Gloria is the best legal assistant I know. She isn’t the best at software, and I have seen neater desks. The world of fashion is not her thing. And like all of us, she does a good eye roll when certain caller ID numbers appear on the phone from the beast of all beasts, the dreaded, complaining client. But instead of thanking the heavens for voice mail, she uses each interaction to turn the client from an aggravation to be avoided, to a valued asset in the case. She can’t give you the theory she works from, but she knows one thing: If you know how to listen and guide, you can do anything.
Thorough her emotional intelligence, Gloria uses some of the concepts of motivational interviewing. This technique was developed approximately 25 years ago by counselors working with addicts. Treatment providers realized that neither scolding and lecturing, or passive head nods, worked with this difficult population, who have many similarities to our clients: in a helpless state, having a chronic issue (legal or medical), feeling that nothing will change, and having no one who wanted to listen. As a result, they became increasingly focused on themselves, angry at the world, and more and more incapacitated. Sound familiar? Motivational interviewing gives power back to the clients, and in turn gives you, as the legal assistant, paralegal, or lawyer, a client who learns to relate productively, civilly, meaningfully, and who can be a positive and active participant in their case. It allows them to change.
The 3 Most Important Gloria Principals:
- Promote Self-Efficacy: Susanna was on probation for a drug charge. She was always on the verge of violating. She would stop by the office to rant at least daily to complain about her probation officer, who she said set up continual roadblocks to success. Gloria promoted the client’s self-efficacy by asking her to write down a numbered list … for Gloria … of all of her complaints. She complimented her on how organized she was in her list. She then had Susanna pick one complaint … that her probation officer did not want her working at the pizza shop past 10 pm … .and write down why changing this was hard. Gloria complimented her on how clearly she was thinking, and with Gloria there, had Susanna call the PO and state the problem and find a solution, which ended up being a short note from her employer detailing that she was not closing the shop alone. Susanna now called Gloria to figure out how to solve problems. And her next hearing went off without an issue.
- Express Real Empathy: We live in a world where people barely listen, where a two sentence text is considered too long. Listening takes time, and empathy requires vulnerability to one’s own feelings. Two minutes of attentive listening, reflecting on what you hear, can settle down a client. In contrast, 30 minutes of partial attention and begrudging attention breeds anxiety in a client and increases their complaints. Justin was an angry young man who shattered his arm in a work accident. He was his own worst enemy in his legal case due to his demeanor. When he calls, Gloria made it clear that for the next 10 minutes, no one was going to interrupt their conversation, because she understood how it must feel to be off work, not able to go boating or bowling with his friends, or comfortably sleep next to his girlfriend. He then developed empathy for Gloria, understanding that she has stresses at work too, and could not give him all day. Through their relationship, he became a cooperative and helpful client.
- Collaborate, Don’t Confront: Ron was hit by a distracted driver while riding his bike on a country road. He had a strong case for damages, but his functioning after the accident was a cause for concern. He missed follow up doctor appointments, began to drink more than he should, and was only sporadically compliant with medications. He had to change, not only to improve his health, but so that the damages his attorney was trying to prove were not worsened by his own actions. Gloria used “change talk” to help Ron make better decisions. She did the following:
- Asked “decisional balance questions”, the pros and cons of his actions; he replied that he knew it was not good for his health or case, but the pros were that he would not have to confront the seriousness of his problems if he did not go to the appointment.
- Asked him to rate on a scale of 1-10 how important it was to him to be more responsive to medical recommendations. What could he do to move one number higher? He told her that he was at 4, but if he could just have two weekdays without appointments, he would rate himself at 7. A solvable problem.
- Asked about his values and how his decisions are in line or not with those values. He shared that his father never had a sick day in his life, and he realized he was not acting as he was raised.
- Avoided confrontations and “rolled with the resistance” when he said that he was not going to get a second MRI. She shared that he must feel truly overwhelmed by all that was required, and didn’t argue.
Recent Comments