedures that control the information presented. In many cases, this works very well. However, in the case of High Conflict Personalities, the process may be easily manipulated if the professionals and decision-makers are not aware of cognitive distortions and emotional persuasion.

Cognitive Distortions And Litigation

Few legal professionals understand the attraction of those with personality disorders or traits to the legal process. Yet a comparison of characteristics shows a perfect fit, which may explain why they increasingly show up in court as High Conflict Personalities.

Characteristics of HCPs	Characteristics of Court Process
Lifetime Preoccupation: Blaming Others	Purpose: Deciding who is to blame, who’s guilty
Avoid taking responsibility	Court will hold someone else responsible
All-or-nothing thinking	Guilty or not guilty are usually the choices
Seek attention and sympathy	One can be center of much attention
Aggressively seek allies	Gather and bring many advocates to court
Speak in dramatic and emotional extremes	Argue or testify in dramatic and emotional extremes
Focus intensely on other’s past behaviors	Hear or give testimony on other’s past behaviors
Punish those guilty of “harming” you	Court is the most powerful place to impose punishment in our society
Try to get others to solve your problems	Many professionals will work hard to solve your problems
Its okay to lie if you feel desperate	In reality, the court rarely acknowledges or punishes lying (perjury)

THE PERSUASIVE PROCESS OF COURT

Because the thought structure of HCPs and the adversarial court process are such a perfect fit, HCPs are often effective at making innocent people look “guilty,” while at the same time they are skilled at looking “innocent” themselves. With their desperate charm and aggressive drive, they often succeed.

Diagnosis and treatment are the fundamentals of the health care and mental health professions. An accurate diagnosis of the problem is essential to provide the proper treatment. However, in court the process is based on persuasion, not diagnosis.

A good diagnostic process considers several theories of a case, with the burden of making an accurate assessment on the therapist or investigator, who must know all relevant diagnostic criteria and who must test the evidence against each plausible theory. In court, the process of persuasion is centered on proving or disproving just one theory of the case. The judge or jury is the decision-maker, not an investigator. The burden of gathering evidence, knowing all relevant theories, and presenting it is on the parties (and their attorneys). The judge or jury must decide who is most persuasive – usually with many restrictions on the information they are allowed to see and consider.

For decades, social scientists have studied two basic paths to persuasion, called the central route of persuasion and the peripheral route of persuasion. (Lewicki, 1994, pp. 205-215, citing research of Chaiken, 1987, and Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) Each route affects our processing of information and judgment in a different manner.

CENTRAL ROUTE OF PERSUASION:
(Generally a Conscious Process)

PERIPHERAL ROUTE OF PERSUASION:
(Generally outside of conscious awareness)

Facts

Ideas

Reasoning

Attractiveness of the messenger

Aggressiveness of the messenger

Confidence displayed

Number of arguments made

Language Intensity

Shorter Sentences and Simpler Messages

Use of Distractions

Relationship to the Listener

Social Role and Group Identification

Emotional Appeal

Interestingly, those with personality disorders or maladaptive personality traits tend to be those who rely more heavily on peripheral persuasion in daily life. This often becomes their primary problem-solving method, as they attempt to influence others to take action for them. Those with personality disorders often have a loose grip on the facts, so they rely more easily on emotions to persuade people. Unfortunately, many Persuasive Blamers have developed highly effective skills of short-term emotional persuasion, including charm, heightened emotions, and the ability to persuade others that they are victims – even when they are the perpetrators.

In court – especially with interpersonal disputes – the factual information is often skimpy and directly in conflict. The primary source of evidence is what each party says about the other: “He said, she said.” Important information may be excluded by legal objections, and the decision-makers usually do not see the parties interact – the most useful information about interpersonal disputes, aggressive behavior, and personalities.

There are significant rewards for winning in court (getting money, staying out of jail). Consequences for lying are rare. Persuading the court to adopt one’s own point of view (no matter how distorted it may be) becomes the primary goal.

In the absence or conflict of factual information, the peripheral route can dominate decision-making. Jury research shows that parties who appear more confident and attractive are more persuasive. Additional research on jury verdicts shows that attorneys who use an aggressive style are perceived as more effective, although the assertive style was equally successful in obtaining favorable verdicts. (Reike & Stutman, p.124, citing research by Sigal, Braden-MaGuire, Hayden, and Mosley, 1985)

A more emotionally aggressive party (or his or her attorney) may be more successful in capturing the attention and sympathies of the judge and jury. The first side to cry victim may be able to trigger suspicion and anger toward the other side. A more emotionally reasonable or passive party (many a true victim) can appear less persuasive – even though more truthful and flexible in out-of-court problem-solving. Ironically, studies show that courts are more accurate when considering written information and documents only – screening out visual and verbal peripheral distractions. (Reike & Stutman, p. 125)

We have all witnessed in the news and courtroom dramas the fact that a persuasive, aggressive person can “win” in court even though the facts of the case clearly indicate that they should not. Ironically, it appears that the Courts of Appeals are often the ones to more accurately and objectively understand these cases, while trial courts seem to be more affected by peripheral persuasion. Perhaps this explains why the Bar Court in the Gossage case seemed so forgiving of so many misdeeds, while the Supreme Court seems to have taken a more objective approach and observed the enduring pattern.

BARRIERS TO FACTUAL PERSUASION

The Central Route of Persuasion would appear to be the proper focus for litigation. Interestingly, the adversarial court process makes many efforts to screen out peripheral persuasion. “Evidentiary Objections” are built in to safeguard against the intrusion of inappropriate, often highly emotional, information. Objections can be used as a shield against unreasonable and unfair information that is unreliable. They can also be used to protect citizens against evidence obtained improperly by an overreaching government (improper searches, seizures, and intrusions into citizen’s homes, cars) even if it suggests guilt.

However, objections can also interfere with the Central Route of persuasion. There was a clever commentary on objections in the movie, A Civil Action, in which Robert Duvall teaches law students how to use objections to repeatedly interrupt the decision-maker’s train of thought when the facts were going against his client.

From my observations, most high conflict cases are not resolved until the Central Route of factual information finally prevails over the Peripheral Route of emotions and dramatics. Because of court procedures, this often takes quite a long time. It may not be until the second retrial (Betty Broderick case), or the Civil Trial (O. J. Simpson case), or an appeal (Gossage case), that the facts prevail, the overall patterns become clear, and justice is somewhat done. Of course, many high conflict cases simply end when the Targets give up and decide to do something else with their lives. For the High Conflict Personality, dramatic interpersonal conflict is his life, so giving up is much less likely.

