Looking for an "Autism Advocate"
January 26, 2025 12:46 PM Subscribe
How can I find someone knowledgeable about autism, especially in women ("high functioning"), to help advocate in a small group setting in Durham NC? Ideally they should be comfortable with clueless lawyers who do not get it. Availability from anywhere for online Tuesday 9:30 AM EST also great. (**bonus for pointers to Durham NC mediators who are autism educated.)
I'm hoping for a recommendation of a specific person - your therapist, you yourself, an academic who researches/cares about this version of ASD and can speak well. Please don't say "try searching for X" until reading the "already contacted list".
This could be written advocacy, ideally in-person during a couple of court/mediation sessions, or both.
This is connected to a civil legal case, but the person doesn't have to be a lawyer. My attempts to locate a resource locally have been unsuccessful so far. The person involved has contacted a forensic psychology firm, but they are very expensive and not really the right fit for this.
The case is very stressful, and the person involved is a defendant currently very stressed and very symptomatic. They need someone to advocate for accommodations, make a rock-solid case that this is a real disability, make a rock-solid case that accommodations and life supports are the difference between being disabled and living "normally."
For Tuesday's session, ideally they would keep her from being bulldozed by two male lawyers and a male mediator all of whom regard themselves as experienced intelligent professionals and all of whom think e.g. a request for two small sessions instead of one long one is an overreaction.
This is a long list, but executive function is exhausted here and there may be obvious follow ups that have been missed. Honestly, executive function is a problem after all this, so please -- if possible, if you can, give answers that are easy to follow up on :)
Already contacted:
- many, many national and local autism organizations, and Disability Rights NC. Their "resource" contacts give resources in the form of lists of other organizations, primarily;
- their personal therapist
- a few group therapy practices with an autism focus
- some random Meetup.com groups
- their one friend (hi!)
- there is no family for this; they are a mature adult
- DHHS
- the county court's accommodations specialist
Also contacted: Autism Society (USA and NC and local), US ADA office, ASAN, Autism Speaks, DREDF, two lawyers with experience representing autistic clients in criminal cases, TEACCH, dralegal, triagledisability.org, Alliance of Disability Advocates, ARC of NC, faculty at UNC and Duke Law Schools, autism focused faculty (but perhaps not the right ones), a life coach trained by AANE, UNC Autism Research Center, Legal Aid, Melissa Hochberg (interesting btw), NC Center for Autistic Women & Girls, two educational consultants, law firms that seemed relevant, NC Bar Association, Autism Legal Resource Center
I'm hoping for a recommendation of a specific person - your therapist, you yourself, an academic who researches/cares about this version of ASD and can speak well. Please don't say "try searching for X" until reading the "already contacted list".
This could be written advocacy, ideally in-person during a couple of court/mediation sessions, or both.
This is connected to a civil legal case, but the person doesn't have to be a lawyer. My attempts to locate a resource locally have been unsuccessful so far. The person involved has contacted a forensic psychology firm, but they are very expensive and not really the right fit for this.
The case is very stressful, and the person involved is a defendant currently very stressed and very symptomatic. They need someone to advocate for accommodations, make a rock-solid case that this is a real disability, make a rock-solid case that accommodations and life supports are the difference between being disabled and living "normally."
For Tuesday's session, ideally they would keep her from being bulldozed by two male lawyers and a male mediator all of whom regard themselves as experienced intelligent professionals and all of whom think e.g. a request for two small sessions instead of one long one is an overreaction.
This is a long list, but executive function is exhausted here and there may be obvious follow ups that have been missed. Honestly, executive function is a problem after all this, so please -- if possible, if you can, give answers that are easy to follow up on :)
Already contacted:
- many, many national and local autism organizations, and Disability Rights NC. Their "resource" contacts give resources in the form of lists of other organizations, primarily;
- their personal therapist
- a few group therapy practices with an autism focus
- some random Meetup.com groups
- their one friend (hi!)
