High Conflict People in Legal Disputes

In writing and publishing this book, I have relied heavily on the critical feedback, insights and experiences of friends and colleagues in numerous professions. Without them, this book would not exist.

First and foremost, I owe several debts of gratitude to my wife, Alice Fichandler, LCSW. She has provided me with unlimited encouragement, a therapist’s wisdom, an editor’s insights and a tremendous tolerance for my discussions of this topic.

I am indebted to my mentor and colleague, William M. Benjamin, a Certified Family Law Specialist and the most skilled, respected and ethical attorney I have ever known.

I want to thank the attorneys, therapists and judges who participated in our Attorney-Therapist Interface Luncheons at the San Diego County Bar Association over the last several years, coordinated by Betty Jackson, MFT, of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. Many of the ideas in this book were inspired by our discussions about the increasingly difficult mental health issues arising in family court cases. The bench in San Diego is particularly dedicated to addressing these issues, and I especially want to thank those who have participated: Judges Ashworth, Bostwick, Clements, Denton, Lewis, Milliken, Powazek and Stern.

My formative years were as a clinical social worker, and several mental health professionals and close friends have continually educated and sustained me over the years. I am particularly grateful to the following for reading the entire manuscript, making corrections and giving me numerous suggestions for making it more useful to a wide audience: Therese Adair, LCSW; Ray Adair; Georgi DiStefano, LCSW; Doris Mellman, LCSW; Linda Maggio, Ph.D.; Matt Maggio; Joanne Mason, MFT; A.J. Mason; David Bright; Diane Wade and Stephen Sparta, Ph.D.

Since 1984, the National Conflict Resolution Center (formerly the San Diego Mediation Center) has been my primary source of dispute resolution inspiration and collaboration. Two of the people I met there have remained my closest allies in mediation and training: Barbara Filner and Robin Seigle, Esq. Their willingness to read the entire manuscript and give me feedback for this as a training tool has improved it immensely.

Other court-related mediators who have been kindred spirits and always encouraging include: Sharon Peterson, Esq.; Genell Greenberg, MSW, Esq.; Robert Macfarlane, Esq.; Janet Allen, Esq.; Elizabeth Allen, Esq.; Bleema Moss, MFT; Penny Angel-Levy, MFT; Ellen Waldman, Professor of Law; Allen Snyder, Professor of Law; Dennis Sharp, Attorney, Arbitrator and Mediator; Ellen Miller, Director of the San Diego Superior Court pilot project on court mediation; Patti Chavez-Fallon, MSW; Ruth Hatcher, MS; and Russell Gold, Ph.D.

I have a special appreciation for my good friend Dennis Doyle, Ph.D., an assistant superintendent in education. Since 1975, Dennis has assisted me with planning and accountability for accomplishing our career goals through thirty annual “year-in-review” walks and talks. For years he has encouraged my writing, and he helped define my career as a “counselor” at law.

A big thank-you to Tia Wallach for editing and proof-reading my first self-published book; to Debbie Gosch for obtaining copyright permissions, ISBNs, and for sticking with me for twelve years; to Ana Campos for typing forever and for being so positive; and to Sally Roberts, Jennifer Berger, Esq., and Mathoupany Srioudom. In addition to making our shared office an enjoyable place to work, they have been role models of patience in handling high-conflict legal cases, and a constant source of input in refining these ideas. Jenna Buchman gets credit for her enthusiasm and procedures in establishing the day-to-day distribution of this book out of my law and mediation office while it was self-published.

For this edition of the book I am very appreciative of my editor, Rod Chapman, for his patient and friendly guidance (and painstaking attention to detail) in editing this book. Thanks also to Nelson Vigneault for creating an exciting cover design that far exceeds my expectations.

Now that Janis Publications has turned this book into a professional product, I especially want to acknowledge Janis Magnuson for gently moving me forward, and for adding the structure and confidence I lacked to take the next, bigger step. I thank Ray Sobol for helping me focus my energies more productively and helping me believe this can happen on a large scale.

I really appreciate Jennifer Kresge for linking me up with Janis Publications in the first place, as she was one of the first to attend my seminar in 2002 and to see that understanding high-conflict personalities will be important to the future of resolving difficult disputes in a wide range of settings.