HCPs in court cases present a triple threat: Cognitive Distortions plus an emphasis on Peripheral Persuasion plus court limitations on Central Route persuasion.

When High Conflict Personalities Go to Court:

The resulting escalation of emotions and legal activity can involve many others, and a great deal of time and money. This suggests an opportunity for mental health professionals to educate courts, businesses, governmental agencies, and families on the misunderstood dynamics of High Conflict Personalities.

Without understanding High Conflict Personalities and their Enduring Pattern of Blame, we will face ever-escalating costs as their disputes escalate into high conflict. However, with some basic understanding, empathy, and the application of certain skills, High Conflict Personalities can be identified, their energies redirected, and their disputes resolved. The next four chapters describe in detail how to identify the characteristics of the four most common High Conflict Personalities (Cluster B Persuasive Blamers), with several case examples of each.

CHAPTER ONE SUMMARY: AN ENDURING PATTERN OF BLAME

Thus, HCPs avoid accountability and do not change their own behavior. The real problems are unaddressed and conflicts endlessly escalate.

CHAPTER 2: BORDERLINE PERSONALITIES IN LEGAL DISPUTES

Approximately 2% of the adult population is reported to have Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), but persons with BPD appear much more frequently in mental health settings – about 10% of outpatients and 20% of inpatients. (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) have BPD. In my experience, those with Borderline Personalities (referred to throughout as a “BP”) are the most frequent problems to appear in High Conflict cases. When they have strong enough feelings of being abandoned, they often go to court, either to punish or to feel in control. On the other hand, because of their tendency to act impulsively, they may be brought to court as defendants after they lose control and hurt others.

Studies indicate that approximately 75% of those with BPD are women (Linehan, 1993, p. 4). However, BPD is also commonly identified in men who commit domestic violence (Dutton, 1998, pp. 7). While both male and female BPs predominantly identify themselves as victims, their own intense anger and impulsive acts frequently get them into civil and criminal cases as defendants charged with everything from shoplifting to murder.

Conflicts – from mild to severe – between those with BPD and their advocates are to be expected. However, until you get to know the BP or observe her in a crisis situation, she often appears normal – and even appealing – on the surface. Their problems most frequently occur in intimate relationships and there may be a split between frequently angry private behavior and a friendly “public persona” (Dutton, pp. 10 & 70).

IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS

While mental health professionals are perhaps most familiar with BP of all the personality disorders, a brief look at the DSM-IV criteria is helpful:

“A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

When interacting with BPS, it is important to work with them on their cognitive extremes, rather than to criticize them. One of the most effective treatment approaches is Dialectical Behavioral Therapy developed by Marsha M. Linehan (Linehan, 1993). She encourages BPS to recognize their ability to change and to accept themselves as they are. Rather than blaming the BP for faulty thinking, she teaches them to accept that they (and the world) are not perfect, and at the same time, that they learn new skills. This acceptance of the dialectics (opposites) as coexisting in the real world has had research-confirmed success (Linehan, 1993). The Advocate (attorney, mediator, therapist, family member) working with a BP in a legal dispute can validate the person rather than criticizing the behavior, and then focus them on alternative behaviors or the next task in the case.

For example, “I can understand that you were just trying to protect your son from perceived dangers during the visitation exchange last weekend [when the BP started screaming at the other parent]. I can see that you really care about your children. I can also see that there are some other more effective things you can do in the future. Let’s talk about them when we meet tomorrow.”

People v. Borrelli

In 2000, a Court of Appeals decision in a stalking case described behavior that might meet some of the criteria for BPD – especially impulsivity and anger. However, this case never discusses the issue of a personality disorder. In legal dispute resolution, the mental health professional may never need to formulate a formal diagnosis. Instead, you can develop a “Working Theory” of personality patterns to try to understand Mr. Borrelli’s actions. There is no single answer in developing a Working Theory of a problem personality in a legal dispute, but developing a possible explanation for the person’s behavior will help you decide what methods to use in handling their personality.

Annette Borrelli separated from David Borrelli in 1995, after she obtained a restraining order against him. One day, a few months later, she was at her parent’s house and he showed up unexpectedly early to pick up the children.

“While Ms. Borrelli was putting the children in appellant’s [Mr. B’s] car, he was threatening her and telling her that he was going to kill both her and her parents. Before she could finish strapping the children in, [he] began backing up his truck as though he was going to run over her feet. He then left with the children.

“A few hours later, [Mr. Borrelli] arrived unannounced at Ms. Borrelli’s Turlock home. [He] was very angry because the children had fallen asleep and he had nowhere to take them. He stomped on her foot, kicked her, and screamed obscenities at her. He then took off with the children still in the car.

“[A few months later he contacted her] and complained that the clothes she had packed for the children were inappropriate. He wanted new clothes. So, Ms. Borrelli hurried home and packed some clothes. She had just sat down in her car to retrieve something when she felt it move and realized that appellant had rear-ended her. He hit her car hard enough to cause Ms. Borrelli’s neck to go back ‘and cause a good feeling in it.’

“One of the times he threatened to kill her, he said he would blow her head off with a gun. She was very frightened and became a nervous wreck each time she was threatened. She knew [he] owned a couple of firearms and she had seen ammunition around the house during the time they were together. He told her that he kept one of his guns in his car.

“To her knowledge, the only other person [he] had ever threatened to kill was himself. Ms. Borrelli had contacted the police more than once when this occurred since [Mr. Borrelli] seemed likely to carry out the threat.

“On May 1, 1996, she moved to another location and did not give [him] her new address. From that point on, she and [Mr. Borrelli] exchanged the children at the Turlock Police Department.

On May 7, 1996, [he] showed up at Ms. Borrelli’s place of employment. He barged into her office, called her several names, and blamed her for his inability to have surgery on his arm. She did not know why he was blaming her. As far as she knew, [he] was working with some type of program that was going to pay the costs of the surgery.

“[On December 22, 1996, sometime after 10:00 p.m., two men noticed a fire across the street.] The two men ran over there to investigate and found a burning car smashed into a building. They contacted [Mr. Borrelli], who was the only person nearby, and asked if he knew what happened. [He] said he did, as it was his car. They asked [Mr. Borrelli] if he had lost control of the car. [He] said no, he was making a statement to his girlfriend [sic] who worked in the building. [He] left before the firefighters arrived on the scene.” (Emphasis added) People v. Borrelli (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4^th 703, 708-710; 91 Cal. Rptr. 2d 851, 854-855.

