The ideas we met to discuss kept getting pushed aside in favor of my client bemoaning how her husband was always coming out of top; always one step ahead; always seemed to win. If any of this were true, I would feel really embarrassed as a litigator. It tried to persuade my client her perception was skewed by the emotional trauma of her breakup. First I listed our accomplishments together, especially on custody which had resolved heavily in our favor. Then I tried listing all the things she had going for her as a newly minted single woman.
Sometimes positive reinforcement works, but on that day my client was bound and determined to convince herself she would never win. If the answer didn't involve her getting screwed, she changed the question.
That afternoon, I took my son to the park and was able to steal a few minutes shooting on the basketball court. I stood at the free throw line and took 10 shots. I only made 5. Ouch. But then I remembered that I shot 7 for 10 the last time Carter and I visited the park. Put them together and POW! I'm a 60% shooter and don't have to feel like such a failure.
No sooner had I hit the "equals" button on my imaginary calculator than I realized I had found the perfect analogy for my client. I have no idea how many free throw shots I have taken in my life and no clue what percentage have gone in, but I know that with a little manipulation of sample size I can make myself look much more accurate than I really am.
That basically what my client is doing when she plays the blame game with her husband. She restricts the sampling of events she chooses to dissect so she can conclude her husband is winning and thus justify her anger. I'm sure it's just a coping mechanism, and it can probably be a healthy exercise sometimes. But it's also a crutch and belies the good work she and I have done together. We have another meeting coming up soon. Maybe I'll have a chance to field test my "free throw" theorem and see if it strikes a chord.
