"90% of what bothers people in a divorce is the 90% lawyers can't do anything about." — Raiford Palmer, divorce attorney and author of I Just Want This Done
If you're divorcing someone who uses the process itself as a weapon, you already know the legal case is only half of what you're carrying. Alongside it runs a steady stream of provocation, and somewhere inside it is the hope that a judge will finally see what your ex is doing and hold them accountable.
We asked Raiford Palmer for an honest answer about how to divorce a narcissist without losing your kids, your money, and your mind. Palmer is a Chicago divorce attorney and the author of I Just Want This Done, a book we keep recommending because it tells you what separates a divorce that ends from one that grinds on for years.
The "losers fallacy" that keeps you stuck
Palmer has a name for one of the most common traps: the losers fallacy. It's the feeling — usually from whoever earned or parented more — that you're endlessly giving something away without getting anything in return. He's careful to note it isn't a gendered thing: "I've represented plenty of women that are the breadwinners in the family, and they're the ones that feel like they're giving too much."
Palmer notes that “it's not yours to give — it's marital property," meaning that the law often treats this money as shared. The same holds for the kids: a primary parent can feel like they're being generous by handing time over to the other parent, when "the children need time with both parents."
"For narcissist, borderline folks, it's all about the scoreboard," Palmer says — they believe the money and the children were theirs to begin with. A sense of loss in divorce is normal, whether or not you wanted it. But treating money and children as something you're losing can keep you from reaching an agreement you can actually live with.
When divorce becomes the weapon
For a high-conflict ex, divorce isn't just a process to get through — it's a way to maintain control. "The narcissist sometimes uses [the divorce] to punish people," Palmer says. That changes what to expect from the usual routes to resolution.
Palmer is a real believer in mediation and collaborative divorce, but he's clear about the limits: alternative dispute resolution can be challenging with an abusive ex, who often tends to head straight to court or put an offer on the table that's one-sided. Knowing that going in lets you plan around it instead of taking it personally when good-faith negotiation stalls. You aren't failing to "handle this like adults" — you're dealing with someone whose aim was never resolution.
The cost-benefit analysis behind every decision
Palmer wants every divorcing person to consider a cost-benefit analysis, by weighing the cost to get to the goal versus whatever the deal is on the table — and consider all of it, not just legal bills. Factor in time, money, and emotional grief, along with the opportunity cost of everything you can't do while the case drags on.
The mistake he sees is people deciding in a vacuum: my lawyer said I could get X at trial, so that's what I’m going for. They rarely price in the year — or three — and the dozens of thousands of dollars it takes to get there. Palmer puts the math in plain terms: "Is it worth spending $20,000 to save $10,000?" Sometimes the answer is yes. Often it isn't. And when you're divorcing a narcissist, being free of the person and able to move on carries a value of its own.
Lisa knows this one well. A year and $100,000 into her own divorce, her lawyer laid it out: another year in the fight and at least $50,000 more to maybe do better at trial, or take that money, put it toward her kids' education, and move on. That was the turning point.
Why "justice" costs more
"I want to go to court because I want justice" is something Palmer hears often. His response: "Get out your checkbook, because justice is going to be expensive." Divorce court isn't about who was right and who was wrong — "it's about dividing money and deciding parenting stuff."
He wants you to picture what a trial actually is: you, your spouse, two lawyers, a judge, and a court reporter in a plain room, with the meter running through every recess and break — roughly $2,500 to $5,000 a day where he practices. Out of that “full” day, you might get three or four hours of actual argument. He calls it one of the least efficient ways ever devised to resolve a family's issues. Wanting to be vindicated is understandable; expecting a divorce court to hand it to you is unrealistic.
The court can't fix your difficult ex
Courts are built for clear, decidable questions, Palmer explains — how assets divide, what child support is, who gets what parenting time. What they can't do is make a person behave. "I wish I could get a court order that says don't be a jerk," he says, "but the court isn't equipped for that."