Mr. Borrelli was tried and convicted for arson and stalking. At trial, he tried to explain what he did on the night of December 22, 1996:

“He said he had been drinking and went to Mervyn’s to do some Christmas shopping. He got upset when he discovered he did not have enough money to pay for his children’s presents. He decided that, since he could not get the money his wife owed him [in the coming divorce settlement], he might as well give her the car too, particularly since it was having a lot of mechanical problems.

“So, he drove it through the front doors of his wife’s workplace. He then got out of the car (which he left running) and sat on the curb 25 yards away to wait for the police.” Borrelli, at 712; 856.

Photographs indicated that he then set the car on fire, although he denied it. Since he was not challenging his arson conviction on appeal, the appeals court did not deal further with that subject. What the appeal was about, since he had been convicted with overwhelming evidence of arson and stalking?

“Appellant contends [the stalking statute] is unconstitutional because it infringes on the free speech rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 2 of the California Constitution.” Borrelli, at 712-713; 857.

Mr. Borrelli used the judicial system (and put Ms. Borrelli through the Appeals Court process for several years) for the following claims:

“That the statute kept people from expressing their feelings and ideas, under circumstances where no one will get hurt.” Id at 713; 857.

“[and] that the statue violates his due process rights because it forbids the doing of an act in such vague and overbroad terms that persons of ordinary intellect must speculate as to the meaning of ‘safety’.’’ Id at 717; 860.

The Court of Appeals flatly rejected all of these claims with a brief analysis of constitutional law. From Annette Borrelli’s first restraining order to the end of the case in the Court of Appeals, this case was in the courts for five years. By the way, in case you’re wondering, the sentence Mr. Borrelli was appealing for these crimes was three years of probation. Apparently, he could not let go until the Court of Appeals ended his case.

SELF-SABOTAGE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION

It is surprising how often a BP will engage in a behavior that has a sabotaging effect on his or her own life – and on the legal case – but not recognize its effect. In a divorce, the BP may “accidentally” sleep with the party she or he is divorcing, or violate the restraining order you worked hard to obtain on her or his behalf. In a criminal case, the BP may make a “veiled” threat of violence, but deny it could have meant anything. In a civil case, the BP may “forget” to accomplish an important task or appointment. Mr. Borrelli felt that his constitutional rights of expression were violated, yet it was his own violent actions for which he was convicted.

It is hard to predict self-sabotaging behaviors, as the BP is usually not consciously aware of them. Yet the potential for self-sabotage is an important factor to be aware of in working with BPS Impulsivity combined with an extreme lack of insight into their own behavior are key reasons their distress and social impairment are so enduring – thus the diagnosis of BPD.

Kristin H.

A good example of a Borderline’s self-sabotage is in re Kristin H., a case in which a mother with a diagnosed Borderline Personality Disorder lost her parental rights because of extreme neglect and endangerment of her young daughter, Kristin.

“Dr. Sazima told the social worker that the mother suffered from borderline personality disorder, which was currently acute. She was not manic or psychotic but she did not show good judgment, particularly when she used drugs or alcohol.

“The mother contends that these hearsay statements by her parents and her two doctors do not support a finding of mental illness. We disagree. It is well settled that hearsay evidence contained in the social worker’s report is admissible. Moreover, there was additional evidence from Dr. Seeman, who evaluated the mother approximately six months after the incident of September 20, 1994. He found her to be a ‘very troubled woman’ and diagnosed her as having a generalized anxiety disorder and a ‘high profile’ of personality disorder.

“Dr. Seeman concluded that without treatment the mother’s care of her child ‘might be problematic’ and that her potential for impulsive and neglectful behavior ‘might be a hazard.’

“Her parents told the social worker that ‘the mother needs her medication and can’t stay level without [it].’ Dr. Chamberlain stated that the Zoloft ‘definitely helps.’

“The risk of harm to Kristin is evident in that the mother had apparently stopped taking her medication shortly before the incident on September 20, 1994, when she succumbed to a severe anxiety attack, ingested illegal drugs, and neglected to care for her daughter. The mother did not feel she needed medication, preferring instead to rely on her ‘inner strength.’”(Emphases added) In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4^th 1635, 1651-53, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 722, 731.

Apparently, all that the mother had to do was stay on her medication. Yet she refused to do this, even though she risked forever losing her rights to parent her child. She sabotaged herself in the simplest way, and then fought very hard to avoid the consequences by opposing her own parents and her own doctors up to the Court of Appeals. Could she avoid losing her child?

“[T]he mother has attempted suicide on at least 3 occasions, and the minor reports seeing the mother lying on the floor on several occasions.

“As to lying on the floor, she explained that this is where she does her recommended back exercises.

“The mother’s most recent suicide attempt in June of 1994 clearly posed a risk of harm to Kristin, who was in her mother’s care when the mother took an overdose of her prescription drug Xanax and had to be rushed to the hospital. The mother downplays this incident, explaining that this was a stressful time, and that she was just trying to get some sleep.

“She would not regularly take her medications, which could have been helpful in stabilizing her mood swings, and she refused to acknowledge that her problems could be internal rather than external. [Emphases added]

Kristin’s mother lost her parental rights. She fit many of the criteria for BPD, including her impulsive nature and mood swings. Unfortunately, she was unable to face these problems and deal with them through the use of medication, which in her case had been very helpful. Although most BPS do not have such severe problems and severe consequences, this inability of the mother to see the self-sabotaging nature of her own behavior is typical of those with BPD.

CONFLICTS WITH PROFESSIONALS

Given that BPS have such difficulty with relationships, it is not surprising that they also have a love-hate relationship with their attorneys, mediators, and therapists. They are particularly vocal about how they have been harmed by previous professionals, against whom they may have a lawsuit for malpractice by the time they come to you. However, although this does not mean they have been wronged, it should serve as a warning sign to the next practitioner to dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s.

Kristin H.’s mother is a good example of a Borderline in conflict with her own parents and doctors. It sounds like they all tried to help her, but she was unwilling to acknowledge any problems, and therefore blamed them rather than using them for support.

