Category Archives: competence

How to Think Clearly and Make Better Decisions: Part 2 – Frame and reframe the problem

When tackling problems, we often jump into action without thinking deeply about what we are trying to solve. What needs to be tweaked? What needs to be overhauled? What must be kept? What must be scrapped? Is the problem single-rooted or multifaceted? Is there a better problem to solve?

Solving the wrong problems wastes time, resources and energy and might even lead to unintended consequences that make the situation worse. Yet we sometimes overlook how we frame the problem before we set goals, form an action plan, communicate directives, and implement next steps.

Our mental models shape our behavior and influence our perceptions. We use them to deal with uncertainty, make sense of the world, and decide what to do next.

In part 1 of this 3-part article, I discuss how echo chambers condition you to distrust contrary views, arguments and information that disconfirm your cognitive bias. Getting out of your echo chambers helps you understand multiple perspectives, strengthen your thinking, and make fully informed decisions.

The second step to thinking clearly and making better decisions is to frame and reframe the problem before you move forward.

This is especially important in group decision-making, when individuals collectively select a solution from among the alternatives before them. You ask the right questions, use correct framing, and define the problem effectively. Otherwise, you end up with fragile consensus or prolonged gridlock.

In his book, What’s Your Problem?, author Thomas Wedell-Wedellsborg notes, “The way you frame a problem determines which solutions you come up with.” He adds, “By shifting the way you see a problem – that is, by reframing it – you can sometimes find radically better solutions.”

The reframing canvas has 3 parts, with the “reframing loop” as a break in the normal straight line path from defining the problem to moving toward a solution.

1. Frame

Relevant questions are: what’s the problem you are aiming to solve? why exactly is this a problem for people? who’s involved?

This is the initial framing of a problem, which triggers the reframing loop. You examine whether the issue is presented neutrally or is narrowly defined to favor a certain type of solution.

2. Reframe

Relevant questions are: is there a different way to view the problem? what’s missing from the current framing of the problem? are there other factors worth paying attention to? what is the broader context to consider?

This is the redefining of a problem. You zoom out and look outside the familiar frame. You don’t just focus on the visible details, but also unearth the hidden aspects of the situation.

You rethink the goal, which means clarifying higher-level goals, distinguishing facts from beliefs, finding easier or alternative ways to reach a desired outcome, and questioning the goal itself (even if it seems obvious and undoubtedly good).

You examine bright spots (positive exceptions), which are areas of the situation where there are no problems or the problems are not so bad. Consider whether you have ever solved the problem and apply that experience. Look to the past for examples of when the expected problem did not occur, had no ill effects, or was less severe than usual.

Aim to recreate favorable circumstances and positive behaviors that make the bright spot. If you have not previously encountered the problem, look to others — including outside your industry — who have dealt with it or something similar. Frame your problem in more abstract terms instead of getting too specific.

You look in the mirror, which is examining your role in creating the problem. First, you explore your own contribution, e.g. what input did you provide that was reasonable, but didn’t help much?

Second, you scale the problem down to your individual level, instead of keep it at a systems-level. Is there a part of the problem where you have more control and influence? Can you solve it or take action on it on a more local level?

Third, you develop external self-awareness and get an outside view of yourself. How do other people see you? Do you know how your behavior affects others or comes across to others?

You take their perspective, where you seek to understand others’ context and viewpoint, not just their pain or emotions. This is different from having empathy, i.e. feeling what someone else feels.

Step away from your preferences, experiences and emotions and consider how others might see things differently from you. Adopt a benevolent view and assume people intend to do good things. Consider reasonable and innocent explanations for situations that need to be fixed.

3. Move Forward

Relevant questions are: how do you keep momentum? have you tested the problem and worked to frame it properly before you switch into solution mode? how will you validate your problem framing in the real world?

Describe the problem to the stakeholders to develop trust and encourage collaboration. Get outsiders (who are less emotionally invested in your solution) to provide input and feedback. Devise a hard test to determine whether the problem is serious enough for stakeholders to participate in solving it. Test the problem and the solution at the same time through “pretotyping,” i.e. roll out a smaller version of the solution to see if stakeholders show interest and buy into it.

Revisit the problem and possibly reframe it through regular intervals and scheduled check-ins. You could hold a daily, weekly or monthly staff meeting to review progress and results, especially in fast-changing situations. Contexts and priorities can change and new data and information can be gained as you move forward.

