Written by Court proceedings can become especially difficult where an opponent, advocate or client uses high-conflict behaviour: distortion, provocation, overconfidence, blame-shifting, procedural pressure or boundary-testing. The safest response is not psychological labelling. It is evidence discipline, calm procedural control and early support.
Publication snapshot
- Core issue: how litigants in person and legal professionals can deal with high-conflict behaviour without losing procedural focus.
- Practical risk: provocative conduct can distract from evidence, deadlines, legal tests and proportionate case management.
- Professional risk: solicitors and barristers can be drawn into client grievance narratives or opponent-driven conflict unless boundaries are maintained.
- Safer route: describe conduct, preserve records, use court rules carefully, seek support, and avoid unsupported psychological or misconduct allegations.
Why this matters
Litigants in person often enter court already under pressure. They must understand forms, deadlines, bundles, evidence, legal tests, hearings and orders without the ordinary protection of professional representation. Where the other side behaves in a high-conflict way, the difficulty increases sharply.
The opponent may provoke, distort, delay, overwhelm, accuse, reframe, threaten or litigate every small point. The effect can be exhausting. A litigant may begin reacting to the behaviour rather than presenting the case. That is usually where the damage begins.
The practical danger: high-conflict behaviour wins when it moves the case away from evidence, law, procedure and proportionality.
The same problem can affect legal professionals. A solicitor may face a client who demands constant reassurance, refuses adverse advice, pushes for aggressive tactics, or blames the adviser for every setback. A barrister may face pressure to present a grievance as a legal case when the evidence does not support it. Professional boundaries then become part of case protection.
Labels vs conduct
The supplied draft uses the language of narcissism. That may reflect how the behaviour feels to the person experiencing it, but publication and court strategy require caution. A litigant does not usually need to prove that an opponent has a personality disorder. They need to show what the opponent did, why it matters, and how it affects the legal issue before the court.
The safer approach is to translate labels into observable conduct.
Risky framing
“The other side is a narcissist who is gaslighting the court.”
Safer and stronger framing
“The other side has repeatedly changed their account, ignored agreed boundaries, breached orders, and made allegations unsupported by the documents.”
This is not just legally safer. It is usually more persuasive. Courts deal with conduct, evidence, procedure and remedy. Psychological labels can distract unless they are clinically evidenced and legally relevant.
High-conflict opponents
A high-conflict opponent may use tactics that are emotionally destabilising but procedurally familiar. The key is to avoid being pulled into a fight about personality. The issue is what conduct affects the case.
Excessive applications or correspondence
Repeated emails, complaints, applications or accusations can drain time and obscure the real issues.
Distortion of facts
The opponent may present a confident but incomplete account, requiring careful document-by-document correction.
Provocation
The aim may be to make the litigant appear emotional, unreasonable or unstable in front of the court.
The response should be contained and evidence-led. Keep communications short. Use dates, documents and page references. Do not respond to every insult. Do not mirror the tone. Do not expand the case into a personality contest.
Do not litigate the personality unless it is legally relevant
The court usually needs to know whether a rule was broken, evidence was withheld, an order was breached, a claim has merit, or a remedy is justified. Character labels rarely do that work by themselves.
Advocacy pressure
Litigants in person may also experience pressure from opposing counsel. A barrister may test evidence firmly, expose inconsistencies, make robust submissions or challenge credibility. That is not automatically improper. Advocacy is part of the adversarial process.
The concern becomes sharper where the conduct appears to misstate evidence, exploit procedural imbalance, intimidate a litigant in person, or rely on broad assertions rather than proper legal analysis. Even then, the response should be precise.
Firm questioning, adverse submissions and criticism of evidence may be legitimate advocacy.
Misstating documents, relying on unfair ambush, or making unsupported allegations may need correction.
Ask the court to look at the document, order, pleading or rule rather than reacting emotionally.
If a barrister’s conduct is said to cross a professional line, the proper route is not a generalised accusation. It is a clear record of what happened, where it is recorded, why it matters, and which rule or duty is engaged.
Psychological impact
High-conflict litigation can be psychologically draining. A litigant in person may experience anxiety, loss of sleep, self-doubt, frustration, exhaustion or a sense of powerlessness. Those reactions are understandable. They should not be allowed to control the litigation strategy.
The practical problem is that distress can make a party more reactive. A litigant may send long emails, make broad allegations, miss deadlines, reject sensible offers, or turn every procedural step into proof of bad faith.
Before responding, ask:
- does this message require a response at all?
- what is the legal or procedural issue?
