How We Say Things Matters: Trauma-Informed Lawyering

When we talk about trauma-informed practice, we often think about therapy rooms or healthcare settings. But the law is one of the most emotionally charged environments there is, and every interaction between lawyer and client can either build or erode safety.

Last week, I had the privilege of leading a one-hour training session on Trauma-Informed Lawyering at the Cambridge & West Suffolk Resolution event, Breaking Down Barriers.

The room, full of family lawyers and law students, was curious, open, and deeply reflective. We explored how trauma affects thinking, memory, and communication, and how subtle shifts in language can make the difference between a client feeling heard or shamed.

Why Trauma-Informed Lawyering Matters

Family law is a space where emotion, loss, and identity all intersect. Almost every client who enters the system is navigating some form of distress, whether from recent events such as separation or long-standing patterns of fear, shame, or uncertainty.

Trauma-informed practice doesn’t mean becoming a therapist; it means understanding how trauma shows up in thinking and behaviour, so professionals can communicate in ways that build safety rather than amplify stress.

At its heart, it’s about strategic empathy, staying curious about what’s happening underneath a reaction, rather than judging it at face value.

When Words Regulate (or Re-Trigger)

The most powerful section of the session came from the participants themselves. Through an anonymous poll, I invited everyone to share phrases they’d used (or heard used) that might unintentionally increase a client’s stress or defensiveness.

The honesty and self-awareness in those responses were remarkable, and they became the foundation for a practical exercise in reframing through a trauma-informed lens.

Common Phrases, Reframed with Care

Below is a summary of the real examples shared by attendees, grouped by theme, with suggested trauma-informed alternatives and the reasoning behind each shift. These aren’t scripts, but frameworks for curiosity, empathy, and clarity. Each aims to keep clients within their window of tolerance (Dr. Daniel Siegel), where they can process information and stay engaged.

1. The Question That Feels Like Interrogation

“Why did you do that?”

• How it can land: To someone who already feels ashamed or fearful, “why” can sound like blame, even if it’s asked neutrally. Trauma narrows perspective; people act on instinct, not reason, when they feel unsafe.

• Reframe: “Can I ask what was happening for you at the time, or what made that feel like the best option?” “Help me understand what was going on for you when that decision was made.”

• Why it works: It shifts from judgment to collaboration. “Help me understand” invites reflection rather than defence.

2. The Dismissive Reassurance

“Don’t worry.” “You’ll be fine.”

• How it can land: For someone who feels overwhelmed, these phrases can feel invalidating, as if their distress isn’t legitimate.

• Reframe: “I can see this feels really stressful right now. Let’s take it one step at a time.” “It’s understandable this feels heavy; we’ll go through it together.”

• Why it works: You validate emotion and contain it. This helps the client’s nervous system settle enough to think clearly.

3. The Legal Filter

“It’s not relevant to the proceedings.”

• How it can land: Clients often share emotionally charged details as part of meaning-making. When told it’s “not relevant,” they can feel dismissed, even if the intention is to stay focused.

• Reframe: “I understand why that feels important. Legally, the court may not consider it, but let’s look at how that information might still help us.” or “I can see that matters to you. let’s talk about where it fits into the bigger picture.”

• Why it works: It maintains boundaries around legal relevance while recognising emotional reality.

4. The Urgent Push

“I need you to decide quickly.” “We’re running out of time.”

• How it can land: For dysregulated clients, urgency heightens panic and narrows thinking. Trauma already creates a sense of threat; pressure amplifies it.

• Reframe: “There are some time pressures here. Would it help if I outline your options, so you can make a confident decision?” or “Let’s look together at what needs to be decided soon, and what can wait.”

• Why it works: It preserves efficiency but replaces pressure with collaboration.

5. The Financial Trigger

“This is going to be expensive.” “You’ll have to pay X upfront.”

• How it can land: Money talk is naturally activating, but for clients who’ve experienced financial control or scarcity, it can trigger shame or panic.

