Behavioral Models for Evaluating Undue Influence Claims

Behavioral models are useful in undue influence litigation because manipulation is rarely captured by one document or one witness. The record is usually fragmented: medical notes, estate-planning files, bank records, emails, caregiver observations, deposition testimony, changed relationships, and inconsistent explanations. A model helps counsel organize that evidence without reducing the case to rhetoric.

No model decides the legal question. Jurisdiction-specific law controls. A model is a disciplined way to ask better questions, test competing explanations, and decide what evidence is missing. Used poorly, a model becomes a checklist that encourages overclaiming. Used well, it helps counsel translate interpersonal control into observable facts.

Common Frameworks

SODR

SODR is a legal-factor framework organized around susceptibility, opportunity, disposition, and result. It is valuable because it forces counsel to separate the alleged victim's vulnerability from the alleged influencer's conduct. Susceptibility asks whether the person could be influenced. Opportunity asks whether the alleged influencer had access or control. Disposition asks whether conduct suggests intent or willingness to influence improperly. Result asks whether the outcome plausibly reflects the influence. The disposition element is often difficult to prove directly, so counsel often must develop circumstantial evidence of conduct such as secrecy, pressure, inconsistent stories, exclusion of independent advisors, or active procurement.

SCAM

The SCAM model, developed by psychologist Susan Bernatz, focuses on susceptibility, confidential relationship, active procurement, and monetary loss. It is particularly useful in probate and financial-exploitation matters where a transaction or instrument benefited the alleged influencer. Its strength is its attention to procurement: who arranged the lawyer, meeting, transportation, witnesses, documents, account access, or execution? Its limitation is that not every undue influence case involves a simple monetary loss or a formal confidential relationship.

The Undue Influence Wheel

The Undue Influence Wheel, developed by Bonnie Brandl, Candace J. Heisler, and Lori A. Stiegel, emphasizes control tactics such as isolation, fear, dependency, shame, secrecy, and intermittent kindness. It can help counsel recognize behavior that looks scattered until it is understood as a pattern. The risk is dramatic overuse. The wheel should not be used to imply that every controlling relationship is legally actionable. It should be tied to dates, witnesses, documents, and the challenged decision.

Thought-Reform and Closed-System Models

Thought-reform or closed-system models may be useful in unusual cases involving information control, separation from ordinary reality testing, powerlessness, dependency, and a closed logic that prevents independent evaluation. These models should be handled cautiously. Their purpose is not to label a family, fiduciary, professional, or institution as a cult. Their purpose is to understand how isolation and information control can alter decision-making.

IDEAL

The IDEAL model, developed by Bennett Blum, MD, focuses on isolation, dependency, emotional manipulation or exploitation of vulnerability, acquiescence, and loss. It is particularly helpful when counsel needs to explain the progression from vulnerability to apparent consent. It is qualitative, not a scoring instrument. Its value lies in connecting conduct to the reliability of the decision.

Comparing Models and Testing Opinions

The strongest expert work compares models rather than treating any one framework as definitive. Because these frameworks overlap, convergence among them is not independent corroboration; it may show that the same evidence can be organized coherently from more than one perspective. If the same facts make sense under several frameworks, that may strengthen the analysis. If a model explains only selected facts while ignoring contrary evidence, that should be exposed before trial. The best use of behavioral models is not persuasion by acronym. It is disciplined fact organization: what happened, when, by whom, to whom, with what vulnerability, and with what result.

Models also help with cross-examination. An opposing expert who ignores isolation may have missed the source of information control. An expert who focuses only on active procurement may miss emotional dependency. An expert who speaks broadly about vulnerability may fail to show causation. Comparing models can reveal what the opinion considered, what it omitted, and whether the conclusion follows from the evidence rather than from advocacy.

Attorneys evaluating competing behavioral models in an undue-influence matter may also review Dr. Blum’s undue-influence consultation and selected expert-witness services.

Need Case-Specific Analysis?

Early consultation can help counsel compare competing frameworks, translate model elements into dated conduct and corroborating evidence, identify evidentiary gaps, and test alternative explanations before discovery or expert designation.

Attorneys may submit a brief, non-confidential inquiry. Do not send records, privileged communications, protected information, or detailed case strategy before conflicts are cleared and an engagement is confirmed in writing.

This article is educational and is not legal or medical advice. Governing standards, burdens of proof, and evidentiary rules vary by jurisdiction, claim, and type of proceeding. Counsel should identify the controlling law; the court determines the ultimate legal issues.