- there is no family for this; they are a mature adult
- DHHS
- the county court's accommodations specialist
Also contacted: Autism Society (USA and NC and local), US ADA office, ASAN, Autism Speaks, DREDF, two lawyers with experience representing autistic clients in criminal cases, TEACCH, dralegal, triagledisability.org, Alliance of Disability Advocates, ARC of NC, faculty at UNC and Duke Law Schools, autism focused faculty (but perhaps not the right ones), a life coach trained by AANE, UNC Autism Research Center, Legal Aid, Melissa Hochberg (interesting btw), NC Center for Autistic Women & Girls, two educational consultants, law firms that seemed relevant, NC Bar Association, Autism Legal Resource Center
Response by poster: She does have her own lawyer, but it's very hard to get male lawyers to hear that accommodations for a college-educated (somewhat angry and frustrated) grown-up woman who sounds fine most of the time -- are not optional.
The forensic psychology firm would be the expert witness. This is different.
This "advocate" would be part posse, part expert on autism in general. Someone to tell her own lawyer, "Hey, this is what is really needed because this is a real issue", advocate for breaks when needed, help her figure out accommodations and word the request well (again, the lawyer isn't an expert in this). The specifics would be worked out with the person.
She's hoping to pay less than a forensic psychologist would cost, since there wouldn't be clinical evaluation involved.
posted by amtho at 4:09 PM on January 26 [1 favorite]
The forensic psychology firm would be the expert witness. This is different.
This "advocate" would be part posse, part expert on autism in general. Someone to tell her own lawyer, "Hey, this is what is really needed because this is a real issue", advocate for breaks when needed, help her figure out accommodations and word the request well (again, the lawyer isn't an expert in this). The specifics would be worked out with the person.
She's hoping to pay less than a forensic psychologist would cost, since there wouldn't be clinical evaluation involved.
posted by amtho at 4:09 PM on January 26 [1 favorite]
Sorry if I'm missing something here. I'm thinking, if I feel the need to hire a professional advocate to talk to my lawyer on my behalf to get the lawyer to take my wishes and needs seriously…maybe I'd prefer to retain a new lawyer who listens to me, their client, who pays them?
I don't know a ton about lawyering but I think the one you hire is supposed to be on your side? It's the other side that's expected to give you a hard time about what you need.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:02 PM on January 26 [7 favorites]
I don't know a ton about lawyering but I think the one you hire is supposed to be on your side? It's the other side that's expected to give you a hard time about what you need.
posted by SaltySalticid at 8:02 PM on January 26 [7 favorites]
Response by poster: If you know about autism, then you'll probably not be surprised that a) it's almost universally difficult to get autism taken seriously in high-functioning women; b) communication problems are normal.
If you know about lawyers, then ... you gotta know this is normal for most of them.
And the advocate is mostly for communicating with a bunch of strangers who will be actively _judging_ a woman with autism. That's usually not going to go well.
Help is warranted. Focusing on the lawyer's issues is a bit of a red herring. Sorry.
posted by amtho at 9:02 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
If you know about lawyers, then ... you gotta know this is normal for most of them.
And the advocate is mostly for communicating with a bunch of strangers who will be actively _judging_ a woman with autism. That's usually not going to go well.
Help is warranted. Focusing on the lawyer's issues is a bit of a red herring. Sorry.
posted by amtho at 9:02 PM on January 26 [2 favorites]
DM-ing you shortly, God willing.
posted by rabia.elizabeth at 1:26 AM on January 27 [1 favorite]
posted by rabia.elizabeth at 1:26 AM on January 27 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I would reach out to Meg Ferrell (formerly Proctor) of Learn Play Thrive. Although she is an OT and focuses on kids, she is in North Carolina and does trainings and has a truly excellent podcast where she interviews autistic professionals and just seems to have a really solid grasp on autistic needs.
posted by needs more cowbell at 6:58 AM on January 27
posted by needs more cowbell at 6:58 AM on January 27
Her lawyer is not going to let an “advocate” be present during confidential discussions. That would breach attorney-client privilege. It’s possible that they would work with an actual mental health professional because of the parallel confidentiality, but I’m not sure. A lawyer might be more willing to let a family member participate more closely because in some cases that doesn’t breach confidentiality- but this is all very dependent on the state law.
If your friend isn’t psychologically prepared for the mediation she can ask for an extension of time while she figures this out.
posted by haptic_avenger at 9:11 AM on January 27
If your friend isn’t psychologically prepared for the mediation she can ask for an extension of time while she figures this out.
posted by haptic_avenger at 9:11 AM on January 27
Her lawyer is not going to let an “advocate” be present during confidential discussions. That would breach attorney-client privilege.
(Again, even more not legal advice, sorry, OP.)