Last, my training in problem solving has been most influenced by my parents. My deceased mother, Margaret, was the first social worker I ever knew and the greatest role model of my life. My father Roland, a research scientist, taught me to analyze problems before trying to solve them, and to always consider alternate explanations. My stepmother, Helen, is an inspiration of spiritual and social values and service to others.

APPENDIX A

23. Inappropriately involves others in disputes (children, neighbors, co-workers)

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER

Common signs:

Common relationship issues with attorneys/staff:

Common coping methods:

NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER

Common signs:

Common relationship issues with attorneys/staff:

Common coping methods:

ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER

Common signs:

Common relationship issues with attorneys/staff:

Common coping methods:

HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER

Common signs:

Common relationship issues with attorney/staff:

Common coping methods:

THE ENABLERS

Common characteristics:

Common relationship issues with attorneys/staff:

Common coping methods:

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

Before You Go To Family Court

Make sure you have realistic expectations: In family court, the judge will never really know what is going on in your case. The family court’s job is to decide narrow legal issues based on limited permissible evidence. Hearings are mostly short and to the point. In real life, family court is not like most court cases on television or the movies—or even the news. Trials are rare, as most cases are resolved by hearings and/or settlement by agreement of the parties—often with the help of knowledgeable attorneys.

Do not expect validation or vindication: The judge does not decide your character as a person—or who has been “all good” or “all bad.” In family court, it is assumed that both parties have contributed to the breakup of the family and that it is not a matter of “fault,” but of “irreconcilable differences.” Finding fault is against the principles of family court. Instead, family courts focus on problem solving. If the court finds that someone has acted improperly, then the focus is on what should be done now—such as modifying custody, visitation, support, property division, issuing restraining orders and, in rare cases, sanctions. Rather than punishment and blame, the court prefers to order drug treatment, domestic violence programs, individual counseling and parenting classes.

Avoid emotional reasoning: When we are upset our perceptions can be distorted temporarily or permanently. Our emotions may cause us to jump to conclusions, view things as “all or nothing,” take innocent things personally, fill in “facts” that are not really true, unknowingly project our own behavior onto others, and unconsciously “split” people into absolute enemies and unrealistic allies. This happens at times to everyone, so check out your perceptions with others to make sure they have not been distorted by the emotional trauma of the divorce and related events. Many cases get stuck in court for years fighting over who was lying, when instead it was emotional reasoning which could have been avoided from the start.

Provide the court with useful information: The judge does not know your family or your issues, except for the information that is properly submitted to the court. Make sure to provide important information, even if it is embarrassing. The court cannot sense the behavior of each party. If you have an abusive spouse, the court needs sufficient information to make helpful decisions. If you hold back on important information, it may appear that abusive incidents never occurred and that you are exaggerating or making knowingly false statements. If you are accused of actions you did not take, the court will not know this information is inaccurate or false unless you inform the court.

Be careful about unverifiable information: The accuracy of the information you provide to the court is very important. Based solely on what you say in declarations or testimony in court, the judge may make serious orders regarding the other party, yourself, your children and your finances. If it later turns out that you made false or reckless statements—even if you were well-intentioned—there may be negative consequences, such as sanctions (financial penalties), loss of custody or restricted contact with your children.

Try to settle your case out of court: Today there are many alternatives to going to court which can be used at any time in your case, including Divorce Mediation, Collaborative Divorce, negotiated agreements with attorneys, and settlement conferences assisted by a temporary settlement judge. The expense for each of these is much less than for court hearings and prolonged disputes. You have nothing to lose, and you can still go to court afterward if you do not reach a full agreement. By trying an out-of-court settlement, you can limit animosity and protect your children from the tension of having parents in long, drawn-out court battles.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

William A. (“Bill”) Eddy is President of the High Conflict Institute, LLC, in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego, California.

He is a Certified Family Law Specialist in California with 15 years’ experience representing clients in family court and a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with 12 years’ experience providing therapy to children, adults, couples, and families in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics.

Since 1983, Bill has also been a part-time mediator with the National Conflict Resolution Center (formerly San Diego Mediation Center), at first as a volunteer and then as a paid mediator. He has mediated neighbor disputes, workplace disputes, landlord-tenant disputes, small business and consumer disputes, school disputes, business disputes, and personal injury cases.

