Not Everyone You Dislike Is a Narcissist: The Misuse of Labels in the Courtroom
In the courtroom, words matter. A lot.
And in recent years, few psychological terms have been as overused and misapplied in litigation as “narcissist.” Plaintiffs call ex-employers narcissists. Defense attorneys paint claimants as narcissistic malingerers. Civil litigants—even retained experts—weaponize the term in depositions and reports.
But here’s the problem: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a clinical diagnosis rooted in very specific criteria. When misapplied, it not only undermines the credibility of the person using the term, it also jeopardizes the integrity of the legal case.
Let’s unpack what narcissism actually is—and why throwing that word around in court without a proper forensic foundation is a dangerous move.
The DSM-5-TR Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
NPD is characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present across contexts.
To meet diagnostic criteria, a person must exhibit five or more of the following:
A grandiose sense of self-importance
Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
Belief in being "special" and associating only with other high-status individuals
Requires excessive admiration
Sense of entitlement
Interpersonally exploitative
Lacks empathy
Often envious or believes others are envious
Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Critically, these traits must result in clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Epidemiology: Narcissism Is Rare, Not Routine
Despite how frequently the term is used in legal narratives, true NPD is rare. Epidemiological data from the DSM-5-TR estimates that only 0.5% to 1% of the general population meet full diagnostic criteria.
Source: American Psychiatric Association. (2022). DSM-5-TR.
This means that while many individuals may have narcissistic traits, very few meet the threshold for a diagnosable disorder. And conflating the two—especially in a legal proceeding—can backfire.
Narcissism as a Legal Tactic: Misuse in Civil Litigation
In civil litigation and tort cases, the label “narcissist” often emerges in contexts like:
Discrediting the opposing party: “She’s a narcissist who only filed this claim to punish the defendant.”
Explaining behavior post-injury: “He doesn’t seem distressed because he’s emotionally shallow—probably narcissistic.”
Character assassination in depositions: "He was grandiose and manipulative at work—classic narcissist."
Here’s the issue: Courts don’t admit diagnoses based on speculation or impressionistic interpretation. Psychologists must apply standardized, peer-reviewed methods, conduct structured clinical interviews, gather collateral sources, and—where appropriate—administer psychological testing (e.g., PAI, MMPI-3, SCID-5-PD) to make a defensible diagnosis.
Absent that? It's junk science.
Why It Matters in Forensic Contexts
Mislabeling someone as a narcissist can have serious legal consequences:
Undermining witness credibility: Inflated or speculative diagnoses may appear biased or adversarial.
Triggering Daubert/Frye challenges: Expert testimony based on clinical shortcuts or pop psychology may be excluded.
Derailing emotional damages claims: Opposing counsel may seize on sloppy language to undermine claims of psychological harm.
Opening the door to counterclaims: Especially in defamation or character-based disputes.
Even well-intended experts can slip into diagnostic shorthand. But in a courtroom, every word counts—and every label must be defensible.
Take-Home Message for Attorneys and Experts
Diagnoses—especially personality disorders—carry legal weight. They should never be made casually or speculatively, and certainly not based on lay interpretations or internet checklists. In a forensic context, using the term “narcissist” without the backing of rigorous clinical interviews, testing, and collateral data can damage both the legal strategy and the credibility of the expert.
Labels may be emotionally satisfying, but in the courtroom, they must be clinically sound and legally admissible.
Dr. Kathryn Ambeau is a forensic psychologist licensed in Colorado and Louisiana, and serves clients in all PSYPACT participating states. She specializes in criminal and civil evaluations, including psychological damages, fitness for duty, and complex differential diagnosis. Her work focuses on bringing scientific integrity to forensic assessments—keeping junk science out of the courtroom.