There will sometimes be pressure on the professional to bend the usual boundaries with BP clients in an effort to soothe and reduce their emotional intensity. Be careful. Remember, they are frequently in some kind of crisis – often triggered by their own actions, but not consciously. Some professionals let themselves be seduced in one way or another by BPS For example, one attorney spent numerous unpaid hours helping a highly emotional new client find a new apartment after she had been evicted for various reasons – possibly related to the client’s own behavior. This can appear on the surface like a generous act for a needy client, or this can be just the beginning of a high-demand, low-pay relationship for years to come.

Since the BP raises expectations extremely high, when the devaluation comes, the professional will be hated even more so – and possibly sued for malpractice. It is best to have firm boundaries in advance, so that emotional pressure will not bend them. When in doubt, consult with another professional to evaluate your own judgment before making unusual commitments.

CAUSES AND TREATMENT

The causes of Borderline Personality Disorder are not clear. However, current theories emphasize two components – biology and early childhood environment. Studies have found a greater incidence of histrionic, antisocial, and borderline personality disorders among the first-degree relatives of BPS Whether these are caused by genetic links or social factors is unknown at this time. However, some research indicates that those with BPD may have some biological differences from other people, especially in the brain’s regulation of emotions (Linehan, 1993).

A chaotic early family life is often cited as a factor in the development of BPD. One major personality researcher, Theodore Millon, suggests that the increase in BPS in society is a result of the increase in chaotic families in recent years (Millon, 1987, cited in Linehan, 1993). Another author points out that a family may have been highly dysfunctional and disruptive to the child’s development yet looked normal from the outside (Ford, 1996). Marsha Linehan describes the dynamics of “invalidating environments” as a likely cause, especially common in families with substance abuse and child abuse (Linehan, 1993). The child does not learn to tolerate distress and form realistic expectations. Further, these families tend to reinforce extremes of emotion and behavior, while ignoring the moderate emotions and behaviors necessary for a successful adult life.

Studies show that about three-quarters of BPD women were sexually abused as children or suffered childhood physical abuse (Linehan, 1993). Yet, the majority of adults who were sexually and/or physically abused as children do not become BPS While the development of the disorder is well under way in early childhood, the diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV generally discourages the diagnosis of personality disorders until age 18. It is possible that with corrective emotional and behavioral experiences, a person could overcome the diagnosis of the disorder and only have occasional BPD traits in his adult life.

The most frequently used treatment to date appears to be long-term individual psychotherapy. However, the most often researched therapies have used cognitive and behavioral approaches, which are now being used in short-term individual therapy. Cognitive Therapy of personality disorders uses successful techniques initially used for depression and anxiety over the past 20 years by a significant number of therapists (Beck, 1990). The Dialectical Behavioral Treatment approach (DBT) developed by Marsha Linehan has been well-researched as effective. It includes skills training for self-regulation of emotions and behavior, self-acceptance, and tolerance for the coexistence of opposites (such as being angry at someone and still loving them, or making mistakes and still being a good person) (Linehan, 1993). Medications have been largely ineffective at treating personality disorders, although many BPS have had other problems, such as depression and anxiety, alleviated with medications. Surprisingly, many therapists have observed that one of the most helpful treatments for some of their BPS has been Alcoholics Anonymous and similar groups. Apparently, the structure and ready availability of these group meetings can help the BP handle fears of abandonment as well as help them regulate her emotions on a daily basis.

CONCLUSION

It is not uncommon for one professional (attorney, therapist, mediator) to help the BP deal with a dispute against another former professional, then to become a Target himself when the Borderline is disappointed in the outcome.

With these patterns in mind, Advocates and Dispute Resolvers need to be especially careful about keeping a balanced relationship that does not reinforce extreme expectations or extreme blame against other Targets. Being modest and matter-of-fact are helpful approaches to preventing the idealization, which always leads to devaluation – and possibly, becoming the next Target.

Likewise, it is helpful to avoid responding to BPS with direct criticism, strong anger, ignoring them, or abruptly terminating relationships with them. All of these methods trigger their Fear of Abandonment and the High Conflict that follows. Ironically, out of frustration, Advocates and Dispute Resolvers frequently use these methods and escalate disputes against themselves that they could have avoided. Misunderstanding and mistreating BPS may be one of the most common reasons that attorneys and therapists are sued for malpractice.

It is not uncommon for courts to lecture and criticize these clients for their self-sabotaging behavior, which may inadvertently escalate the conflict. This approach often increases the likelihood that BPS will be back in court again and again, because they are driven to prove themselves “valid” to avoid feeling abandoned by the court.

Instead, key methods for helping Borderline clients in legal disputes include respectful listening, moderate reassurance, realistic expectations, remaining focused on necessary tasks, and avoiding overreacting to the BP’s mood swings. These skills and others are discussed in depth in Part II of these course materials. By understanding these dynamics and learning techniques for handling these clients, you can avoid unnecessary escalation of the conflict, reduce the BP’s feelings of distress, and reduce your own stress as well.

CHAPTER TWO SUMMARY: BORDERLINE PERSONALITIES IN LEGAL DISPUTES

TIPS for Legal Professionals

TIPS for Clinicians

CHAPTER 3: NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITIES IN LEGAL DISPUTES

Mental health professionals estimate that only 1% of the general population has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), although up to 16% may be present in mental health settings. (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) After handling a thousand disputes, I believe that those with Narcissistic Personalities (NPs) are present in a large number of high conflict cases. In general, Narcissistic traits are harder to work with than Borderline traits, for reasons I will describe below.

The CEO

From time to time, I am selected to handle a business dispute as a Superior Court Mediator. One such case involved two small high-tech companies in a bitter conflict over a key employee, who left one company and went to the other. I have altered the names and facts to protect confidentiality.

Mr. Theodore, CEO of TedTronics, flew in for the mediation from Seattle to San Diego and arrived with his attorney well before the scheduled mediation was to begin. He had filed a lawsuit for $200,000 against MannTronics for fraud, patent violations, unfair competition, and so forth, and the judge had referred the case to mediation before a trial date could be set.

The attorney for MannTronics, the defendant San Diego firm, arrived on time and assured us that Mr. Mann, the head of the firm, would arrive soon. By twenty minutes after the hour, Mr. Mann had not arrived and Mr. Theodore was extremely insulted. “I flew in for this mediation and my time is extremely valuable. How dare Mr. Mann make me wait like this.”