State laws do vary somewhat, but generally there's no attorney-client privilege during a mediation at times when a third party (other counsel, the mediator) is present. There may be confidentiality by agreement or by statute, but particularly if it's by agreement that is generally negotiable. If the goal is to have someone else in the room to stand up and say, "Gentlemen, Ms. X needs a fifteen-minute break right now," an "advocate" will probably fill the bill, possibly with some previous negotiation, since apparently her counsel lacks either the skills or the sensitivity to do the job.
During moments when no third party is present, while I imagine there isn't much case law on this particular scenario (and thus non-trivial legal risk), the general tendency of the law has been to extend a/c privilege to professionals, particularly if retained by counsel, who are necessary to interpret or facilitate the provision of information provided by the client. That would include health information, including mental health information. There would be no question about an ASL interpreter, for instance. Arguably this "advocate" would fit into this category. To help reduce risk, ideally this would be a professional, but not really because of any independent confidentiality obligations, rather because it would increase the confidence of the court that the person was "necessary."
Finally, the lawyer can advise as to the risks and consequences of waiving a/c privilege but can't forbid the client from waiving it if the client so desires. (If it were me, in this situation, I would make sure that I gave the advice in writing and that the client acknowledged it in writing, but I wouldn't be in fear of a malpractice suit.) It seems to me that this is a situation where the client might well judge that the benefit exceeds the risk. At least, it should be up to her. I am sad that her lawyer is such a donkey that she doesn't have confidence he will protect her interests (I don't pretend to have any great insight into autism, but in this situation I would absolutely understand my job to be to help my client participate as effectively as possible), but it seems like she feels it's necessary to keep him rather than changing, and one needs to defer to her judgment there, as well.
posted by praemunire at 10:14 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]
(Again, even more not legal advice, sorry, OP.)
State laws do vary somewhat, but generally there's no attorney-client privilege during a mediation at times when a third party (other counsel, the mediator) is present. There may be confidentiality by agreement or by statute, but particularly if it's by agreement that is generally negotiable. If the goal is to have someone else in the room to stand up and say, "Gentlemen, Ms. X needs a fifteen-minute break right now," an "advocate" will probably fill the bill, possibly with some previous negotiation, since apparently her counsel lacks either the skills or the sensitivity to do the job.
During moments when no third party is present, while I imagine there isn't much case law on this particular scenario (and thus non-trivial legal risk), the general tendency of the law has been to extend a/c privilege to professionals, particularly if retained by counsel, who are necessary to interpret or facilitate the provision of information provided by the client. That would include health information, including mental health information. There would be no question about an ASL interpreter, for instance. Arguably this "advocate" would fit into this category. To help reduce risk, ideally this would be a professional, but not really because of any independent confidentiality obligations, rather because it would increase the confidence of the court that the person was "necessary."
Finally, the lawyer can advise as to the risks and consequences of waiving a/c privilege but can't forbid the client from waiving it if the client so desires. (If it were me, in this situation, I would make sure that I gave the advice in writing and that the client acknowledged it in writing, but I wouldn't be in fear of a malpractice suit.) It seems to me that this is a situation where the client might well judge that the benefit exceeds the risk. At least, it should be up to her. I am sad that her lawyer is such a donkey that she doesn't have confidence he will protect her interests (I don't pretend to have any great insight into autism, but in this situation I would absolutely understand my job to be to help my client participate as effectively as possible), but it seems like she feels it's necessary to keep him rather than changing, and one needs to defer to her judgment there, as well.
posted by praemunire at 10:14 AM on January 27 [3 favorites]
A lawyer can definitely terminate the representation if they don’t think their client is acting prudently in waiving the privilege.
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:33 PM on January 28
posted by haptic_avenger at 1:33 PM on January 28
Best answer: A lawyer can definitely terminate the representation if they don’t think their client is acting prudently in waiving the privilege.
Already in litigation, it is not straightforward to withdraw from a case. Certainly it's possible, but if lawyers fired their clients every time they thought the client was merely acting imprudently, there'd be a lot more bankrupt lawyers out there.