- what evidence proves the point?
- what is the shortest accurate correction?
- could this response be read by a judge later?
- am I responding to the case or to the provocation?
Support is not weakness. It may be a practical necessity. A litigant who is overwhelmed may need procedural help, emotional support, legal advice, a McKenzie friend, a support organisation, or professional health support depending on the situation.
Court controls
The court has procedural tools for dealing with abusive, obstructive or meritless conduct, but those tools should be invoked carefully. The fact that an opponent is difficult does not automatically mean the court will sanction them. The issue must be framed by reference to rules, orders, evidence and proportionality.
Non-compliance
If a party breaches a court order, identify the order, the deadline, the breach and the consequence sought.
Improper proceedings
Where claims or applications are abusive or obstructive, the court’s case-management powers may become relevant.
Unreasonable conduct
Where conduct causes unnecessary expense, costs consequences may need to be considered.
In civil proceedings, the court may strike out a statement of case where it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, is likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings, or there has been non-compliance with a rule, practice direction or court order. Where a claim or application is recorded as totally without merit, civil restraint consequences may also arise.
Solicitors and difficult clients
The problem is not limited to litigants facing difficult opponents. Solicitors may also face high-conflict clients who want the lawyer to validate grievance rather than provide legal advice.
Common patterns include unrealistic expectations, excessive communication, refusal to accept adverse advice, pressure to make unsupported allegations, blame after setbacks, or attempts to turn the solicitor into part of the client’s wider conflict.
Set communication boundaries
Agree how instructions will be given, how urgent issues will be handled, and what level of contact is proportionate.
Record risk advice
Put key advice on prospects, settlement, costs, evidence and procedural risk in writing.
Refuse unsupported allegations
Do not allow client anger to become pleaded fact unless there is a proper evidential basis.
Manage expectations repeatedly
High-conflict clients may need the same risk advice restated at each key decision point.
Know when withdrawal may be necessary
If the retainer becomes untenable or professional obligations are threatened, the solicitor may need advice on ending the retainer properly.
The professional obligation is not to become the client’s emotional proxy. It is to advise, act competently, protect the client’s interests within proper limits, and maintain professional independence.
Strategy map
The safest response to high-conflict conduct is a disciplined route map. It keeps the litigant focused on what the court can actually do.
Define the behaviour
Describe what happened without diagnosis: date, words, document, breach, omission, application or procedural step.
Link it to the case
Explain why the behaviour matters legally: evidence, compliance, costs, fairness, safeguarding, credibility or case management.
Preserve the record
Keep correspondence, orders, hearing notes, screenshots, disclosure gaps, chronology entries and page references.
Choose the route
Use the correct mechanism: response, application, costs argument, complaint, safeguarding route, appeal advice or no action.
Control the tone
Use calm, factual language. Assume every message may later be read by the court.
Source anchors
These source anchors separate litigant-in-person support, court procedure, barrister duties and solicitor standards from the article’s Legal Lens analysis.
- GOV.UK: Represent yourself in court
- Courts and Tribunals Judiciary: McKenzie Friends guidance
- Support Through Court: How we help
- Civil Procedure Rules, Part 3: The court’s case-management powers
- Bar Standards Board: The Core Duties
- Bar Standards Board: Reporting a concern about a barrister
- SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs
Closing point
High-conflict litigation is not won by matching the other side’s intensity. It is managed by narrowing the issue, preserving the evidence, complying with orders and presenting the court with calm, usable material.
For litigants in person, the central discipline is to resist provocation. For barristers, the discipline is proper advocacy within professional duties. For solicitors, the discipline is boundary-setting, written risk advice and refusal to let a client’s grievance override legal judgment.
The label matters less than the conduct. The conduct matters only when it is evidenced and connected to a legal or procedural route.
That is the difference between being drawn into the conflict and controlling the case.
Decision support before escalation or complaint
Get a free written assessment before responding to high-conflict litigation conduct
Legal Lens can help separate provocation, evidence, procedural breach, professional-conduct concern and litigation strategy before you apply, complain, publish or escalate.
What we assess
Evidence, chronology, court orders, correspondence, conduct concerns, procedural options and publication wording.
Use it before
Making allegations, filing an application, reporting a professional, changing strategy or publishing criticism.
What you get
A concise written view on what is evidenced, what is risky, what route is available and whether legal advice is needed.
Independent Legal Lens consultancy. This is not a regulated solicitors’ firm. A preliminary assessment is not a substitute for regulated legal advice where that is needed.