I decided to start the mediation with those present. I focused on explaining the mediation process and offered to answer any questions about mediation while we were waiting.

Mr. Theodore wanted to know all about my background as a social worker. “What does a social worker know about business, anyway?” he challenged. I explained that I had successfully handled many business mediations because my background provided me with training and experience in helping people communicate and solve problems together. As the mediator, I relied on his knowledge of the issues at hand to construct a workable solution to the problems that had arisen. I also reminded him that I had been selected by the parties from a panel of mediators to handle their dispute.

“Yes, I agreed to use you, because I didn’t know anyone from the list of choices and the other side thought it would help that you were a social worker. But what do you know about business matters? Inventory? Budgets? Personnel problems like the one we’re here about?”

His tone was very condescending. The angrier he felt about Mr. Mann’s lateness, the more demeaning he became toward me. I could feel myself beginning to resent his belittling manner. Then I reminded myself to develop a Working Theory of his personality. I realized that his arrogance and need for recognition were strong Narcissistic traits. I decided I could work with him if I gave him recognition for his “superior” achievements.

With the consent of the attorneys, I got Mr. Theodore talking about his background and the creation of his company – while avoiding the legal issues at hand until Mr. Mann would arrive. He calmed down immediately, and appreciated my interest and awe at his accomplishments. He had created a multi-million dollar business from nothing, based on his scientific skills and some bold business moves. He had been very successful, although his business eventually hit the skids.

“Well, what can you know about this problem? This is a personnel problem.” Theodore challenged.

I inquired about Mr. Mann, as he was the named defendant in the lawsuit as CEO of MannTronics, and all parties should generally be present to have a productive mediation. It was obvious that Mr. Theodore had flown in to San Diego for this meeting, while Mr. Mann lived and worked nearby. However, I have learned to make no judgments and placed the problem back on those present.

“What do you all propose that we do about this situation?” I inquired, looking back and forth at Mr. Short, Mr. Theodore, and each of their attorneys.

“I am always willing in a civil court mediation to meet separately with the parties in confidential caucuses. However, if I do so, I will also meet with the other side as well.”

“Mr. Mann cannot work with Mr. Theodore in any face to face setting,” Mr. Short explained. “Mr. Theodore is so easily angered and belligerent that nothing would be accomplished. Mr. Theodore cannot see how alienating and confrontational he always is. That’s why his business is doing so poorly. Even so, Mr. Mann has authorized me to settle this case with favorable terms to Mr. Theodore, just to get him out of our lives.”

This feedback reinforced my Working Theory that Mr. Theodore had a Narcissistic Personality. He may have sabotaged his best efforts by being so sensitive to those who did not see him as very superior. If Mr. Mann left Mr. Theodore’s “superior” company, that would have been a “narcissistic injury” to Mr. Theodore’s self-image, which a Narcissistic Personality cannot tolerate. But I decided to wait and see. I then met separately with Mr. Theodore as I had promised.

“Mr. Short made it clear to us all that he cannot come today,” I explained. “As a court-referred mediator, I have the authority to require that he be here, so we can reschedule the mediation for another date – or we can proceed and see if an agreement can be reached today. If not, then we can reschedule. I know how busy you are and it might be the most productive use of our time today to give it a try. I don’t want to waste your time today without attempting a resolution to the problem you came so far to resolve. But it’s up to you.”

I knew that one of Mr. Theodore’s strengths was that he was, in fact, very productive. I had learned that he was a tireless worker, which was part of why he demanded so much of those around him. He liked my thinking – and my deference to him. He agreed to proceed.

We spent the next hour and a half in intense discussions over the insult to Mr. Theodore of a former sales employee going to MannTronics to work for his betrayer, Mr. Mann. No damage had yet occurred – no evidence of misuse of secrets, no contact with former clients – but Mr. Theodore had feared that they were inevitable. By focusing the discussion on developing a very structured “non-compete” agreement regarding customers, and nondisclosure of TedTronics secrets, procedures, and patents, we were able to construct a complete settlement of the issues of the lawsuit. It would be dismissed, and neither party would be held liable for any misdeeds. Mr. Theodore was satisfied with the controls put in place in the agreement we negotiated, and Mr. Short readily agreed to give Mr. Theodore a letter of apology for “miscommunications.” I had suggested that some form of apology might help in a case like this where one party felt so personally offended, because an apology can also ease a “narcissistic injury.”

During the negotiations, it became obvious that a financial settlement was never really an issue. Mr. Theodore was insulted and frightened by his belief that Mr. Mann had stolen a key employee, and he wanted to confront the bad guys and get some control over the situation. He wanted to be recognized and respected.

However, there was one unresolved issue: $7,000 in attorneys fees, which Mr. Theodore had spent so far in the lawsuit. This was a far smaller amount than the $200,000 lawsuit he had just negotiated away. Nevertheless, Mr. Theodore adamantly believed he should be paid something for his trouble, and he would settle for having his attorney’s fees paid by MannTronics. It appeared to me that this would satisfy what remained of his “narcissistic injury.” If he didn’t get this (he was probably thinking), it would appear that no one had done anything wrong – and that he had been a fool. He still strongly believed that he had been betrayed by Mr. Mann – again and again.

On the other hand, Mr. Short said there would be no payment or admission of any liability for any wrongdoing. MannTronics had paid their own attorney’s fees for this “unnecessary lawsuit,” so Mr. Theodore should really pay their attorneys fees, he suggested. But Mr. Short said they would absorb their own fees just to get this resolved. It made sense to me, but I was staying absolutely neutral.

“All we need to do is reach an agreement that both sides can live with,” I suggested. As they remained stuck on this point, I suggested one last caucus with each side.

I met with Mr. Short first. “Look, is there any reason you can think of to throw some small change at him? It doesn’t have to be an admission of anything. It seems to me that he needs something, no matter how small, to help him let go. And besides, you’ve already saved yourselves the costs and delays of going to trial.”

“I haven’t done much yet, since I strongly believed this case needed to be settled,” his counsel replied. “About $2,000.”

“You know, Mr. Theodore had to fly down here for this mediation,” I pointed out. “And your company kept him waiting. And the mediation rules say that all parties must be present, although we agreed to try this without Mr. Mann. Even a token might settle the case.”

“All right. Let’s split the difference,” Mr. Short said to his attorney. “Let’s give him $2,500 – half of the difference in attorney’s fees that he’s spent and we’ve spent. We’ll call it costs of settlement and an adjustment for his travel costs inasmuch as he had to travel so far to come here today.”