Frame and reframe the problem before you keep pursuing a course of action

Before you decide on a course of action, ask whether there are alternative and better ways to frame the problem. Are there important nuances being overlooked? Is the problem really one that needs solving? Have you fallen in love with a solution before fully understanding the problem?

The way you define a problem affects the depth and breadth of proposed solutions. Whether you’re providing legal advice, building a marketing strategy, addressing client needs or hiring a team member, pay close attention to how you frame the problem in the first place. Reframing is a powerful tool to address pertinent issues, rethink objectives, and move forward in a positive direction.

Reframing involves seeing the big picture. Only then will you be able to consider the situation with different perspectives and from diverse viewpoints. It’s not about defining the real problem, but more about examining different aspects of the problem to create better solutions.

Wedell-Wedellsborg offers a simple example known as The Slow Elevator Problem. The initial problem statement, “The elevator is too slow,” generates proposed solutions to make it faster, e.g. upgrade the motor, improve the algorithm, and install a new elevator. Although these solutions might work to reduce customer complaints, they tend to be costly.

When building managers reframe the problem to “The wait is annoying,” this leads to easier and less costly solutions that make the wait feel shorter, e.g. put up mirrors, install hand sanitizers, and play music. And a better problem is solved to reach a desired outcome, which is higher customer satisfaction.

Reframing means you dig deeper into how the problem is initially framed (explore the frame) or move away from the initial framing of the problem (break the frame). When you use the power of reframing, you gain an improved understanding of the issues, avoid focusing on the wrong problem, and invest resources on a problem really worth solving.

*  *  *

For more information on thinking clearly and making better decisions, read part 1 (Get out of echo chambers) and part 3 (Keep experts on tap, not on top) of this multipart article.

# # #

Dyan Williams is a solo lawyer who practices U.S. immigration law and legal ethics at Dyan Williams Law PLLC. She is also a productivity coach who helps working parents, lawyers, small business owners and other busy people turn their ideas into action, reduce overwhelm, and focus on what truly matters. . She is the author of The Incrementalist: A Simple Productivity System to Create Big Results in Small Steps, an e-book at http://leanpub.com/incrementalist.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

How to Think Clearly and Make Better Decisions: Part 1 – Get out of echo chambers

The ability to think clearly is essential to making better decisions – whether you’re launching a new product, defining a legal strategy, or managing a pandemic. But cognitive biases affect the way we frame issues, interpret data, and come up with ideas.

The human brain is naturally wired to find simple answers, not seek objective truth. It looks for patterns to automate repetitive tasks and decisions. It settles on data points that fit with current perceptions, which may be flawed. While this is fine for routine matters, it can lead to serious errors in high-stakes situations.

It’s not enough to be aware of your blind spots and how they shape beliefs, drive emotions, and influence actions. You also need to safeguard against default thinking on complex issues.

No one is entirely objective in processing information. Cognitive biases are a part of human nature. One of the most common and damaging type is confirmation bias. This leads us to seek out and recall facts that confirm what we already believe or think, and disregard and overlook competing facts that support a different view.

Confirmation bias contributes to division and polarization, where right-wrong, good-evil, dichotomous thinking prevails. Bias, by itself, doesn’t necessarily make you wrong or more intolerant of others you disagree with. But when you don’t see the whole picture (i.e. objective facts and evidence), and see only what you want to see (i.e. facts and evidence confirming your beliefs), you end up with suboptimal solutions.

The first step to thinking clearly and making better decisions is to get out of your echo chambers.

In echo chambers, you are conditioned to distrust contrary views, arguments and information from the “other side.” Competing ideas, beliefs and data points are blocked or ignored. This keeps us in an epistemic bubble, where one is unexposed to contrary views, arguments and information from the “other side.”

Virtual echo chambers

Echo chambers distort reality and manipulate your impression of others. Social media, social networks, and online discussion sites like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit amplify and reinforce biases. Through AI algorithms, search engines (e.g. Google and Yahoo) and content delivering websites (e.g. YouTube) give us more of what we want and less of what we don’t want. They can also suppress certain types of information.

In today’s attention economy, the most extreme viewpoints and sensationalized headlines get the most clicks. Individuals with neutral or moderate positions tend to avoid the debate, get sucked into the extremes, or are deemed to be clueless.

