August 2008

Dealing with Difficult People

by Mark Mays

“I hope you don’t mind my referring people to you,” I told an attorney friend over lunch. He’d been working for some years in the field of workers’ compensation, and I didn’t know if he was still taking new referrals.

“No, that’s great… so long as you don’t mind if I don’t accept them as clients,” he replied. I quickly reassured him that I always gave three referral names.

He went on to say that he had become quite clear on a few things related to his practice. He explained: “A few years ago, someone came to see me who was very aggressive. He bullied my secretary, and loudly insisted upon seeing me immediately. Hearing the commotion, I invited him into my office. I sat down behind my desk, but, rather than sit in one of the chairs, he stood, looked down at me, and told me exactly what we were going to do.”

“‘No, actually, we’re not going to do any of those things,’ I said. He looked perplexed.

“‘What do you mean?’ he asked.

“‘Because I’m not going to be your lawyer.’

“‘Why the hell not?’

“‘Because I don’t like you. And the truth is that if I don’t like you, you are not going to get good legal representation from me. To be honest, yours would not be the first phone call I’d return if I had several messages waiting. I wouldn’t want to expand upon my conversations with you, so I might not have all the information I needed, and you wouldn’t be able to communicate with me very effectively, which is important in representing you. I’m going to give you the names of several people who might like you. Talk with them. I’m sure they would do a better job.’”

The person left a bit bewildered, but my friend had realized that he was at a point where it was important for him to control his practice, which begins at the outset of the relationship.

I have thought a lot about what he said. I thought he was quite blunt, bordering on rude. (I also wished that I had that much nerve or wealth.) But I also realized that he was right. Things seldom get better, and if they start off horribly wrong, there is often a bigger problem down the road. And our emotional reaction to a client can affect how well we represent or respond to him or her.

It’s a different way of thinking than I was used to. As a psychologist and a healthcare provider, I have always seen it as my job to cope with, tolerate, or try to ignore certain things in order to be of help. After all, in healthcare, the implicit contract of the relationship is based on the assumption that the person is ill, we are there to help, and to do so professionally means to deliver services in a respectful way, whether it’s reciprocated or not.

But compatibility of style, or even circumstances in our own lives, can make our capacity for patience and tolerance fluctuate. My friend was blunt, but he probably did a service to his client, as well as whoever the client went to see subsequently for legal representation.

But not everyone is in a situation where they can decide who they represent. There are agency positions in which cases are assigned. Even in private practice, there are economic circumstances and “practice politics” which dictate who one represents.

Difficult clients are typically either well-functioning people going through a tough but temporary situation, or individuals with ongoing patterns of difficult behavior. It’s important to distinguish what endures and is a pattern that will persist, as opposed to what’s more situational and likely more manageable. Here are a few of the most commonly seen types of problem clients:

Frightened: Frightened clients can make demands upon our time and our resources, and want reassurance and predictability where none can honestly be given. Their anxiety and distress can be contagious; we can find ourselves a bit taxed, tired, or tense after interacting with them.

Taking the initiative and reminding them that they are remembered and that they matter, and are neither neglected nor abandoned, can be extremely helpful. Status letters can be sent every few weeks, merely letting a client know that nothing has happened recently, and that it is the natural order of things for matters to take awhile. It’s sometimes just as important to communicate something, rather than to communicate something meaningful.

Embarrassed: Clients who are embarrassed can pose a problem, because their embarrassment might make them avoid disclosure, or avoid doing certain essential things, such as completing interrogatories or making timely responses. Often, people are embarrassed about things that they believe are unique to them, but which are really quite normal. Sometimes it’s helpful to communicate the normalcy of their situation indirectly, by mentioning that “People often feel that they are the only ones who have ever …” or “What I almost always see in these situations is ….” Other matters are just downright embarrassing, and it may be best simply to directly address the issue with the client, since it will have to be dealt with sooner or later.

Angry: Angry clients can create the temptation to form alliances with their anger, not merely with their cause of action. Many people are involved in litigation because they feel wronged, and want the wrong righted right now! They are often looking for an attorney who can hold their opponent’s arms behind their backs so that they can beat them up with no ill consequence. It’s tempting, but a mistake, to jump on that bandwagon. Reinforcing anger is a bad idea, both because it’s unpleasant to be around and because it can paint one into a corner if litigation is seen as a moral crusade, rather than a legal exercise. One cannot negotiate from a moral position.