I then met separately, again, with Mr. Theodore and his attorney. “You know, court is always a roll of the dice. No matter how great your case, you could have lost there. I’ve had that experience myself in court – lost cases I should have won and won cases I should have lost. And you can’t prove any damages at this point in your case. It would have cost you so much more to take a very high risk at court.”

I continued: “Your attorney’s fees are lower than those in a lot of cases I mediate. Your attorney has been wise to encourage a low-cost resolution to this problem. You have better things to do with your time than spend it in court.” Of course, his attorney wanted to get this settled too, and reinforced what I was saying.

“Okay, then let’s meet together one last time and see whether we can reach an agreement on this last issue, or will have to go to court after all of your hard work.”

I got everyone back together and asked for any new proposals to resolve this minor issue. Of course, as a good negotiator, Mr. Short started with a lower offer than he was aiming for. “We’ll give you $1,500 for your attorney’s fees and for your trouble in having to come down here and file this lawsuit.”

Mr. Theodore’s face tightened. Then he blurted out, “I demand at least 2,000! And nothing less.”

Mr. Theodore was satisfied. To him it was an admission of guilt and compensation for his hurt. Mr. Short was satisfied. To MannTronics, it was an adjustment for his travel costs and a low cost resolution of a potentially expensive legal dispute. Both sides agreed that their settlement would be confidential.

To me, it was a case of one narcissistic personality and three other reasonable people. If Mr. Short and the two attorneys hadn’t been so flexible and recognized the need to butter up Mr. Theodore a bit, it would have gone to court. Mr. Short was flexible and had been forewarned about Mr. Theodore’s difficult personality by Mr. Mann. If there had been two or more narcissistic personalities present, this case would probably have gone to court – even though it was really about hurt feelings.

I don’t believe that Mr. Theodore had a personality disorder, because he was generally successful in his work life. However, he appeared to have enough traits of a Narcissistic Personality for my working theory to succeed: He responded favorably to 1) a recognition of his true accomplishments, and 2) a focus on “being highly productive,” both of which were emphasized throughout this mediation. I purposely avoided direct confrontation of his self-sabotaging behavior, which would have backfired completely with a narcissistic personality.

CHARACTERISTICS OF NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY

Those with Narcissistic Personalities often become involved in legal disputes because they are high risk-takers, disdainful of others, and generally oblivious to the consequences of their own actions. They often feel like victims, when in fact, it is usually their own behavior that caused the events that now upset them. With these characteristics, conflicts with their attorneys, mediators, and therapists, are also to be expected. Compromise and settlement are not.

Those with this disorder, or traits of it, appear as parties in legal disputes on a regular basis, almost as frequently as Borderline Personalities. They generally do not pursue mental health treatment, except for help with a separate problem, such as anxiety or depression. They cannot see themselves as contributing to their problems. If you confront them with their own behavior, they will become very defensive and go on the offensive by verbally attacking you.

Formal Diagnostic Criteria

“A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

Relationships with those with Narcissistic Personalities are unsatisfying and uncomfortable. Over time, the buildup of resentment by those around the NP may reach a level of a legal dispute. Yet, when the NP is fired, divorced, or excluded from a promising business deal, the NP is caught by surprise and feels completely victimized by the other’s “insensitive” behavior. This often leads to the initiation of a legal dispute or the escalation of existing legal disputes, because of the NP’s inability to compromise.

SELF-SABOTAGE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION

NPs have a difficult time losing a dispute because they perceive themselves as so superior. Therefore, the easy settlement of a minor dispute may become impossible when an NP is involved. The NP is driven to extremes in defending against the claims of “less worthy people.”

The Narcissistic Person is oblivious to the effect of his drive to prevail, and may insist on testifying at trial – even though his attorney advises him the result will be disastrous. In some cases, the NP simply fires the attorney and looks for one who will agree with him.

In Mediation, the NP may have a very hard time accepting any compromise or settlement. Even when a very generous offer is made, the NP may keep pushing for absolute victory. At times, those involved in a dispute with the NP will simply give in, just to end the dispute. Attorneys with NP traits display the same rigidity in court, in judicial settlement, or in mediation, as they persist in a manner that most others would consider unreasonable.

Yet, by being so self-consumed, the NP simply replays his frustration with others over and over again. Few disputes are resolved in a satisfying manner; therefore, the NP constantly feels victimized – which he uses to justify his arrogant behavior and responses. Internal conflicts and unresolved hopes keep the cycle continuing.

CONFLICTS WITH PROFESSIONALS

NPs frequently seek out relationships with professionals, because this helps them feel superior. Eventually, the professional-client relationship disappoints the fantasies of the NP and the NP feels victimized – and sometimes retaliates. The retaliation may include verbal attacks, suits for malpractice, or even violence. If the professional abruptly or angrily terminates the relationship with the NP, there is a risk that the NP will sue or repeatedly attempt to contact the professional and convince the professional that he or she is wrong, to maintain the NP’s self-image as superior or innocent.

Some successful techniques with NPs have revolved around giving the NP positive feedback and admiration. By “stroking the ego” or boosting the self-confidence of the NP, the relationship between the professional and client will generally remain stable. While a professional may dislike engaging in such behavior, the price of rejecting the NP may be much higher. In many cases, the most effective technique is using a lot of respectful and interested listening skills. This will be discussed further in Part II of this course.

CAUSES AND TREATMENTS

Mental health theorists and researchers have generally considered Narcissistic Personalities to develop in early childhood, possibly from child-rearing which is lacking in emotional nurturing, while over inflating the child’s sense of being special for some unique talent or personal quality – which may or may not be recognized by the larger society. (Beck, 1999, p. 235). One example would be the abusive parent who only praises his son for his fighting skills at school, when he shouldn’t be getting into fights in the first place.

This life experience may drive the child to obtain nurturing by overly emphasizing imagined personal qualities. Many believe that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is on the rise, primarily because of the social breakdown of consistent family environments (Ford 1998, Page 123) and the decreased opportunities to receive nurturing for children in today’s society. NPs are less likely than BPS to seek mental health treatment. When NPs do seek treatment, it is usually because of depression, substance abuse, or anxiety disorders (Beck, 1990, Pages 239-40). They may become depressed because of the gap between their high expectations and real life. Those around them may demand that they get treatment. They also may become attracted to and destroyed by “high-status” drugs, such as cocaine (Beck, Page 240).