While modern technology like the Internet allows us to connect regardless of physical distance, it also has its drawbacks. Compared to face-to-face interactions, online communication makes it easier to express outrage over things you oppose and show less tolerance of competing beliefs.

Trolling, cyberbullying and other hostile online behavior are not uncommon, particularly in anonymous postings and through anonymous social media accounts. A faux pas that would be shrugged off or easily resolved in person becomes a major disagreement on the Internet.

Determining intent and understanding context in Twitter feeds, social media content, and even email is difficult. Words have different meanings and may affect each person differently. When we agree with the author’s viewpoint, we tend to assume their values, beliefs and perceptions are in line with our own. When we don’t, we might stereotype and label them negatively.

Communicating on a public medium often makes people more defensive and less likely to concede on valid points or point out areas of agreement. Use private online chats and direct messaging if you really want to encourage healthy discourse.

There is excess information, misinformation, filtered information, and conflicting information. For example, on issues of political controversy, check out both liberal leaning media (e.g. New York Times, MSNBC, The American Independent) and conservative leaning media (e.g. Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Brietbart).

Then search for unmoderated and less exciting information from more independent sources like C-SPAN. You could also tune into YouTube talk shows and podcasts covering in-depth and nuanced conversations on topics of interest.

Being exposed to opposing arguments will burst your epistemic bubble. But it won’t necessarily change your views or shift your positions — especially if you’ve learned, within your echo chamber, to distrust outside sources. Access to more information creates more opportunities to confirm biases. You might feel vindicated (when you receive confirming information) or disgusted (when you receive disconfirming information).

For concessions and agreements to be reached, each side has to earn the other’s trust, which is hard to do. Stay curious. Stay humble. Take time and make space for a well thought-out response, instead of give in to an immediate reaction.

Sometimes you need a digital detox. Read a book instead. Unplug from your devices such as smartphones, televisions, computers, and tablets. Limit your use of social media and get the apps off your phone. If you feel compelled to stay informed, a one-time check at the end of the day is usually more than enough.

Get a good night’s sleep, move, eat well, and practice mindfulness to help you avoid snap judgments. Self care helps you activate the prefrontal cortex of your brain, which is responsible for self-control, critical thinking and decision-making. Go for a long walk or sit in a quiet spot to reflect on information when you’re not emotionally charged and can think more calmly and objectively.

Real-life echo chambers

If you want to detect your blind spots, invite a free exchange of ideas and active discourse with friends, family members and colleagues who hold different beliefs and opinions.

Each must act in good faith, i.e. listen with curiosity, respect divergent viewpoints, refrain from proving the other side wrong or changing the other person’s mind, and find points of agreement. Some individuals are capable of having civil discussions; others are not. Choose wisely.

Discuss the strongest version (steel man) instead of the weakest version (straw man) of the person’s opposing viewpoint. Question what exactly they mean when they use vague terms or loose labels. Engaging in dialectic discourse sharpens your critical thinking skills. It allows you to poke holes at your own biases and recognize either side could be right or wrong. No one has a monopoly on truth, especially on complex and evolving issues.

Ward off first impressions. Avoid making assumptions about the person’s reasons for a particular position. It could be entirely apolitical and based on a common set of ideals. Perhaps your hierarchy of priorities and values simply do not match exactly with theirs. Maybe you just disagree on the approach in reaching a shared objective.

When we consider others’ perspectives and how they came to hold the beliefs and opinions they do (whether through logic or emotion), we can develop more compassion, engage in productive discourse, stop fighting, and learn from each other.

Silo thinking leads us to ignore objective facts, see only what confirms our biases, and overlook important data that do not match preconceptions. Merely getting out of your echo chamber is not enough for you to adapt to new information or change preexisting beliefs. But it will help you understand multiple perspectives, strengthen your thinking, and make fully informed decisions.

* * *

To learn more about thinking clearly and making better decisions, read part 2 (Frame and reframe the problem) and part 3 (Keep experts on tap, not on top) of this multipart article.

# # #

Dyan Williams is a solo lawyer who practices U.S. immigration law and legal ethics at Dyan Williams Law PLLC. She is also productivity coach who helps working parents, lawyers, small business owners and other busy people turn their ideas into action, reduce overwhelm, and focus on what truly matters. She is the author of The Incrementalist: A Simple Productivity System to Create Big Results in Small Steps, an e-book at http://leanpub.com/incrementalist.

