Lawyers are like organs. They come in all shapes and sizes and have a purpose. However, every organ isn’t a match for every person’s body system, blood type, and so forth. A perfectly good kidney can be rejected by the immune system of a perfectly good recipient. In the same way, it is not just that you want a competent, responsive attorney, but you also want one that fits your particular genotype (i.e. the genetic constitution of an individual organism).

Everyone is different, even attorneys. You don’t have to love your attorney; you don’t have to even like her/him, but you do need to trust that they can hear and understand what is important to you, and have your best interests at heart.

The attorney-client relationship can breakdown when an attorney is “tone deaf” to a client’s specific needs, communication style and preferences, level of understanding pertinent material, and comfort level in how deeply he/she needs to understand legal principles or aspects of the assets and obligations (peripherally or more comprehensively). There is a quality of attuned listening that most clients want from the professional tasked with representing them.

A “good fit” is about human relatedness, willingness, and attention.

In matrimonial and mediation practice, a good fit is particularly important. When you are dealing with the issues that arise as part of loss and separation, having a cohesive attorney-client attachment can be invaluable. When so much is at stake, the stability of this relationship can help steady a client enduring so much upheaval.

When looking for the right attorney, the client is tasked with identifying what’s most important to them:

• What kind of relating do they like?
• What kind of style are they most comfortable with?

The more a client can thoroughly identify his own wish-list for an attorney, the better his chances are of making a good match:

• Are emails best because they respect his work hours, or are phone calls during a commute better?
• Do you need an attorney who is flexible and can see you on a weekend, or one who has more delineated office hours?

There are aspects of background and experience that some clients need in order for trust to build. One client might need someone who will fight for them, another might need an advocate who can talk things through from multiple angles and work holistically for resolution.

My next blog explores the “good fit” in the attorney/client relationship through a specific case study.

Does Your Attorney Fit Your Particular Genotype? Part 2

In this follow-up, we take a look at a particular case study that benefited from a “good fit.”

Very recently, a client, let’s call her Jane, came to me for a second opinion. She had been working with several attorneys in a reputable firm for a good length of time. Jane’s experience, however, was that of inadequate or distrustful attachment.

In her case, certain financial issues had created a breakdown. In particular, one marital asset was unusual and complex. It was both difficult to conceptualize and impossible to value. Jane had a lot of questions. She needed a fuller understanding of this asset before she could confidently enter into any agreement. Until this was accomplished she could not move forward with settlement.

Jane’s attorney needed to acknowledge and respond to this deep need to fully discern the particulars, and needed to facilitate this without shaming, overpowering, or pressuring Jane to bypass this in order to bring the matter to speedier resolution.

In psychology there is something called “process skipping” — I (perhaps incorrectly) understand this as the shortcutting of a necessary step in one’s fundamental process for the purpose of getting to the finish line faster, cheaper, etc. The problem with process skipping is that it deprives the individual of some of the distance they have to traverse in order to get to terra firma.

Clients should be encouraged to take the lead in expressing their preferred method of processing. For example, some clients might need the reassurance of slowing down with a particular point, backing up when something isn’t being grasped, while another client might need a streamlined, athletic approach to carry them through.

This might be understood not merely as idiosyncrasy, but as what each person needs in order to adjust, organize and make sense of difficult and important choices. In fact, we might say that we each have our own way of growing forward. When attorneys can responsively mirror the communication styles of our clients, we can offer a deeper form of support as we accompany them through their process.

In Jane’s case, we responded to her need by including the forensic expert in a mediation so that information could be exchanged openly and immediately. The attorney took on the active role of insisting on simplification, explanations and re-explanations, reframed things into the vernacular, always checking whether she, the attorney, understood, as well as checking to be sure it was clear to the client. The attorney took on this role not only to get elbow-deep into the material herself, but to alleviate the client from her prior, discomforting role, of having to repeatedly assert her lack of understanding. The client could both have her questions answered and her need for mastery acknowledged. She could have this while also feeling sheltered by her advocate. This process, though it took several hours, was crucial in moving resolution forward.

Whatever a client prefers is valid. The more specific the client is about what is most important in their own attorney-client relationship, the more likely they are to find the best attorney for them. This can make the difference in how a client abides and later carries (or sets down) the whole experience of their divorce.