Add Your Heading Text Here

Playing the Victim: How Sociopaths Con Legal Professionals (and Everyone Else)

  Playing the Victim: How Sociopaths Con Legal Professionals (and Everyone Else)   ©2023 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. Sociopath is another word for antisocial personality disorder according to the diagnostic manual of mental health professionals, currently the DSM-5-TR (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). One of the criteria for this personality is: “Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.” (748) While research shows that this personality disorder is present in nearly four percent of adults (one out of every 25 people), few people consider that they are being lied to when a person says they are a victim of someone else’s bad behavior. Yet sociopaths constantly want to dominate others and conning is one of the easiest ways to do this—and get others to assist them. Sadly, this is especially true for legal professionals (lawyers, judges, mediators, therapists, law enforcement, and others), because they are trained and eager to protect victims from abusive people. Unfortunately, such false statements to legal professionals can land an innocent person in jail, a true victim of abuse accused of harming a perpetrator, an innocent person ordered to pay a scammer, or a child put in danger’s way. This article explains how such conning works and a simple way to avoid getting conned.   How Conning Works A con is more than a lie. A con is designed to get you to do something you wouldn’t do if you knew the truth. This is why sociopaths are often known as “con artists.” There are several ways that they accomplish this: distraction, negative stereotyping, identifying your weaknesses, fabricating a crisis, and playing the victim.    Distraction A simple example is the thief who gets you to look up at the sky (“look at that strange bird”) while picking your pocket. You certainly wouldn’t have given him your wallet on purpose and you wouldn’t have looked up at the sky if you knew you were being conned.  When conning legal professionals, such con artists intensely point the finger at another person and claim that that person is acting badly. Most legal professionals then focus on how badly the other person is acting and analyze what actions should be taken against them. Most of the time, they don’t stop to consider that it is the accuser who may be acting badly. This allows the first person who claims abuse to be automatically believed and action taken against the “bad” other.    Negative Stereotyping (Creating a Target of Blame) When one person makes enough emotional claims that another person is acting badly, the listener will often form a negative stereotype of that person. Once this has occurred, the listener will easily believe more complaints about that person and may even fabricate some of their own that seem to fit what such a bad actor would do. Psychological research on this subject was described years ago as “stereotype induction” in the book Jeopardy in the Courtroom (American Psychological Association, 1996). Another term I like to use is that the accuser focuses on someone they choose to be their target of blame, who usually has done nothing wrong. A more common term for all of this is a villain—the whole person is evil. Whatever the term, sociopaths attack the person in their efforts to create a distraction for their schemes.    Take an example I have seen several times: A mother has been doing just fine as the primary custodial parent after a divorce. The father with sociopathic traits has a set-back in business or relationships and decides to look somewhere else for someone to dominate. He decides to take the child away from the mother and show the world that he is the primary custodial parent. This will put him in the position of dominating both the mother in court and the child in his home, and also helps him look good for getting dates. He files a motion in family court claiming that the mother is abusive, regularly interferes with him picking up the child, doesn’t put his name as a parent on the list at school, and doesn’t tell him about doctor’s appointments. This list of bad behavior creates a negative stereotype of the mother which grabs the attention of his lawyer, who argues successfully at court that the mother is a bad actor.  The mother is flabbergasted at court and says none of this is true and that he is lying, but she is caught off-guard and isn’t organized to provide much evidence. The negative stereotype of the mother has already set in from the intensity of the father’s allegations. The court accepts the extensive list of bad behaviors as true and rules in favor of the father, while harshly telling the mother to stop blaming the father and take responsibility for her own behavior. That the mother was telling the truth was never considered. With short court hearings, this happens more than most people realize.   Identifying Your Weaknesses Sociopaths are brilliant at figuring out your vulnerabilities. Many legal professionals have their favorite problems they like to solve, which sociopaths are eager to manipulate. Some professionals focus on a class of victims. For example, I knew a lawyer several years ago who represented clients with AIDS who had been discriminated against. One client she had worked with for over a year finally had a trial date coming up. Before the trial, she told him she needed the paperwork showing that he had AIDS. It turned out he never had it and had conned her into working hard on his case because he seemed like such a victim.      In family law, some lawyers and therapists specialize in domestic violence and primarily take those cases. Some lawyers and therapists specialize in parental alienation and primarily take those cases. When determining parenting plans in and out of court in divorce cases, such a history can make a big difference. I have seen true domestic violence cases in which an abusive parent falsely alleged parental alienation to distract from

Read More »

The New Elephant in the Room: Why All Professionals Need to Learn About Personality Disorders