He taught Negotiation and Mediation at the University of San Diego School of Law for six years. He provides seminars on mental health issues for judges, attorneys, and mediators, and seminars on law and ethics for mental health professionals. His articles have appeared in national law and counseling journals. He is the author of several books, including It’s All Your Fault: 12 Tips for Managing People Who Blame Others for Everything and SPLITTING: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or Narcissist.

Bill is a co-founder of the High Conflict Institute and has been a speaker in 20 states, 4 provinces in Canada, and France and Australia. He has become an authority and consultant on the subject of high conflict personalities for legal professionals, employee assistance professionals, human resource professionals, ombudspersons, healthcare administrators, college administrators, homeowners associations, and others.

Bill obtained his law degree in 1992 from the University of San Diego, a Master of Social Work degree in 1981 from San Diego State University, and a Bachelors degree in Psychology in 1970 from Case Western Reserve University. He began his career as a youth social worker in a changing neighborhood in New York City and first became involved in mediation in 1975 in San Diego. He considers conflict resolution the theme of his varied career.

“I’d rather be a huge part of the problem than a tiny part of the solution.”

• “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 clients, or even about co-workers, friends, neighbors, family members or someone who is taking you to court?

For the past thirty 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—an increase 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 HCP. In these cases, the conflict is driven more by internal distress than by external events.

After handling more than a thousand 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 threatening to overwhelm our courts:

• The level and cost of conflict is not based on the issues or on the amount of money involved: personalities drive conflict.

• High-conflict personalities have a life-long, enduring pattern of behavior and blame, typically denying responsibility for their problems and chronically blaming others.

• Many HCPs fit the criteria of Cluster B personality disorders described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.²

• People with HCPs are more likely to escalate their disputes into court, either as plaintiffs bringing suit over misplaced blame for events in their lives, or as defendants due to interpersonal misconduct that harms others and needs to be controlled.

• The disputes of HCPs are generally misunderstood and mishandled, and continue to escalate at a huge cost to our judicial system and our society in terms of time, money and emotional distress for all involved.

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?

Not necessarily. Let me give you an example of two hypothetical families going through a very similar dispute—divorce. 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 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 flexible visitation rights 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. He gets more of the retirement investments, since she gets to keep the house. 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 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 a brief discussion of some visitation arrangements for an upcoming holiday. When they exit the office, the kids show both parents what they drew. They give Mom a kiss goodbye and leave with Dad.

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. Gloria Green is really angry and wants immediate payment of spousal support far above the guidelines. Within a week she files for divorce and, without his presence or knowledge, obtains a court restraining order against him because of an incident two months prior when he apparently broke the lock to a shed behind the family residence to get some belongings when she wasn’t home. She demands that the court require him to have supervised visitation with the children for just two 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 says 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. 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, the parenting plan and support. Finally, there is a full-day trial. Ms. Green’s second attorney (she fired the first one 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 entire amount the Greens receive as proceeds from the sale of their house.

What is the biggest difference between these two types of cases? They are both divorces, emotionally stressful experiences with often-difficult communication. The incomes, assets and parenting issues are the same. Yet the Greens’ case appears complex, seeming to require the use of many legal procedures—deposition, subpoenas, hearings and a trial. The Smiths’ case appears relatively simple and costs significantly less—five per cent 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 HCPs 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 example.

The Brodericks

Dan Broderick had obtained a medical degree along with 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 story was compiled from news reports in the New York Times, People Magazine and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

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 their 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. But apparently she bought a pistol in 1989 and even cleaned it in front of her sons, who were ten and thirteen 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 that it would bring some peace. However, during her first weekend with the boys, she re-examined the legal papers and came to believe that there were loopholes that would allow Dan to prevent her from having custody.

On November 5, 1989, Betty woke up early, claiming she felt she could not go on. She went to Dan and Linda’s house, opened the door with a key she got from one of her children, 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 trial, she considered herself the victim. Linda should not 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 a verdict of 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.

Apparently the second jury saw the case as much more about Betty and her own behavior. They didn’t accept her efforts to shift responsibility onto 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 they determined that she knew what she was doing and made her own conscious decisions.

I believe that the driving force in Betty’s actions was a severe personality disorder that distorted her thinking and led to her extreme behavior. This interpretation is supported by psychiatrists and psychologists on both sides. To paraphrase the news reports, the prosecution and witnesses explained the problem as a person with Borderline Personality Disorder who stalked her victim and premeditated his murder. Psychiatrists and psychologists testified for both sides. 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 pathological drive to stay connected, not about the money.