"90% of what bothers people in a divorce is the 90% lawyers can't do anything about." What actually keeps most peopleup at night usually has little to do with the money or the parenting schedule. It's the threats, emails, posts, and negative things your ex is telling your friends and family. That, Palmer says, is "a counselor thing," not "a lawyer thing" — and learning to tell which it is is what will keep you from paying a lawyer $500 an hour to help you cope with your ex’s cruelty.
This is exactly the gap our Strategic Communication work is built to fill: the abuse comes through the communication, so that's where you fight back — briefly, factually, and without handing them more ammunition.
Take the early deal when you can
The best settlement is often the earliest one because, Palmer explains, people still feel some remorse or guilt, they're looking hard at the expense ahead, and are often more willing to move forward. As the case wears on, positions harden and the sunk-cost trap sets in: I've already spent this much, I'm not stopping now.
So how to deal? Palmer’s answer is even more cost-benefit analysis. The money you've already spent is gone, so keep deciding based on what it will cost to finish, not what's behind you. And know that maybe "you can't start healing till this is all done." The honest caveat Palmer offers: a truly high-conflict ex may never offer a reasonable early deal. But where an opening exists, taking it usually beats years of conflict. About 95 to 98% of cases settle, he notes; the real question is when.
Be careful whose advice you take
One of Palmer's own terms is something he wants people to avoid: bar stool counsel. These are the friends confidently telling you how to handle your divorce. He's wary, as divorce law changes constantly, and the specifics of someone else's case are rarely yours. He points to his own state, where child support, custody, and alimony rules all shifted within a few years, so two people with identical finances could land in very different places depending only on when they divorced. You also rarely know the trade-off behind someone else's result — the buyout or concession that made their deal make sense. Lean on friends for support, but get your strategy from an attorney; if you doubt your lawyer's advice, a second legal opinion serves you far better than one from barstool counsel.
Questions to ask yourself
- What point might I be fighting to win instead of working toward a result the kids and I could live with?
- What might a fuller cost-benefit analysis — which include considering money, time, energy, and what else I could be doing — show me about my upcoming decisions?
- Which of the things hurting me most right now might belong with a therapist or coach rather than my lawyer?
- If a good-enough resolution were on the table sooner than I expected, what might make me hesitate to take it?
Moving forward
Divorcing a narcissist is harder than divorcing an ordinary ex, and reading one article won’t take away all the pain. Something to hold onto is that you gain the most control the moment you stop expecting for the legal system to do the emotional work it is unable to do. Run the numbers. Let go of keeping score. Take a clean exit when one appears. And hand the parts the court can't handle to the people much better trained to help you carry those burdens.
You may not get the reckoning in court that you want. What you can get — often faster, and for far less — is the thing his book is named for: to finally be done, and to start building the life waiting for you on the other side.
Resources
Raiford Palmer — divorce attorney in Chicago and author of I Just Want This Done: How Smart, Successful People Get Divorced Without Losing Their Kids, Money, and Minds. Find him on Instagram @raifordpalmer. He also recommends Bill Eddy's BIFF and Splitting for dealing with high-conflict personalities — two we point people to as well.
From Been There Got Out: because so much of the pain in a high-conflict divorce comes through the communication, our Strategic Communication Course — free workshop here — teaches you how to handle a difficult ex briefly and strategically, so you can spend your energy and money where it actually counts.
Frequently Asked Questions About Divorcing a Narcissist
How do you divorce a narcissist?
Strategically, and with realistic expectations. Divorce attorney Raiford Palmer's core advice is to run a cost-benefit analysis on every decision — weighing money, time, and emotional grief against a realistic outcome — rather than reacting emotionally. Expect a high-conflict ex to use the divorce itself as a weapon, so don't count on them to settle reasonably or "act like an adult." Crucially, separate the legal fight from the emotional one: a court can divide assets and set a parenting schedule, but it can't stop someone from being cruel. That part belongs to a therapist or coach. The goal isn't to win a reckoning in court; it's to reach a fair result and get free as efficiently as possible.
Why won't a narcissist settle or negotiate in a divorce?