Sounds like you're offended as a lawyer to hear that a client might feel they need this extra help (and/or doubt that they do); as another lawyer, I'd suggest focusing your upset on the fact that this woman is getting incompetent representation from someone she is paying to safeguard her interests (and try to accept that this woman is probably the best judge of what she needs, even if it doesn't seem reasonable to you personally).
posted by praemunire at 2:37 PM on January 28 [2 favorites]
Already in litigation, it is not straightforward to withdraw from a case. Certainly it's possible, but if lawyers fired their clients every time they thought the client was merely acting imprudently, there'd be a lot more bankrupt lawyers out there.
Sounds like you're offended as a lawyer to hear that a client might feel they need this extra help (and/or doubt that they do); as another lawyer, I'd suggest focusing your upset on the fact that this woman is getting incompetent representation from someone she is paying to safeguard her interests (and try to accept that this woman is probably the best judge of what she needs, even if it doesn't seem reasonable to you personally).
posted by praemunire at 2:37 PM on January 28 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: For those following along at home: it went as predicted. A very generous and formidable friend had volunteered to be present, but was very ill today, so... there was a lot of very patient explaining the same thing over and over, and a lot of, "I hear that you _believe_....", and so on. The door is open to more mediation later, though.
I re-contacted the Autism Self-Advocacy Network and DREDF, an appointment has been made with a local psychologist who may/may not be appropriate for this (hearsay), and the forensic psychologist appointment tomorrow may be helpful.
Cost of mediation so far: $1200-$1450, half to be paid by the defendant. Cost of forensic psychologist: initial appointment: $300; if hired, $3000-$6000 estimated by receptionist. Lawyer (for some reason) graciously did not apply the mediation time to his retainer.
posted by amtho at 5:40 PM on January 28 [1 favorite]
I re-contacted the Autism Self-Advocacy Network and DREDF, an appointment has been made with a local psychologist who may/may not be appropriate for this (hearsay), and the forensic psychologist appointment tomorrow may be helpful.
Cost of mediation so far: $1200-$1450, half to be paid by the defendant. Cost of forensic psychologist: initial appointment: $300; if hired, $3000-$6000 estimated by receptionist. Lawyer (for some reason) graciously did not apply the mediation time to his retainer.
posted by amtho at 5:40 PM on January 28 [1 favorite]
“I'd suggest focusing your upset on the fact that this woman is getting incompetent representation from someone she is paying to safeguard her interests.”
no, my point is she should have an attorney she trusts and can communicate with, including with the help of a relative or trusted professional who can (within the bounds of confidentiality) help her attorney understand what she needs. the fact that she thinks she needs an advocate to advocate to her own counsel shows that she has an adversarial relationship with her lawyer - which poses an ethical concern that could lead the lawyer to conclude that ethics required them to terminate.
I think understanding what confidentiality is and making efforts to communicate needs to her attorney is the key here. Maybe the solution is to have this conversation in a way that doesn’t touch at all in confidential matters with a helpful third party present.
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:28 PM on January 29
no, my point is she should have an attorney she trusts and can communicate with, including with the help of a relative or trusted professional who can (within the bounds of confidentiality) help her attorney understand what she needs. the fact that she thinks she needs an advocate to advocate to her own counsel shows that she has an adversarial relationship with her lawyer - which poses an ethical concern that could lead the lawyer to conclude that ethics required them to terminate.
I think understanding what confidentiality is and making efforts to communicate needs to her attorney is the key here. Maybe the solution is to have this conversation in a way that doesn’t touch at all in confidential matters with a helpful third party present.
posted by haptic_avenger at 4:28 PM on January 29
Response by poster: Oh hey, I said, "very hard to get male lawyers to hear that " -- that doesn't imply the attorney isn't trusted. Or that he doesn't want to understand. Or that she didn't exercise care when choosing him. Or that there are a whole lot of other lawyers who would be better.
Communication is hard. New things are hard. Cognitive biases aren't curses cast on us by warlocks that turn evil; they are how we have survived. The world isn't divided into perfect helpers and trash.
posted by amtho at 6:54 PM on January 29
Communication is hard. New things are hard. Cognitive biases aren't curses cast on us by warlocks that turn evil; they are how we have survived. The world isn't divided into perfect helpers and trash.
posted by amtho at 6:54 PM on January 29
« Older For the over 50s, What used to be but is no more? | Looking for a big bragging claim about physics Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
(Again, sorry if this is off-track for you, but I would have felt bad not saying anything.)
posted by praemunire at 1:57 PM on January 26 [1 favorite]