Chapter 11: Lessons Learned
We failed at three negotiation methods: direct, direct attorney and court ordered mediation. This is not 
surprising as we were a “High-Conflict Divorce,” 1 though not because we were by nature a screaming, throwing insults type of couple. Most of our relationship had been quite the opposite. However in divorce, we were high-conflict due to Scott’s narcissism and compulsive lying, compounded by my reaction to both behaviors. In reflecting on our failures and reviewing what legal experts advise, here are my learnings about divorce negotiation.
Negotiation Requires an Even Playing Field – Is Someone Lying or Hiding Information?
Negotiation(directly or with your attorneys and a mediator in between) is certainly a cheaper way of dissolving 
a marriage. Divorce trials are notoriously expensive and ours was no exception. However, trust, at least about the financials, is critical to successful negotiation. That simply didn’t exist for us. Scott had his lengthy history of lying, including new lies created to cover up old ones. In addition, he tried to sneak a settlement through right after we filed for divorce, hoping I would agree before I unwound the money he had spent. Since I didn’t agree and did find the money, I trusted NOTHING he said and assumed any offer made was an attempt to screw me. Factually, his offer was just that. His alimony offer was not even at the state ordered minimum of 30% and the asset split didn’t mention or address the money he had spent.
Narcissists Can’t Negotiate
Even with complete transparency about the financials, Scott’s narcissism introduced a complex set of mediation challenges. 2 Narcissists display a number of characteristics making negotiating with them next to impossible. These include a lack of 
empathy, a sense of entitlement, a grandiose sense of self-importance and arrogance. Scott had ALL of these characteristics. His paltry offer was a prime example of his sense of entitlement. He also arrogantly bragged he was a great negotiator despite his inflexibility about his offer and a number of other issues. He thought great negotiating meant loudly repeating the same thing, over and over, betting I would eventually give in. Compromise simply was not a part of his negotiation toolbox.
For my part, once I started uncovering Scott’s cheating, I wanted to know all of it, every woman, every detail and every penny spent. My forensic accounting documented a pile of money and I believe I captured most of what he spent. My exhaustive research produced a treasure trove of crappy behavior, which even Scott admitted was worthy of an episode of Jerry Springer. Far from beating me into submission, his aggressive “take it or leave it” attitude really pissed me off and caused me to dig in even more.
Take Emotion Out of the Negotiation and Focus on the End Result
By the time we attempted negotiations, I had repressed the anger about Scott’s behavior for over three years. The first two years, I sucked it up as I tried to keep the marriage together. I naively accepted far too much responsibility for his unhappiness and worked on changing myself based on his complaints. In therapy, we never addressed my anger at his behavior nor did he genuinely take responsibility for his actions. He acted as if this wasn’t important to our reconciliation.
By the third year, we had called it quits and minimized our contact. As a result, I barely got to express my anger when he left and certainly didn’t once I pieced together the full picture of his behavior. Our negotiation attempts were one of the few outlets I had for directing my anger at Scott, mostly with sarcastic remarks that pushed his buttons so hard his eruption would end the negotiation session. Scott’s inflexibility and my anger made even Shuttle Diplomacy (putting us in separate rooms) a failure.
Run the Numbers: Will You Be Better Off Taking the Deal or Going to Court?
Typically you are better off financially taking a less than ideal settlement offer, because the cost of going to trial greatly outweighs the amount of money you may be leaving on the table. Trials are outrageously expensive, often costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. As you negotiate, it is important to calculate and compare the financial outcomes of taking a deal versus going to trial. With good data on your joint asset picture, both parties’ employment and retirement financials and the alimony and asset guidelines in your state, you can calculate the financials of best and worst case trial judgements. Netting out an estimate of additional attorney fees for going to trial will produce net trial outcome financials to compare to the deal you have negotiated. You may find even a lousy deal is better for you financially, once you factor in the added lawyer fees of going to trial.
In my case, Scott’s “take it or leave it” offer was so low (on both alimony and asset split), it always made financial sense for me to go to trial to get a better judgement. Even with the worst trial outcome, my financial result (net of attorney fees) would be better than his deal, primarily because his alimony offer was so low. Most likely, the numbers suggested I would be far better off. I additionally reasoned Scott would capitulate as the public spectacle of a trial grew near and would therefore be open to a better settlement. I was wrong of course in believing he would behave rationally and in his best financial interest. After all, he was a narcissist, asserting he was the divorce expert, and knew exactly what I should and would get.
Hire an Attorney Who Has Trial Experience – Especially if You Are Divorcing a Narcissist or a Compulsive Liar
I believe my attorneys recognized the trust deficit and Doug’s narcissism early on and therefore didn’t waste a great deal of time trying to force a mediation. They didn’t believe a lengthy negotiation was in my best interest and would waste legal fees, when in the end we would be going to trial anyway. This is why hiring an attorney with trial experience is so important when you are divorcing a narcissist and/or a compulsive liar. Going to trial is not a threat to lawyers with trial experience, which means they won’t pressure you to settle just so they won’t have to try a case.
Our presiding judge told us at the end of our trial that he now understood why we couldn’t negotiate a settlement ourselves, saying “There are very few cases that sometimes we see as having to be tried. This is one of those cases that I see now why it had to be tried.”. I can’t say it made me feel much better, though seeing how much more Scott spent on his one lousy attorney than I spent on my two great attorneys certainly did!
