The legal action against me beginning in August 1975, and ending in September 1986, has been the equivalent of a cumulative psychological trauma. There was a trial in April 1986, which ended in a judgment favorable to me and against the plaintiff. There was a final document signed by the plaintiff in September 1986, agreeing not to pursue any further legal action against me in the way of appeals or further suits in return for relief from any indebtedness that she may have incurred because of having sued and lost. The emotional result of my victory was not one of exultation but of quiet relief and a wish not to stir up the feelings of helplessness, rage, injustice and anxiety produced by the unwished for—an involuntary entanglement with the American legal and judicial system.
There are a few simple lessons I have learned. One is that doing a good job with good intentions does not make one immune from unexpected malevolent attack. Another lesson is that there is little or no moral justice in the judicial and legal system. Once one becomes entrapped in the system, it is simply a matter of strategies, tactics, gambits, as in a chess game, but it is not a game. In the civil court what is at stake is not moral right and wrong but money and huge amounts of it. The lay participants are usually quite helpless; this includes both the plaintiffs and the defendants. In this case the plaintiff suffered a narcissistic wound and flew into a narcissistic rage which she hoped Jo express successfully through the courts. She spent almost her entire assets and borrowed heavily on what she had left. She devoted 10 years of her life to getting revenge. She failed on all counts and lost. Although my expenses were paid for by an insurance company, I lost even though I won. For 11 years, a large percentage of my waking hours was spent either in conscious or preconscious preoccupation with the legal threat. Many hours were spent in preparation of my defense, either at home or with attorneys in their offices. Even the time it takes to write you this letter, I consider as one of the costs of the experience.
Please Note:
The original members of the Washington Association for Psychoanalytic Education (WAPE) were omitted from Dr. Stanley L. Olinick's Letter to the Editor in the Fall issue of the Newsletter. With editorial apologies, they are as follows: Drs. Sidney Berman, Virginia Clower, Cecil Cullander, William Granatir, Kenneth Grigg, Daniel Jaffe, Edward Kushner, Milton Meltzer, Stanley Olinick, Warren Poland, William Stark and Jean Yacoubian.
Another lesson that I learned is that when one is sued there are two adversaries. One is the plaintiff, the second is the insurance company. The insurance company is protecting itself against both the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant is protecting himself against the plaintiff and at times may have to force the insurance company to protect him. In my case the insurance company withdrew coverage after three or four years into the lawsuit. In order to get them to restore coverage, I had to threaten suit which took six or seven months and several thousands of dollars before they finally capitulated and agreed to restore coverage.
This painful travail is finally over for me, but I'd be willing to consult with people in other institutes who may be having similar problems.
Sincerely,
Charles A. Mangham, M.D., Seattle