EQ & The Art of Difficult Conversations, Part II

Dealing With Furious Clients

by Clémence Scouten, Memoirs & More, and Emily Bouchard, Bouchard Bespoke Consulting

Introduction

In the second part of our three-part series (see Part I here), we’ll be looking at the dynamics of a client who reaches out to you because they are furious with a family member (whether or not that person has done something wrong) and as a result, the client wants to design or amend estate planning documents.

Dealing with emotional reactivity in estate planning is a situation that will draw on skills beyond what most of us have. That doesn’t mean there aren’t very effective strategies to help the client slow down and process what is motivating their decision-making.

Together, we’ll walk through a case study and explain both the emotional dynamics at play as well as possible responses you may consider.

Case Study

(Note: This case study represents elements from different families to efficiently highlight the kinds of issues at play. All names and identifying information have been changed to protect anonymity.)

Peter, a client of Sam’s, emailed Sam asking for a meeting ASAP about changes Peter wanted to make to his will. Peter also told Sam that he put in a similar call to his financial planner, and will be coming without his wife Michelle.

Outtake: What do you immediately notice?

A few red flags that put  Sam on-guard include:

1. Urgency – something has happened, and Peter is most likely upset.

2. Possibly weaponizing finances and planning – finding out what was discussed with the financial advisor is going to be crucial to assure that any changes are holistically considered taking into account financial, estate and tax consequences.

3. Exclusion of wife – they are both Sam’s clients, so Sam will have to disclose any material changes to Michelle.

Sam has built a strong rapport of trust with Peter over the years and has been able to guide his thinking and decision-making with thoughtful and thought-provoking questions. He has had other experiences like this where Peter comes in hot about something a family member has done (or not done). Sam knows he needs to be well prepared for this meeting to see if he can minimize potential future damage to the family. 

Sam offers a few options to meet the following week. This gives Peter some time to cool down and meet with his financial advisor first, and gives Sam time to review the current estate planning documents. He also wants to refamiliarize himself with the current ages and status of Peter’s adult children and their spouses and children.

On the day of the meeting, Peter wastes no time with small talk, getting straight to the point: “My youngest, Jeremy, is out of control and needs to be taught a life lesson! He maxed out the credit card again, this time on poker. He took my brand-new BMW for a joy ride with his horrible girlfriend, and they came in drunk or high or both and announced that they were engaged!! This is the last straw. I’m done with him. I want to cut him off and I want you to re-do my estate documents to remove him from receiving any inheritance, ever.”

Sam takes a deep breath and knows he needs to slow things down. “Oh, that sounds really rough and I can understand why you’re so upset. Can you tell me more about what happened?”

Peter is so wound up, his anger at Jeremy begins to spill over to Sam. “There is nothing more that needs to be explained. I want you to start making these changes right away.” 

Sam gets up, saying he needs some water, to take a moment to consider his options. Peter is in no state to listen to procedural or legal ramifications that would need to be discussed before Sam could even begin to start work on this, and he has serious concerns about how Michelle will respond.

Sam is a senior estate attorney in his firm and has encountered requests to disinherit children before. But this time seems more acute than with his other clients. Like many successful professionals who interact with HNW & UHNW individuals, he knows the importance of staying in his area of expertise and technical training. And he knows he needs to de-escalate the emotions without offending or upsetting Peter further.

For Sam to stay cool and sort through the substance of the legal issues and the client’s feelings, he needs to recognize his own reactions to the emotions coming his way and manage that first.

As he pours the water, he takes a few breaths -- in for a count of five and then out for a count of five -- to slow his heart rate. As he breathes intentionally, he focuses on his feet on the ground and looks out the window to take in the expansive view, shifting his internal state to something more neutral. He collects himself and places some water in front of Peter and tells him, “I can hear the urgency in your need to address this situation. How am I supposed to do that? I really am sorry but without your wife here we won’t be able to implement any changes today. How do you suggest we use this time productively given that my hands are tied?”

Sam is applying specific approaches that FBI hostage negotiators use in high-conflict situations. He knew that, according to Chris Voss, author of Never Split the Difference, “[T]he first rule to keeping your emotional cool is to bite your tongue. You have to keep away from knee jerk reactions. Pause, think, collect your thoughts and become more circumspect in what you say.”  According to Voss, “[W]hen people feel that they are not in control, they resort to a hostage mentality. They react to their lack of power by either becoming extremely defensive or lashing out.” By asking the questions the way he did, and sharing that he needs Peter’s help, Sam gave Peter a sense of control in their conversation.

Having a rational, logical conversation – in this case about constraints and potential ramifications of making significant changes to a complex estate plan – is not possible because the part of the brain that is highly reactive and focused on survival (a.k.a. fight, flight or freeze) has taken over. Someone in Peter’s state cannot access his reasoning neo-cortex.

In situations of high volatility and distress, the Heartmath Institute’s research has shown that managing your heart rate with your breath in the way Sam does, in conjunction with having a soothing, peaceful tone and countenance, will help the agitated person move into a more coherent state.

Peter takes a drink and pauses. He is still angry but less aggressive, “I don’t know. I’m so furious.”

Sam nods and wonders aloud, “It sounds like you’re really disgusted and distressed by Jeremy’s recent behaviors. I imagine this must be so frustrating and heartbreaking for you, given your values of hard work, accountability and respect. What has you feeling like the situation is hopeless and that cutting him off is the only option? Tell me more about your relationship with Jeremy and what’s been happening recently.”