It seemed as though Betty got her identity and attention from her husband—at first by being married to him and then by fighting with him. After the fight appeared to be over, she couldn’t stand it.

Later, I 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 years later—a conclusion that fits with the pattern of people with personality disorders.

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 case. You may have noticed that I did not indicate whether the husbands had HCPs. From my experience, sometimes both parties in a dispute have HCPs, but in many cases there is only one HCP—the other party is fairly reasonable, simply trying to avoid the conflict or trying to get it under control. This is similar to the sober spouse who tries to cover up, apologize for, and manage the alcoholic.

Another characteristic of these case examples is how self-sabotaging these personalities can be. Ms. Green lost the family residence to attorney’s fees because of her own decision to use a highly adversarial approach. Betty Broderick lost her freedom (she got a thirty-five-year sentence) and lost her $16,000-a-month spousal support. This is one of the most striking characteristics of HCPs—their actions are so self-sabotaging and out of proportion with external events that they seem beyond comprehension.

But there is a logic if the personality patterns can be identified. Personality is a familiar collection of thoughts, feelings and behaviors considered unique to each person, just like our appearance. However, our individual personalities have patterns, and there are many standard types of personalities across cultures and throughout the world. Traditionally, we pay little attention to identifying the personalities we deal with in daily life and we rarely change our methods of interacting to fit them. Instead, we just consider one person nice and another a jerk, and we go about our business.

Researchers and clinicians have studied personalities for over a hundred years, from Freud to Beck to Millon. They have determined that one’s personality is mostly formed by age five or six. It is very difficult to change one’s personality, although with psychotherapy, medication or other approaches you can change specific behaviors, thoughts and feelings.

The patterns of one’s personality are often more easily identified by those around us. Our own patterns may be psychologically blocked from our awareness. However, most of us occasionally reflect on our own behavior and make efforts to change it in order to improve ourselves and our life situations.

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

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 State Bar Court (California) 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 generally attributed to an addiction to drugs and alcohol.

Specifically, in 1975 when he was twenty, he killed his nineteen-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 stopped using drugs and alcohol and apparently turned his life around.

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 Supreme Court of California 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 twenty 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 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 promptly resolve the traffic citations during law school 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.)³

The Supreme Court of California 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 seventeen 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 thirty-three to thirty-nine, and that he “repeatedly violated state traffic laws and sustained several misdemeanor convictions for mishandling these matters in court.”⁴

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.) ⁵

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.) ⁶

PERSONALITY DISORDERS

Knowledge about personality disorders is central to understanding the preceding cases, and to analyzing the past and future behavior of those individuals. The term personality disorder is a mental health diagnosis contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. This standard manual is used by mental health professionals, health care plans and insurance companies throughout the world. It continues to be updated, but the basic approach to diagnosing personality disorders has been in place since 1980. The fourth version of the manual (DSM-IV) was published in 1994 and a DSM-IV-TR (Text Revision) was published in 2000. This version added further explanations without changing the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders.

In the DSM-IV-TR, presenting problems are identified under Axis I—a clinical problem or surface issue that needs mental health treatment. Axis II is used for identifying underlying personality disorders or maladaptive personality traits—long-term patterns that impact or explain the causes of the Axis I problem. Without recognizing the underlying Axis II problem, a mental health professional may end up treating numerous Axis I problems without lasting success—sometimes even making matters worse. Alcoholism, drug addiction, depression and anxiety, for example, are Axis I disorders. They are generally obvious, effective treatments exist for them, and successfully addressing the Axis I problem causes a dramatic improvement in the person’s life. On the other hand, personality disorders (Axis II) are generally not obvious, treatment is difficult, and successfully addressing the Axis I problems may not make a significant difference in the person’s life.

This concern about an enduring pattern was at the center of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Gossage case. He had a consistent pattern of legal problems that had existed since his early adulthood. Even though he never killed again and engaged in numerous community efforts, he had an enduring pattern of legal misconduct in many situations—forgery, missed hearings and acquiring traffic tickets. While he may have “successfully overcome any substance abuse problem,” the Supreme Court concluded that he had not overcome “any…personality disorder.”