Unreasonable: Then there are people who just don’t understand what a reasonable expectation might be. Many have never before encountered a legal situation and may have very unrealistic expectations about an attorney’s availability, the time it takes for matters to resolve, or the amount of energy involved in assisting an attorney prior to litigation or dispute resolution. It’s our job to communicate all of this.

Let clients know that others in your office can usually provide information in a quick and equally accurate way, and designate your secretary, paralegal, or legal assistant the resource to contact. Help your client understand that talking to staff can result in quick responses and reduced costs.

Personality disorders: Finally, there are those who pose problems no matter what the situation. These are, most often, people with personality disorders. They are not individuals who are merely going through tough times, but those who tend to create tough times, more often for others than for themselves. A personality disorder is, by definition, a long-standing maladaptive pattern of behavior of a magnitude to interfere with social and vocational functioning. These patterns may interfere with an individual’s capacity to resolve conflicts, communicate effectively, maintain agreements, or maintain some balance between the emotional and the rational as one makes decisions and manages behavior.

Personality disorders come in all “shapes and sizes,” but they can be divided into these categories, or clusters:

•  Cluster A (odd): schizotypal, schizoid, or paranoid personality disorders
•  Cluster B (dramatic): antisocial, borderline, histrionic, or narcissistic personality disorders
•  Cluster C (anxious): dependent, obsessive-compulsive, or avoidant personality disorders
 

Three personality patterns are particularly relevant in legal practice: the antisocial personality, the narcissistic personality, and the borderline personality.

The antisocial personality disorder can, in its more full-blown version, include long-standing patterns of disregard for limits, rules, and authority. The formal diagnostic criteria include such characteristics as failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors; deceitfulness; impulsivity; irritability and aggressiveness; consistent irresponsibility; and a lack of remorse at having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

More often seen is the less severe personality trait disturbance with antisocial characteristics. A trait disturbance suggests that this pattern of behavior is present, but with less severity than a personality disorder. Individuals with this personality trait disturbance are typically quite impulsive. It’s hard for them to “keep on track,” since the temptations of the moment, their immediate desires, and the habit problems that may arise from such a personality type (such as gambling, drinking, or drug use) may keep them from performing consistently and reliably.

Those with antisocial personality traits prompt an attorney to confirm their statements and reports, and warrant extremely clear, detailed, and enforceable agreements.

The borderline personality disorder is very misunderstood. In fact, it doesn’t “border” on anything, and it is not a reflection of a person who is near to psychosis. It refers to a personality type that is excessively emotional, quickly changeable, and extremely ambivalent. These individuals are emotionally determined, impulsive, and self-defeating. Their views towards other people can change quite abruptly. These are people who can go from idealizing someone to castigating them, with very few midpoints in between.

It is sometimes quite difficult for an attorney to maintain some sense of professional distance while simultaneously being caring and responsive to a client’s needs, given the potential overwhelming involvement demanded by this personality type with emotionality, changeability, and “high maintenance” behavior. Such loss of attorney perspective can inadvertently accentuate the risk of later conflict.

With a borderline personality, the professional attorney would be well-advised to maintain consistent boundaries and to not veer off course from how one typically deals with clients. Beware of rearranging appointment times, making variations in billing arrangements, or going “the extra mile” in situations in which one might not typically do so.

The narcissistic personality disorder might be seen as the “prince” or the “special person.” They often exhibit a sense of entitlement and are more likely to be male than female, although there is a sense of entitlement found in many conditions and situations across gender lines. They are typically condescending, dismissive of others, and arrogant.

These are people who remember slights, affronts, and insults forever. A “wounded narcissist,” as the phrase is used, can be quite vengeful and can engage in protracted conflict because of how they were treated. The narcissistic personality disorder will likely pose a long-standing problem, since conflicts may occur, and reoccur, due to emotional slights. These are the clients for whom not mediation, but arbitration, may be well advised. These are the people for whom court files can take several volumes. These are people not to offend.

Difficult people (or people who behave in difficult ways) are not uncommon in legal practice. There are ways in which we can limit or manage those who are typically less well-functioning, and, in the process, maintain integrity and professionalism in our practices, as well as protect our capacity to continue to practice. Finally, there really are those people we just don’t like, and, when the circumstances are right, maybe my friend who refuses to work with them has a point.

Mark Mays, Ph.D., J.D. is a clinical psychologist and an attorney.