The New Elephant in the Room: Why All Professionals Need to Learn About Personality Disorders ©2023 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq. In 1994, a best-selling children’s book was published titled An Elephant in the Living Room, to help children learn about alcoholism—a topic that had been taboo to discuss or even acknowledge even though “at least 7 percent of the U.S. adult population is estimated to suffer from alcoholism.”[1] It wasn’t just children who weren’t discussing it, most adults hesitated to talk about it for fear of upsetting the person with alcoholism, their family, their workplace, or their community. Yet over the past few decades, our society has learned a great deal about alcoholism, including how to recognize it, set limits on it, and treat it. We are now at a similar point in history in regard to personality disorders—a topic that has been taboo to talk about or even acknowledge up to the present, even though as of 2022 the diagnostic manual of mental health professionals estimates that over 10 percent of the adult population would meet the criteria for a personality disorder, even though most have never been formally diagnosed.[2] This has become a public health problem comparable to alcoholism in its ability to ruin the lives of those who have it, those close to them, those professionals working with them, and society at large. The time has come for all professionals, especially those involved in legal disputes, workplace conflicts, and child and family problems, to learn about personality disorders, talk about them openly, and take their significant issues into account in their work. This article provides a background on: 1. Why personality disorders are interpersonal disorders. 2. The growing societal impact of personality disorders. 3. Concerns about stigmatization and discrimination. 4. Training available from High Conflict Institute. 1. Interpersonal Disorders There are several fundamental differences between personality disorders (hereafter “PDs”) and other mental disorders. PDs are primarily interpersonal disorders marked by interpersonal dysfunction, which means that their most difficult behavior comes out in relationship to other people, so that many more people are impacted than just the individual who has the disorder. As a major review of over 120 studies on this subject has noted: Personality disorders are defined in the current psychiatric diagnostic system as characterized by pervasive, inflexible, and stable patterns of thinking, feeling, behaving, and interacting with others that cause significant distress or impaired functioning in interpersonal or professional domains. The importance of interpersonal dysfunction in defining personality disorders is clearly evident in their descriptive features and diagnostic criteria—each personality disorder, as defined in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [currently DSM-5-TR], is described by a problematic approach to interpersonal interactions, or by characteristics that are likely to interfere with adaptive interactions and relationships.[3] Lack of Self-Awareness Another way in which PDs are different from other forms of mental illness is that most people with PDs do not know they have a disorder or even a problem. This has been noted by mental health professionals for decades, as Aaron Beck, Arthur Freeman and Associates wrote over thirty years ago: 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.[4] The result of this lack of self-awareness and feeling like a victim in life can contribute to significant conflicts in families, in the workplace, and in legal disputes. They frequently claim that others mistreat them when they are not being treated badly, but simply perceive that they are. They may over-react to mild rejections or actually be rejected because of their own behavior. Of course, there are many people with personality disorders who are also victims of crimes, targets of domestic violence, those who suffer personal injuries, those who are swindled in business deals, and so forth. Therefore, handling their conflicts with knowledge and skill matters, both for the person with a PD and their targets of blame. Lack of Behavior Change The definition of a PD in the diagnostic manual begins with this sentence: “An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture.”[5] The fact that this pattern of behavior is enduring is one of the biggest misunderstandings that most people, including professionals, have about PDs. Victims of domestic violence keep wishing and hoping for a change that doesn’t come. Workplace managers figure that the person knows their behavior is inappropriate and will stop themselves, while giving second and third and fourth chances with little or no change. Civil judges and family law judges often don’t recognize the individual’s dysfunctional interpersonal patterns and accept their stories at face value, which may be significantly distorted or knowingly false. Ironically, judges and juries are supposed to determine the credibility of a witness, without realizing that many people with PDs in legal disputes thoroughly believe the distorted statements they are making, that they are skilled at blaming others, and therefore appear very credible—sometimes even more than the true victims of their hostile behavior. For this reason, many courts get these cases backward. Legal decisions would be vastly more appropriate by understanding the true dynamics and needs of people with PDs and those around them. Not a Traditional “Mental Illness” Personality disorders are usually not obvious at first. Not only do people with this disorder not realize they have it, but those around them often are also unaware—until there is a crisis or they get into conflicts in a close relationship. They can be very successful in life, although many are not. They generally are considered to know right from wrong (especially under the law), but they often put a spin on their perceptions,

Read More »