Both Betty Broderick and Eben Gossage were identified as possibly having personality disorders. In 2002, a large study by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) determined that approximately 30.8 million Americans (14.8 percent) have a personality disorder. Mental health professionals commonly believe that another ten per cent may have maladaptive personality traits that do not fully meet the criteria for a personality disorder but cause repeated problems. These disorders and traits are not necessarily obvious on the surface, and a person with such problems can still be successful in some aspects of his or her life, such as employment.

GETTING IT BACKWARD

Those with personality disorders have it backward. When problems arise in their lives, they cannot see their own part in the problem and therefore cannot solve the problem.

Mental health clinicians and researchers have long recognized this situation in the thinking of those with personality disorders. In the Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders (1990), authors Aaron T. Beck and Arthur Freeman state: “Personality-disordered patients will often see the difficulties they encounter in dealing with other people or tasks as external to them, and generally independent of their behavior or input. They often describe being victimized by others or, more globally, by ‘the system.’ Such patients often have little idea about how they got to be the way they are, how they contribute to their own problems, or how to change.” (Emphasis added.)

According to Donald G. Dutton, author of The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships, not only do they fail to see their contribution to their own problems, in many cases the problem is entirely of their own making—because they are constantly responding to internal emotional crises.

Because they think their internal problems are external problems, the difficulties of those with personality disorders continue and often become quite distressing. So they look for something or someone else to blame. If they can get that system or person to change—or stop doing something—they believe that they will feel better. But this doesn’t work either, leaving them feeling even more distressed and helpless. So they escalate this unsuccessful method of problem-solving as far as they can, until someone or something stops them. In our society, it is often the court system.

For example, in a case of domestic violence, a batterer may think that hitting his wife will make her understand the problem, and she will be able to fix it. Except she never can, because it is his problem, not hers. Thus it becomes a repetitive problem, and eventually he is taken to court for a restraining order and domestic violence treatment—and perhaps a divorce.

Another example would be the parent who repeatedly complains to the school system that her child is not getting enough special treatment, in a class where the other parents are quite satisfied. It may not be the school’s problem, but her internal perception of a problem. After taking her concerns to the teacher, to the principal and to the district administration, she finally takes the school district to court. She loses, but it cost the district funds that could have been better spent on education.

Betty Broderick blamed her husband when it was her own behavior that was extremely inappropriate and the true cause of her incarceration. Eben Gossage blamed his former self for a drug and alcohol problem. He could not see that his own continuing antisocial behavior is what prevented him from being allowed to practice law.

CONCLUSION

Many people with HCPs appear to have the characteristics of a personality disorder—or of the less-severe maladaptive personality traits. You do not need to diagnose a personality disorder or traits to see a pattern of dysfunctional behavior and to use the approaches in this book. Instead, just recognize that the problem is a personality pattern that is enduring (not situational) and that is unconscious (not open to ordinary feedback). Thus, the behavior of the person in question does not change, and the conflicts escalate.

By recognizing the personality patterns of the four HCPs described in the following chapters, you will be able to develop a working theory for managing and resolving their specific disputes. Otherwise, without understanding the dynamics of high-conflict personalities, you may inadvertently get these cases backward, unnecessarily escalating minor disputes and risking getting sued yourself.

Chapter One Summary

5. Receives negative feedback about behavior, which escalates internal distress, but thinks the cause is external so behaves inappropriately, and on and on

²Material presented in this book is based on the DSM-IV-TR version of the Association’s manual.

³In Re Eben Gossage, On Admission (2000( 23 Cal. 4th 1080, 1092-3; 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 130

Skill #1:	Listening to fear and anger (without getting hooked)
Skill #2:	Being consistent
Skill #3:	Anticipating crises
Skill #4:	Adopting an arm’s length bond
Skill #5:	Validating the person, not the complaint

Skill #1:	Setting relationship boundaries, roles and expectations
Skill #2:	Choosing your battles
Skill #3:	Containing emotions
Skill #4:	Focusing on tasks
Skill #5:	Managing the enablers

Skill #1:	Maintaining a healthy skepticism (keeping an open mind)
Skill #2:	Recognizing cognitive distortions
Skill #3:	Suspecting lying
Skill #4:	Learning the legal realities (and eliminating the fantasies)
Skill #5:	Finding evidence by personality type

Skill #1:	Mandating cognitive-behavioral counseling
Skill #2:	Considering court action
Skill #3:	Obtaining court sanctions
Skill #4:	Crafting orders with future consequences
Skill #5:	Terminating the relationship