When NPs do receive treatment, the most successful treatment appears to be long term individual psychotherapy, with an emphasis on confronting and interpreting inappropriate behavior, and discussing the alternative behaviors for more effective relationships (Lester, 1998, Pages 92-94).

When a legal professional wants to recommend therapy for a client with NP, it may be most effective to suggest counseling “for the purpose of dealing with the stress” of their legal dispute, rather than implying that there is something wrong with the person. Even short-term therapy may aid the NP in relieving stress and finding areas in which he can be more flexible. When a secure, positive relationship can be established with such a person, he can be a very stimulating and interesting client.

However, for significant change to take place the NP client has to have had a life experience that inspires him or her to want to change.

David

Aaron Beck, Ph.D., the cognitive therapist and researcher, provides an example of an attorney with NP who entered therapy, which is rare. His description helps understand this diagnosis:

“. . . David was an attorney in his early 40s when he sought treatment for depressed mood. He cited business and marital problems as the source of his distress, and wondered if he was having a mid-life crisis.

“Feeling worse at work was associated with a heightened sense of discomfort in doing routine work, and the thought that such work was beneath him. He would think about how he really deserved better, and how he was not getting appropriate recognition for his talents and aptitudes. Consultations with colleagues often triggered thoughts of their failure to give him appropriate recognition, or their ‘nerve’ in saying something even marginally critical about him. David believed that because he was ‘different’ from other people, they had no right to criticize him. However, he had every right to criticize others. He also believed that other people were weak and needed contact with someone like him in order to bring direction or pleasure into their lives. He saw no problem in taking advantage of other people if they were ‘stupid’ enough to allow him to do so.

“David felt better when someone flattered him; when he was in a group social situation where he could easily grab the center of attention; and when he could fantasize about obtaining a high-level position, being honored for his great talent, or just being fabulously wealthy. The composite picture produced by the assessment of David’s clinical history, his current symptoms, and his attitudes and automatic thoughts thus indicated a major depressive episode, of mild severity, with concomitant NPD.” Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders (1990) pp. 245-47. Used with permission.

Those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder tend to get into trouble with the law because of their superior attitudes - that somehow the law does not apply to them. As Beck further says:

“Narcissists are apt to become most resentful and contemptuous of anyone who tries to hold them accountable for their exploitative, self-centered behavior.

“When in a position of authority, the narcissist may misuse power to exploit those under his or her influence. One likely example of this is sexual harassment. Another example is a stockbroker who excessively buys and sells or otherwise ‘churns’ a client account to generate commissions, regardless of whether money is made or lost for the client. Other public examples might be found among political figures who behave as if their authority exempts them from generally accepted norms of conduct.” Id., at 244-45.

With this type of behavior, it is easy to see how many narcissistic people end up in court – often to their own complete surprise. They are truly oblivious to the impact of their behavior and insensitivity to others.

It was after those words were written by Beck in 1990 that we had some of the biggest political scandals of the century. Newt Gingrich was driven from office as Speaker of the House of Representatives by legal action against him for his financial affairs. Bill Clinton was impeached as President with legal action against him for his sexual affairs. These were two of the most brilliant political minds in recent history. Yet it wasn’t their politics (from opposite ends of the political spectrum) which left them in disgrace; it was their personalities. Their own apparently narcissistic traits sabotaged them in high-conflict legal cases, at a cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars.

Gingrich and Clinton are two excellent examples of how narcissistic traits probably helped them succeed over and over again. They appear to believe in themselves so highly that they were able to survive the endless criticisms and oppositions that politicians must endure. Both of them are especially known for their abilities to bounce back and reinvent themselves. But this also tells us that they kept getting into trouble, which made these skills necessary. Did they have personality disorders? I doubt it. They were (and still are) highly successful and powerful people. If my working theory is right, and they were to understand and treat their traits, they could still be even more successful. (Depending on your political persuasion, this could be a good or bad thing.)

CONCLUSION

In summary, NPs commonly cannot accept responsibility for the problems their own behavior has caused. They blame others for problems they continue to have. Their basic pattern of exaggerated superiority, blind persistence, lack of empathy, self-centeredness and self-sabotage often brings them to court or other high conflict disputes.

CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY: NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITIES IN LEGAL DISPUTES

TIPS for Legal Professionals

TIPS for Clinicians

CHAPTER 4: ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITIES IN LEGAL DISPUTES

People with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) are fast and fast-talking. They win you over with charm and incredibly good deeds – or so it appears on the surface. They work hard to keep their true intentions and bad acts out of sight.

They chip away at your doubts and replace them with their own confident certainties. You may sense danger or deceit around them, but they convince you to doubt yourself and develop more confidence in their point of view. Thus, the phrase “confidence man” or “con artist.”

ASPs fear being dominated and therefore they desire to dominate and control others – it gives them a reassuring sense of power in the world. They often have a drive to hurt others to get what they want, as compared to the other personality disorders that involve primarily self-sabotage and inadvertent harm to others. This drive may range from taking advantage of other people – such as the con man who marries several women at the same time for their money – to the psychopathic killer, who is comfortable in killing you because he wants your attractive coat.

People with Antisocial Personality Disorders are skilled at fooling neighbors, spouses, legal professionals, and even mental health professionals. They are often involved in cases involving criminal charges and appear to make up a substantial portion of the prison population, frequently estimated at about 50%. They represent approximately 2 to 4 percent of the general population, with men appearing far more frequently than woman, at a ratio of about three to one (Lester, 1998, p. 35) or four to one (Ford, 1998, p. 108).

By adopting the term Antisocial Personality Disorder in 1980, the DSM combined the use of two prior terms, Psychopath and Sociopath, into one comprehensive category. These terms have often been used interchangeably to cover a range of behavior against the rules of society – thus they are called “antisocial” and “sociopathic.”

Chronic lying and manipulation are key characteristics of the ASP. Frequently, an ASP will attempt to persuade mental health professionals and legal professionals that another person is guilty of behavior which is actually his (or her) own.

The case of Mr. Gossage in Chapter 1 may be a good example of this personality. He recruited 20 advocates who testified on his behalf at the Bar Court. They were confident that he had changed. He showed remorse over killing his sister many years earlier. He did good work in the community. He overcame his drug addiction. Yet, did they know that he continued to get and ignore traffic violations – even during law school? Did they know that he only mentioned four of his 17 criminal convictions on his application to become an attorney? Probably not.