• Reframe: “I know this is a significant cost. We can talk through payment options so you feel comfortable.” “I’ll outline the costs clearly so there are no surprises. That way, you can plan with confidence.”

• Why it works: Transparency lowers anxiety. Predictability equals safety.

6. The Logical Correction

“That’s not how it works.” “You can’t do that.”

• How it can land: Even when factually correct, this can sound dismissive or controlling to someone who already feels powerless.

• Reframe: “That’s a really common question. Here’s how the process usually works, and why.” or “Let’s look at what’s possible within the rules, and what might get you the best outcome.”

• Why it works: You maintain authority while reducing shame. It turns “you’re wrong” into “let’s look together.”

7. The Emotional Cut-Off

“Let’s keep emotions out of this.” “You need to focus on the practicalities.”

• How it can land: Clients experiencing trauma aren’t choosing emotion, their nervous system is driving it. Telling them to “focus” can create disconnection.

• Reframe: “I can see this is emotional, that’s completely understandable. Let’s take a minute to steady, then we can look at next steps.” pr “These feelings make sense. We can work through the practical parts together.”

• Why it works: You acknowledge emotion and bring the focus back, restoring regulation without shutting the person down.

8. The Explanatory Gap

“Courts don’t care about that.” “You’ll just have to accept that’s how it works.”

• How it can land: This can feel invalidating, especially for clients who’ve experienced powerlessness or injustice.

• Reframe: “The court focuses on specific legal factors. I know that can feel frustrating, but I’ll help you navigate what matters most.” “The process can feel rigid, but understanding it will help us plan strategically.”

• Why it works: You name the frustration and offer guidance, rather than distance.

9. The Overwhelmed Client

“Try not to get upset in front of the judge.” “You need to keep calm.”

• How it can land: These statements can increase shame and dysregulation at precisely the wrong moment.

• Reframe: “Let’s think ahead about what might help you steady yourself if it feels overwhelming in court.” “We can plan a few strategies to help you stay grounded when the emotions rise.”

• Why it works: You shift from command to coaching, supporting self-regulation rather than demanding it.

10. The Reflective Reminder

“We’ve already discussed this.”

• How it can land: Under stress, memory recall and comprehension are impaired. Clients may genuinely forget, not fail to listen.

• Reframe: “I know we covered this before, but it’s easy to lose track. Would it help if I summarised again?” “There’s a lot to hold right now, so let’s revisit this piece together.”

• Why it works: You protect efficiency and empathy, without judgment.

“Slow the Pace, Not the Process”

One participant later quoted back a line from the session that seemed to resonate most: “Slow the pace, not the process”.

That, to me, sums up trauma-informed lawyering. It’s not about doing less or slowing cases down. It’s about creating enough space for safety and collaboration so that clients stay regulated enough to think, listen, and decide.

In other words: slow the interaction, not the outcome.

“My Past Is an Armour I Cannot Take Off…”

To close the session, I shared a line that still lingers: “My past is an armour I cannot take off, no matter how many times you tell me the war is over” (Jussica Katof)

Every client carries their own armour, formed by experience and reinforced by survival. When we meet that armour with curiosity instead of confrontation, we help clients loosen it; not by force, but by safety.

That’s the quiet power of trauma-informed lawyering.

Final Reflections

I left the 'Breaking Down Barriers' event feeling deeply inspired, not just by the enthusiasm in the room, but by the readiness of family lawyers to bring more humanity into legal practice.

My thanks go to the Cambridge & West Suffolk Resolution committee for hosting such a meaningful event, and to my co-speakers for their brilliant sessions on inclusion, neurodiversity and culture in family law.

This article is part of a growing DC² Divorce Coaching resource series on trauma-informed communication for professionals working around separation and divorce. If you’d like to explore bespoke training, collaborative workshops, or client support through a trauma-informed lens, please book a call with me.

Trauma-informed practice isn’t about doing less, but about doing differently. Small shifts in language can transform how safe, heard and capable clients feel; and that can change everything.