Because, for them, the fight is the point. Raiford Palmer explains that with narcissistic or borderline personalities, "it's all about the scoreboard" — they genuinely believe the money and the children are theirs, so any compromise feels like a loss they'll refuse to accept. Many also weaponize the process itself, using the divorce as a form of punishment and control. That's why the usual off-ramps — mediation and collaborative divorce — often don't work: high-conflict exes tend to avoid alternative dispute resolution or manipulate it, preferring to go straight to court or float wildly one-sided offers. Knowing this in advance lets you plan around it instead of being blindsided when good-faith negotiation stalls.
Is it worth going to trial to get justice against a narcissist?
Rarely, if "justice" is what you're after. As Raiford Palmer says, "Get out your checkbook, because justice is going to be expensive." Divorce court exists to divide money and decide parenting arrangements — not to declare who was right or wrong. Trials are slow, dull, and costly (he estimates roughly $2,500–$5,000 a day where he practices), and much of that time is consumed by prep and procedure rather than your actual case. If your motivation for trial is vindication rather than a concrete, realistic legal goal, it's usually the most expensive and least satisfying path available.
What is a cost-benefit analysis in a divorce?
It's weighing the full cost of an action against what you realistically stand to gain. Raiford Palmer urges clients to compare the deal on the table now against their realistic range of outcomes at trial — factoring in not just legal fees but time, emotional grief, and opportunity cost (everything you can't do while trapped in the case). He frames it simply: "Is it worth spending $20,000 to save $10,000?" Sometimes fighting is justified; often it isn't. And when you're divorcing a high-conflict ex, simply being finished has real value that belongs in the calculation. The point is to decide deliberately, with clear eyes on the true price — not reactively, out of anger.
Why can't the court stop my ex from being abusive during the divorce?
Because courts are built for binary outcomes, not bad behavior. As Raiford Palmer puts it, "I wish I could get a court order that says don't be a jerk, but the court isn't equipped for that." The legal system handles clear, decidable questions — how assets divide, what child support is, who has parenting time. It has no real toolbox for cruelty, intimidation, or nasty emails. This is the heart of his most-quoted line: "90% of what bothers people in a divorce is the 90% lawyers can't do anything about." The verbal abuse and manipulation driving you crazy are real — but they're a therapeutic or coaching issue, and recognizing that saves you from paying a lawyer to solve something most lawyers can't resolve.
Should I settle early when divorcing a high-conflict ex?
Where an early, fair deal is possible, it's usually the smart play. Raiford Palmer explains that people are more flexible early on — still feeling some remorse, freshly aware of the looming time and expense — whereas positions harden as the case drags on. Watch for the sunk-cost trap ("I've already spent so much, I can't stop now"): the money already spent is gone, so keep deciding based on what it will cost to finish, not what's behind you. He notes that 95–98% of cases settle anyway — the question is when. The honest caveat: a truly high-conflict ex may not offer a reasonable early deal, but when the window opens, taking it often beats years of costly conflict.
Should I take divorce advice from friends?
For emotional support, yes; for legal strategy, be careful. Raiford Palmer calls this the "bar stool counsel" — well-meaning friends confidently telling you what to do based on their own divorces. The problem is that divorce law changes constantly and every case is different; he notes that child support, custody, and alimony rules in his state shifted so much over a few years that two people with identical finances could get very different results depending on when they divorced. You also rarely know the full trade-offs behind someone else's outcome. Trust friends for moral support, but get technical advice from a qualified attorney — and if you doubt your lawyer, seek a second legal opinion.
What is the "losers fallacy" in divorce?
It's the mistaken feeling that you're endlessly giving away what's rightfully yours. Raiford Palmer describes the higher earner or primary parent thinking, "I've given enough — what more do they want?" The fallacy is that it was never solely yours: "It's marital property," legally shared between partners, and children need time with both parents regardless of who did more of the parenting. Palmer stresses this isn't gendered — he's seen breadwinning wives feel it just as strongly. A sense of loss in divorce is natural, but treating shared property and children as something you're "losing" becomes a mindset that stops you from reaching a workable agreement and moving on.