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Presenting Minnesota CLE live webcast, Thursday, July 2 at 12 pm: Finding Your Rhythm – When to Do What

On Thursday, July 2, join me on Zoom for a Minnesota CLE live webcast, Finding Your Rhythm: When to Do Focused Work, Process Emails, Brainstorm Ideas, and Make Decisions.

Attorneys routinely keep too many things on their to-do list, feel overwhelmed with busyness, and prioritize other people’s requests over their truly important tasks. They are often told to manage their time better, multitask more, work smarter, or put in longer hours to get more done. But attempting to keep up with rising demands while neglecting to consider energy peaks and valleys create an unsustainable path to productivity. 

In this presentation, you will learn how to:

  • Work with your natural rhythm or internal body clock instead of burning yourself out or staying stuck  
  • Use your preferred sleep-wake cycle (circadian rhythm) and rest-activity cycle (ultradian rhythm) to plan your day
  • Choose the best times to perform high cognitive tasks, communicate with clients, spark insights, solve problems, and rest and recharge
  • Boost your energy level and reduce overwhelm by practicing simple daily habits 

Finding your rhythm will help you fulfill your ethical duties of diligence (Rule 1.3), competence (Rule 1.1) and communication (Rule 1.4).

This is a reprise of a webcast CLE that I presented back in December 2019, when most lawyers were commuting to the office instead of working from home or working remotely. In the midst of the pandemic shutdowns and restrictions, it’s especially important to find your rhythm and stay focused on what really matters. 

To register, click HERE

See you there,

Dyan Williams

U.S. Immigration & Legal Ethics Attorney
Author of The Incrementalist: A Simple Productivity System to Create Big Results in Small Steps, an e-book at http://leanpub.com/incrementalist

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT

Co-Presenting Ethics CLE Session, on Sineneng-Smith Case, at 2020 Upper Midwest Immigration Law Virtual Conference, Friday, May 29

The State of Minnesota is about to complete its second week of transitioning from a stay-at-home order to a stay-safe order. More businesses can start to re-open to the public, with certain restrictions, as early as June 1 in the midst of COVID-19.

At the same time, protests over the death of George Floyd on Monday — while he was in Minneapolis Police custody — evolved into riots, looting and arson in the Minneapolis-St. Paul (Twin Cities) area this week. 

In times of chaos and uncertainty, it can be hard to stay grounded, maintain calm, move forward, and appreciate the now. But being fully present is what we must do to keep our center when there is much to fear and grieve. 

Pema Chödrön, Buddhist nun and author of When Things Fall Apart: Heart Advice for Difficult Times, writes: “The state of nowness is available in that moment of squeeze. In that awkward, ambiguous moment is our own wisdom mind. Right there in the uncertainty of everyday chaos is our own wisdom mind.”

Many businesses, including law firms, are operating remotely in some or all aspects during the pandemic. Although various events and conferences were canceled or postponed in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, others are continuing as planned, but virtually. 

On Friday, May 29, from 8 am to 5 pm, the 2020 Upper Midwest Immigration Law Conference will be presented via Zoom, instead of through the in-person event in Downtown Minneapolis that was originally planned. Organized by the Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and The Advocates for Human Rights for the Upper Midwest, this year’s virtual conference sessions will provide critical practice updates and Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit to immigration attorneys.

This full-day, multi-track virtual CLE will give registered participants access to up to 6 live credit hours and to all sessions on-demand. Attendees may choose sessions individually among four different tracks — Employment, Humanitarian, Litigation and Fundamentals — and are not tied to any one category. 

I am scheduled to co-present with attorneys Alan Goldfarb and Eric Cooperstein at Session 4: “Ethics in Light of the Sineneng-Smith Case” (Employment track) from 2:15 to 3:15 pm. 

On May 7, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 opinion in this case, which makes immigration lawyers vulnerable to being prosecuted for rendering candid advice to clients who are not in lawful status within the United States. 

Evelyn Sineneng-Smith was convicted of violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which imposes criminal penalties on any person who encourages or induces a person to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, in violation of the law. It does not distinguish between criminal offenses and immigration (civil) violations. 