Sam understands the value of empathetically listening while asking calibrated questions. He also is assisting Peter in clarifying the emotions and core values that underly his current rage. By articulating a few additional possible emotions to explore, drawing from Brené Brown’s research highlighted in the book Atlas of the Heart, Sam knows he doesn’t have to be right. He just needs to help Peter recalibrate and articulate what he really wants to address.

“No, I’m not disgusted. I am really disappointed and angry that he’s not interested in working toward anything. He doesn’t realize how good he’s got it. I don’t know what else to do. We’ve tried everything except kicking him out and forcing him to make his own way. Michelle keeps babying him and I’m at my wits end. It’s one thing to gamble and max out the credit card, but quite another to think he’s going to start his own family and continue to live this way. We’ve created someone who is entitled and irresponsible, and something needs to change, now.”

With Peter opening up more, Sam is able to ask more questions about what values matter most to Peter and Michelle and how disinheriting Jeremy would further those values or impede them.

After pausing to think, Peter begins telling Sam about his father and grandfather. Both these men, in their own way, worked themselves to the bone to provide for their families. The grandfather went from being a subsistence farmer to being a successful supplier of farm supplies. In time, Peter’s father took over the company and hired his sons. Peter readily admitted that working for his father was challenging. According to Peter, his father “was a tough nut who ran the business and the household with an iron fist.” Peter described the impact of that behavior on his younger brother.

His younger brother began to act out and spoke disrespectfully to their father at work and at home. Their relationship soured over time to such an extent they couldn’t communicate without fighting. Peter’s brother was given lesser responsibilities in the family business and had no hope of future management roles. This led to more rebellion from his brother, and predictably, pushed them further apart. The final straw for Peter’s father was when Peter’s brother’s drinking began to interfere with his work. Peter’s father eventually disinherited Peter’s brother and they became completely estranged as a family.   

Sam had wondered if Peter had family experiences with someone being disinherited; this revelation highlighted how this was a painful option for the family, which also was tied to parenting and power. This illuminated other possible motivations behind Peter’s reaction and intended solution.

Meanwhile, Peter was warming up to the space Sam was giving him to be heard. He began to share more stories about his family, his childhood, his sadness about how his father treated his younger brother, and how that influenced his own parenting. He had worked hard for his father and expected it from Jeremy. He acknowledged that working so hard meant less time with all of his children, especially Jeremy, whose younger years coincided with a major merger that took up all Peter’s time and energy. As much as he was proud of what he had accomplished, he began reflecting on how he regretted not being there for Jeremy’s events and milestones.

By the end of their conversation, Sam was able to tie Peter’s core values to his distress, as well as highlight historical patterns that made disinheritance seem like the only option. Further exploration of Peter’s family history allowed for Sam to offer ideas for other approaches that honored values everyone in the family shared, and provided incentives and penalties for Jeremy and other family members. Peter would work with Michelle to determine these together (and also explore Michelle’s family history and how inheritance was handled in her family).

Sam met with Peter and Michelle a few more times to clarify their goals and objectives and to make the changes they wanted. He then recommended they have a family meeting with an outside facilitator that specialized in family dynamics and next gen education.

Their first family meeting was just for the parents and their offspring (no in-laws or fiancés) for half a day. During that meeting they clarified their core family values. Peter and Michelle shared stories from their family histories to emphasize where some of those values came from. They then discussed the changes to the estate plan and what their expectations were for all their children, ensuring all were prepared for the future. Peter took the opportunity to apologize to his children, and especially to Jeremy, for not being there when they were growing up. He asked if they could make up for that by learning some new things together individually and as a family.

Because of Jeremy’s hasty engagement, Sam and one of his firm’s family law attorneys attended part of the family meeting to share their unique approach to prenups. In doing this, they were able to separate the issue of shared family values with that of integrating a new person into the family. Discussing how prenups can be used to build trust rather than create difficult situations will be the topic of the next and final part in this series of case studies.

=========

Conclusion and Key Take-Aways

A few distinctions to notice from this case study include:

1. By using your breath and your senses you can stay present and regulate your emotions when clients are reactive/angry. The client may not know it, but your sense of calm will help them regain theirs.

2. Remember that anger is a leading emotion. It has underlying core values at stake, and there are likely other emotions underneath.

3. Asking open-ended questions in combination with guessing at what else clients might be feeling will yield more information and likely reveal the goal they want to achieve.

4. Understanding family history gives more context to advisors. It highlights patterns and other crucial information that sheds light on where certain behaviors come from. This gives planners more power when trying to shift these patterns.

5. Don’t hesitate  to pause and slow things down when a client presses you for urgent results. Silence can be uncomfortable but the client will likely fill it with additional information.

6. By focusing on the context of the upset instead of the content of the angry demands, you can build greater trust and determine if there are other possible options that take care of a client’s core values and address the situation.

Additional Reading

Never Split the Difference by Chris Voss

Atlas of the Heart by Brené Brown

Non-Violent Communication by Marshall Rosenberg

Getting to Yes by William Ury

About Emily Bouchard

Emily focuses on intricate family dynamics, family governance, NextGen education and leadership development, and the success of blended families. The establishment of her firm, Bouchard Bespoke Consulting, represents the culmination of over 20 years of experience working with ultra-high-net-worth families.

About Clémence Scouten

Clémence is the founder of a boutique personal history firm Memoirs & More, which helps individuals, families and businesses document their legacy through custom books.