Undue Influence: Definitions and Applications - California Courts ...

Focus Groups
To gain greater insight into how professionals who are likely to encounter undue
influence perceive and address it, the project team conducted focus groups. Although they had
initially planned to only conduct groups with Adult Protective Services (APS) and Public
Guardian staff, private probate attorneys also expressed interest in being a part of the study and
were included. One focus group was conducted for each group.
Focus group members had considerable experience:
1. The nine workers who participated in the APS focus group had worked in the field for an
average of nine years (ranging from 3 to 13 years).
2. The eight Public Guardian employees had worked in the field for an average of five to six
years (ranging from 1 to 15 years).
3. The five attorneys all had extensive experience in working with conservatorships and
several had additional experience with trusts.
Focus group discussions were open ended and structured around the four areas that were
first noted in Welden-Smith (2009) (Appendix B) and developed in the literature review
(Nerenberg, 2010) (Appendix C):
1. What are the characteristics of the alleged victim?
2. What are the characteristics of alleged influencers and their relationships to
victims?
3. What were the circumstances and tactics that were used?
4. What “bad” transaction(s) resulted?
Focus group members had significant experience with clients they felt had been subjected
undue influence. Many had received training on the subject. To a great extent, they identified
the same defining features of undue influence that appear in the literature (which may reflect the
training they had received). Among the prominent factors all three groups identified were
isolation, poor health, diminished mental capacity, and insight and judgment problems. They also
mentioned the need to evaluate whether some tangible or other negative impact resulted from the
20