While those with this disorder frequently end up in the criminal justice system, those with traits of ASPD often show up in civil disputes. As I have often seen in cases with ASPs, the people they “con” become confident advocates who adamantly defend the ASP when they are challenged by others. To succeed, they must use and deceive other people to get what they want – friends, lovers, family, mental health professionals, attorneys, and even their own children. The example in this chapter show how this may works. However, a personality disorder is never mentioned, so it is another opportunity to consider a “working theory,” without making a diagnosis. After the example, the criteria under the DSM-IV will be reviewed.

The Stockbroker

The following information is summarized from a New Yorker magazine article in 2000, entitled “Marisa and Jeff.”

Jeffrey was a stockbroker in New York City in the 1990's. He had a checkered history of being fired by his firms for improper trading and false promises to investors. He handled one account for a retired man with over four hundred thousand dollars, and reduced it to approximately thirty thousand dollars. He had invested in stocks that gave him large commissions but were otherwise worthless. The outcome of all this was that he only lost each job, with no other punishment.

Then he befriended a young woman, named Marisa, who worked for Smith Barney as a stock analyst. Her job was to keep trading information she was studying as an analyst from being released to other investment divisions of the firm. Before she met Jeffrey, she never used this information improperly.

When they met, Jeffrey really impressed Marisa. He had lots of cash on hand, even though he was secretly moving from one residence to another after failing to pay his rent. Apparently unknown to Marisa, he was involved with alcohol, cocaine and betting.

Flattery apparently worked on Marisa, and soon she agreed to pass illegal information to Jeffrey. She was promised half of the profits, but he did not share them. He even passed this information on to others, without telling her. Her friends advised against being with him, telling her he was taking advantage of her. Nevertheless, she even spent the night at an expensive hotel with him, ended up having to pay the bill (about $2,000), and still remained friends with him.

She eventually confronted him and they had a big meeting at a restaurant. Apparently, he was already in trouble with the police, and he had agreed to be recorded for this meeting. He gave her $2,500, with about $30,000 more promised to be on the way. But this was nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars he and his other friends had made by investing based on her insider information. When she expressed her concerns that she could not trust him, he quickly regained her confidence with quick comebacks and assurances that he had never harmed their trust.

Apparently, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office was pursuing Jeffrey for the case of the mishandled four hundred thousand dollar account mentioned above. So he eagerly offered to get information on the more important criminals, such as Marisa, so they were able to videotape and audio tape their restaurant conversation. They seemed caught red-handed.

However, neither Marisa nor Jeffrey went to trial. Instead, befitting his experience at betraying others, Jeff turned state’s evidence against his biggest trading partner, who Marisa never met. Marisa also testified at this partner’s trial in exchange for a reduced sentence. She, at least, appeared to take responsibility for what she had done, and even the prosecutors felt sympathy for what Jeff had done to her. She said she had only herself to blame, and the judge gave her two years probation.

Jeffrey’s trading partner got two-to-six years. And how did Jeff do? Could he con the court? Incredibly, the Assistant District Attorney argued for leniency – even after it was discovered that Jeff had misled the court, even under his agreement to cooperate. The D. A. said that since Jeffrey had cooperated in the investigation, he should be given leniency and that giving him a sentence as severe as his trading partner would discourage others from testifying about these illegal actions. The D. A. even said that Jeffrey had shown some remorse for his actions. Jeffrey stated that he had changed his life around, including getting off drugs. He got a sentence of about one to four years.

Jeffrey succeeded in manipulating Marisa. She was impressed by his generosity – throwing money around – and by his claims that he would never take advantage of her. When she had doubts, he quickly rebuilt her confidence in him with sweet talk that she was special and arguments that he never gave her a reason not to trust him. Yet all the time he was keeping most of the money and bringing other people in on the deal. A classic con, he was fast-talking the positive to hide the negative. He also had no empathy for her and was immediately ready to sacrifice her to help him escape consequences.

And he even conned the prosecutor! The Assistant District Attorney detected some remorse in Jeff. This obvious con helped divert him from the fact that it was Jeffrey’s scheme from the start. The key lesson about con artists isn’t their misdeeds, but their ability to effectively divert attention from them with fast talk, charm, and lies. If Jeffrey has an Antisocial Personality, then lying would be routine and carry with it no shame or even a recognition that it is bad. The ASP assumes that everyone is lying and that it is an expected part of the game of life. When confronted, the ASP quickly blames someone else – the Target of Blame – for something even worse, to divert from his own misdeeds.

Does he seem to fit the following personality traits? A complete clinical assessment would be necessary to answer that question. However, the following gives you criteria to consider.

IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS

The DSM-IV identifies those with Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD) as follows:

“There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

“Conduct Disorder Before Age 15

“In contrast to the other personality disorders, a formal diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder requires a childhood history of similar behavior. Conduct Disorder includes:

“Aggression to people and animals; ... Destruction of property; ... Deceitfulness or theft; ... [and/or] Serious violations of rules; ... [which] causes clinically significant impairment in social, academic or occupational functioning.” Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association.

SELF-SABOTAGE IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION

The irony for ASPs is that they have the strongest drives and fantasies for being in control of others and getting whatever they want. Yet, they are the ones who are most likely to wind up in highly controlled environments themselves – such as prison. While they need the assistance of others to defend them when they constantly get into trouble, they have great difficulty developing relationships – except for those based on manipulation and deception. Their efforts at manipulation and short-term gratification often sabotage any possibility for long-term success at any endeavor – including remaining out of prison.

CONFLICTS WITH PROFESSIONALS

One can easily predict difficulties in working with ASPs The ASP will want to be in control and will attempt to do so by manipulating the information provided to his attorney and other professionals. This will make the work of the professional very difficult, and the response of the professional quite negative.

ASPs can be effective at charming mental health professionals and legal professionals. It is not uncommon for these professionals to discover that they were deceived – after the fact. In some court cases, there are psychological experts with very strong opinions about the person – but the opposite of each other.

However, while many people have believed that ASPs are more intelligent than the average person, the research does not support this. In reality, there is no evidence of a correlation between intelligence and psychopathic individuals (Malloy, 1997, p. 87). Apparently, there is the normal range of high intelligence, average intelligence, and below average intelligence in this population.

In any case, you need to be cautious about believing the information you are provided and