Is she on DRUGS?

I was recently asked this question by a colleague who was mystified at his opponent’s behavior.  His opponent is representing herself in court, having fired several attorneys.  They’ve been through several judges.  She hides information and seems to think that no one realizes that vital pieces of information are missing from the bare minimum stuff she has sent in discovery.  Those closest to her, including his own clients, do not believe she is on drugs, but they admit that they are not close enough to be sure.  

While no one is ever close enough to be sure that a person is not doing drugs, this strange behavior can be explained by something other than drugs.  Some personality disorders allow people to lie at will, without seeming to have any concept that their lies are obvious, and without seeming to have any feeling of guilt or embarassment about having lied.  The people who have these disorders do not suffer nearly as much as those around them.  They lie at the drop of a hat and appear so convinced of their versions of events that you are certain they would pass a lie detector test.  They'll tell any story that might get them off the hook for a minute.  And they may even pass lie detector tests.  People with these disorders can convince themselves of the truth of their own stories, despite that anyone who knows the whole story would easily prove that the story is a lie.  Or they have no capacity to feel empathy, so their physiological systems do not register negative when they lie. 

A person with an extreme version of one of these personality disorders may re-define the common meaning of words to suit their own purposes.  Maybe the person thinks the people who wrote a contract WANTED a certain thing to happen, and so they'll say that's what the contract says, despite that there is nothing in the contract that says so.  They'll hear a rumor and think it's their duty to pass it on.  They'll take money from their parent's estate on the theory that the parent really loved them best and didn't want the siblings to have as much, despite that the wihll says otherwise.  They'll say, "well it was Dad's WILL", meaning his "intent" (as they interpret it) rather than the actual document called the "will".  This person is referring to what she believes her parent would have wanted.  The fact that others disagree with her opinion on this is of no impact to her, she believes she is stating her opinion and that her opinion of her parent’s “will” is valid.  She never once seems to feel the need to conform her personal definition of “will”, with the technical, legal definition, the document that has been filed in probate court.  Or he will tell judge that the children say their mother is abusing them.  He knows full well that the kid's definition of abuse is making them do their homework, and that no one else would define it the same way, but the next thing you know, everyone in the neighborhood hears the rumor that their mother is abusive.  It becomes the "truth" of the family that Mommy is abusive, and she has a heck of a hard time in court, convincing people otherwise. 

But when the psychologists and lawyers finally question him about hwat he claims is abuse, they can't believe their ears, and next thing you know, "is he on DRUGS?"  or, "does he really believe we'll agree that THAT is abusive?"

It’s an interesting dichotomy.  The person with a personality disorder recognizes what the truth is, but simply believes that if they can convince others of their version, then that their version must be truth.  The court system permits her to go to court and tell her story, so she tells her "story", whether or not it makes sense, and if she manages to create enough confusion, then maybe she'll win by default. 

So my answer to my colleague is “no, it’s not necessary that she’s on drugs.  Not everyone whose ability to process logic and follow through on clear instructions is impaired, is on drugs.  Some of the people who are doing this are simply motivated by some internal problems that the rest of us cannot understand.”  There is no drug test that will solve this court battle, no lie detector that will help you prove her wrong.  She will likely pass both.  Don't bother trying to figure out why it is this way, just understand that this is the way she is.  Then move on to seeking the discovery through the appropriate channels, understanding that she will lie and hide stuff, and that you must follow through to get alternative sources needed to prove that she is lying.  

The subpoena to get the one month worth of bank records that was missing (you can be sure that is the month where something improper happened).  The psychological evaluation of the kids to verify that they are not really being abused.  The deposition of the independent witness who knows the truth.  Welcome to high conflict litigation, where the settlement conference never resolves the whole issue, the discovery is actively obstructed, and wacky things get blurted out at the last minute to delay the whole process even further.  

I know you wish you could just get an order for a drug test and take care of it with that, but unfortunately, if you're dealing with one of these personality disorders, you are likely spinning your wheels with that tactic, and should fall back on the more traditional, advesarial tactics that drive up the costs of litigation.  If your client is upset about this tactic, remember, the client is the one who got tangled up with the opponent, and without these traditional discovery methods, this opponent will likely win the case.   You didn't create the situation, but you can fix it.  Unfortunately, factors beyond your control make it impossible to fix on a tight budget. 

Just keep good records so that when you get the judge to order that this person pay your litigation costs because of their unreasonable behavior, that you'll be able to find their assets, because this is the same person who will not voluntarily follow a court order. 

And good luck.