Sineneng-Smith was an immigration consultant in San Jose, California. She assisted clients working without authorization in the United States to file applications for a labor certification program that once provided a path to adjust to lawful permanent resident status. She knew her clients could not meet the statutory application-filing deadline, but still charged each client over $6,000, netting more than $3.3 million.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court held the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion when it decided this question because it was never raised by the defendant. The Court noted that instead of reviewing the case presented by the parties, the Ninth Circuit invited amici to brief and argue issues framed by the panel, including  “[W]hether the statute of conviction is overbroad . . . under the First Amendment.”

By vacating the decision and remanding the case to the Ninth Circuit, on procedural grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court did not address whether the statute is unconstitutional. This leaves lawyers with ethical dilemmas involving their duty to provide competent representation to clients and their duty to avoid the commission of a federal crime under the encouragement and inducement provision. The session on the Sineneng-Smith case will cover ethics concerns for immigration lawyers in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. 

For a description of the 2020 Upper Midwest Immigration Law Conference program, click here. Although the Early-Bird registration ($75 fee) ended on May 8, you can still register for the full price ($100 fee) up to May 29. To sign up, go to https://www.ailamndak.org/product/uppermidwest2020/

The Sineneng-Smith adds another layer of concern not just for attorneys, but also for persons who need candid advice on their options to gain, extend or change their U.S. immigration status. 

Stay well, stay connected,

Dyan Williams
Immigration & Legal Ethics Attorney 
Dyan Williams Law PLLC

Author of The Incrementalist: A Simple Productivity System to Create Big Results in Small Steps

Key Ethics Rules to Consider When Your Older Adult Client (or Potential Client) Has Diminished Capacity

Working with clients in various stages of Alzheimer’s or dementia, and with their families and caregivers, poses unique ethical issues for the attorney. Alzheimer’s is the most common cause of dementia, which involves memory loss and other cognitive impairment that affects daily life. When clients suffer from a mental impairment, this generally reduces their capacity to communicate with their lawyer, understand critical issues related to representation, and make informed decisions.

Here are key ethics rules to consider when your older adult client (or potential client) has diminished capacity:

Rule 1.1, Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation, i.e. legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Rule 1.1, Comment 2 states, “Perhaps the most fundamental legal skill consists of determining what kind of legal problems a situation may involve, a skill that necessarily transcends any particular specialized knowledge.”(emphasis added).

When working with a client with diminished capacity, lawyers not only need to know the nuts and bolt of their practice area. They also have to apply the legal standards of diminished capacity, which include ethical guidelines for assessing client capacity, as outlined in Rule 1.14, and standards of capacity for specific legal transactions.

A finding of incapacity could nullify or present obstacles in transactions such as wills, contracts and estate plans.

For example, at the time of making a will, the testator must understand the nature and extent of his property and the claims of others on his bounty, and be able to connect them sufficiently to form a rational plan for disposition of property. This is known as Testamentary Capacity.

When entering a contract, the person needs to understand the nature and effect of the act and the business being transacted. If the act of business being transacted is highly complicated, a higher level of understanding is usually needed. This is called Contractual Capacity.

Rule 1.2, Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer

A lawyer has a duty to abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives or goals of representation and reasonably consult with the client about the means to accomplish such objectives. When a client lacks capacity to fully participate in the representation, this creates multiple ethical issues.

Rule 1.2, Comment 1 states the client has ultimate authority to determine the purpose and objectives of the representation. The means by which to accomplish objectives is generally left to counsel, after consultation with the client. Comment 2 adds that when there is a disagreement, counsel must attempt a mutually agreeable resolution. “If such efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw from the representation. See Rule 1.16(b)(4).”

Rule 1.4, Communication

Rule 1.14(a)(1) states the lawyer shall promptly inform client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which client’s informed consent is required.

Rule 1.4(a)(2) requires the lawyer to reasonably consult with client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished.

Rule 1.4(b) notes the lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding representation.

Comment 6 states, “Ordinarily, the information to be provided is that appropriate for a client who is a comprehending and responsible adult.” But “this standard may be impracticable” when the client suffers from diminished capacity.

In any event, the lawyer should confirm the client understands key elements of legal action and available options, and the client has made a choice and understands the consequences.

Rule 1.7, Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

The lawyer needs to watch out for conflicts of interest, particular in joint representation of married couples in wills and trusts formation, estate planning, contracts and other similar matters.

The lawyer shall not represent a client if representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.

Concurrent conflict of interest exists if representation will be:

(1) directly adverse to another client, or

(2) materially limited by responsibilities to another client, former client, or a third person, or from lawyer’s own interests.