Personality Disorders Gaining Importance in Recent Legal Cases

©2020 Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq Personality Disorders Should be Considered in More Legal Cases A landmark case in Australia and a study in California both reached the same conclusions in the last month: personality disorders should be considered in more legal cases. This is what we have been saying with High Conflict Institute since our founding in 2008. Our readers may find this interesting, because most of us are used to considering personality disorders as a form of mental illness because they are included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders by the American Psychiatric Association, 2013, currently the “DSM-5.” In reality, personality disorders are interpersonal disorders, yet they can also be hidden disorders. In Criminal Cases In Australia, on August 25, 2020, the Court of Appeal of the State of Victoria (highest court in the state, which includes the major city of Melbourne) ruled that “personality disorders can be considered a mitigating factor in the same way a judge or magistrate can find mental illness reduces an offender’s moral culpability…. Whether and to what extent the offender’s mental functioning is (or was) relevantly impaired should be determined on the basis of expert evidence rigorously scrutinised by the sentencing court.” (Cooper, A. “Landmark ruling gives judges power to consider personality disorders,” The Age, August 25, 2020.) This decision is important because legal systems in the United States, Australia and probably most other countries have considered that personality disorders are not a mental illness and should not be considered in criminal cases as a reason to alter anything—up to now. For example, in the high-profile case of the kidnapper of 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart in the United States in 2002, a federal court of appeal considered the question: “Is he competent to stand trial or does he have a severe-enough mental illness that prevents him from understanding the proceedings and his role in it?” (Eddy, B. High Conflict People in Legal Disputes, 2nd Ed., 2016, 122.) The court found that the kidnapper did not have a mental illness, such as schizophrenia, but instead had a narcissistic personality disorder and an antisocial personality disorder and therefore was not mentally ill and could competently stand trial. They essentially found that he was a con artist and knew what he was doing. This appears to be the current standard across the United States. In this case, this made sense. However, in the Australian case of Daylia Brown, she was a teenager (17) when she went on a fire-starting spree in several stores in Melbourne (fortunately, no injuries). She was found guilty of her crimes and sent to an adult prison, but the judge believed that her severe personality disorder should be taken into account in reducing her sentence and getting her some help. At the time, the governing standard said that personality disorders could not be considered as a mitigating factor, because they were not a mental illness under the law. The prior case was that of Michael O’Neill, who murdered his partner and also had a severe personality disorder. But in that case “the Court of Appeal ruled personality disorders do not impair mental functioning,” based on long-standing decisions. The judge in Daylia Brown’s case asked that her lawyers appeal his required ruling, because he thought that her personality disorder (including a history of personality change since she was 8 years old, cutting on herself as a teenager and suicidal thoughts) should be considered as a mitigating factor in getting her sentence reduced. It was noted that in some cases a personality disorder can cause more impairment than other mental illnesses. (Cooper, A. “Judge urges appeal as teen with personality disorder jailed over arson,” The Age, March 3, 2020.) In this case considering her personality disorder appears appropriate, as the judge himself said. However, a personality disorder is not a get-out-of-jail free card. It totally depends on the facts of the case. The impact of a personality disorder on sentencing should be based on the testimony of a mental health professional, as the Court of Appeal stated. They do not expect that this will change the sentence in most cases. I am very interested in these cases, as my law students in Australia (4-day intensive courses at Monash University and Newcastle University every September/October) have written about this issue in some of their research essays.   In Family Law On September 1, 2020, an article reported on a study by the Santa Clara University School of Law on the significance of personality disorders in family law. The study included interviews with family lawyers, judges, and a custody evaluator. They specifically found that narcissists “fundamentally thrive on conflict.” Also, the “narcissist’s perceived sense of infallibility and accompanying resistance to settle is amplified by the traditional civil process.” Of the approximately 10% of family law disputes that go to trial, many are conflict-fueled separations. While most divorce cases are settled out-of-court in less than two years, high-conflict cases typically last two to five years and can involve scores of filings, endless delays, tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, and a high rate of attorney turnover. Worst of all, children become collateral damage and often wind up developing a wide range of mental-health issues. Rarely are formal diagnoses made in family court. Thus, attorneys unequipped to recognize NPD traits struggle to meet their ethical obligations to serve as zealous advocates for clients taking untenable and unreasonable positions. (Rosenfeld, E. “Opinion: Dealing with narcissists in the family law courtroom,” Mercury News, September 1, 2020.) What Should be Done? Their recommendations include attorneys becoming “educated about personality disorders such as NPD.” Also: “the State Bar should develop continuing legal education courses addressing how to recognize – and deal with – high-conflict personalities.” We are glad to hear this and ready help, as we with High Conflict Institute and our trainers have been educating lawyers, judges, mediators and court-involved therapists for the past thirteen years about personality disorders and high-conflict personalities. We have

Read More »