Comment 1 states that loyalty and independent judgment are essential in attorney-client relationship. Comment 2 explains that to resolve a conflict of interest problem, the attorney must clearly identify the client(s) and decide whether representation may continue and, if so, consult with affected client(s) and obtain informed consent in writing.

Rule 1.16, Declining or Terminating Representation

Rule 1.16(b)(1) states the attorney may withdraw from representing a client if it can be “accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.”

Rule 1.16(c) states the lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice to or permission of a tribunal when terminating representation. A tribunal may order the lawyer to continue representation despite good cause for termination.

Comment 1 explains the lawyer should not accept representation in a matter unless it can be performed competently, promptly, without improper conflict of interest and to completion. In effect, if the lawyer reasonably believes the person lacks capacity to make informed decisions, he may decline representation without necessarily seeking reasonable protective action.

Comment 6 adds that before representation is withdrawn, the lawyer should make special effort to help the client — with severely diminished capacity — consider the consequences of a discharge and may take reasonably necessary protective action as provided in Rule 1.14.

Rule 1.14, Client with Diminished Capacity

Rule 1.14(a) states the lawyer must maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship, as far as reasonably possible, even with the client has diminished capacity.

Comment 1 notes, “The normal client-lawyer relationship is based on the assumption that the client, when properly advised and assisted, is capable of making decisions about important matters.” It adds that when the client “suffers from a diminished mental capacity, however, maintaining the ordinary client-lawyer relationship may not be possible in all respects.”

Rule 1.14(b) allows the lawyer to take reasonable protection action when the lawyer reasonably believes the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken, and cannot adequately act in his/her own interest.

Comment 5 specifies that protective action includes consulting with family members; using a reconsideration period to permit clarification or improved circumstances; using durable powers of attorney; and consulting with support groups, professional services, adult-protective agencies, or other persons and entities available to protect the client.

In certain situations, the lawyer may seek guidance from an appropriate diagnostician. Protective action may involve seeking assistance from third parties in determining whether to seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian.

Rule 1.14(c) states the lawyer may reveal confidential information (protected by Rule 1.6) to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interest, when taking reasonably necessary protective action.

Comment 6 states, “In determining the extent of the client’s diminished capacity, the lawyer should consider and balance such factors as: 1) the client’s ability to articulate reasoning leading to a decision; 2) variability of state of mind and ability to appreciate consequences of a decision; the substantive fairness of a decision; and 3) the consistency of a decision with the known long-term commitments and values of the client.

Undue influence from a family member, caregiver or other third party should not be confused with diminished capacity, although the two are sometimes intertwined. Through manipulation or isolation, a stronger person might convince the weaker person to do something he would not otherwise do without the undue influence. This is a major factor for financial exploitation that the lawyer needs to consider when working with elderly clients with diminished capacity.

* * *

Most lawyers – especially without special training — will find it very difficult to determine whether a client with diminished capacity can still make “adequately considered decisions.” Rule 1.14(b) subjects the lawyer to the standard of reasonableness and requires only that the lawyer “reasonably believes” the client has diminished capacity, which may be inferred from the circumstances.

As part of the normal attorney-client relationship, lawyers may not substitute their opinion or judgment for that of their clients, even when the client has diminished capacity due to mental impairment (e.g. Alzheimer’s or dementia). In appropriate situations, lawyers may consult with a medical or mental health diagnostician or other professional for help in evaluating a client’s capacity to act in his or her own interest. They may disclose only enough information reasonably necessary to take contemplated protective action in cases where the client is at risk of substantial harm.

* * *

NOTE: On Monday, February 3, 2020, I will co-present the ethics session at Minnesota CLE’s live in-person seminar, A Lawyer’s Guide to Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Wills & Estate Planning attorney, Stuart Bear of Chestnut Cambronne P.A., and I will discuss Ethical Issues for Attorneys: How to Avoid the Pitfalls of Competency, Conflicts, and More.

To register or learn more, click HERE.  

###

This article provides general information only. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation.  

The author, Dyan Williams, is admitted to the Minnesota state bar and focuses on the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, which are subject to change. Check your individual state rules of professional conduct, regulations, ethics opinions and case precedents, instead of relying on this article for specific guidance. 

SUBSCRIBE           CONTACT