Characteristics of a Successful Interdisciplinary Partnership: Immigration Attorneys and Clinicians

Introduction

Clinical mental health experts often work with immigration attorneys to corroborate case facts, contextualize persecution and abuse, and augment the credibility of asylum-seeking clients. Experts provide evaluations, reports, declarations, and sometimes testimony as part of an immigration legal case. Research is limited regarding the rich but complex interdisciplinary relationship between law and mental health in this high-stakes legal sphere. Drawing on Bronstein’s (2002) instrument to assess effective interdisciplinary partnerships, this study investigated essential characteristics of successful partnerships between immigration attorneys and the clinicians who work with them for asylum cases.

Methods:

Focus groups and interviews held with immigration lawyers (n=22) and forensic mental health evaluators (n=19) in 2025 and 2026 explored key characteristics of successful interdisciplinary partnerships. Inclusion criteria were providers who engaged in interprofessional immigration advocacy efforts within the United States. Inductive thematic analysis approaches were applied to de-identified transcripts, to allow concepts to emerge from transcripts, resulting in codes, which were discussed by research team members, and broken into themes.

Findings:

Four overarching themes emerged: 1) clear and frequent communication to “feel collaborative and supportive”; 2) established trust and receptiveness to the others’ expertise, 3) availability for “streamlined” problem solving; 4) a strong understanding of how professional expertise complemented each other, "knowing how the role fits into everything enables you to fill that role better” and 5) an “earnest” commitment to the shared goal of pursuing justice for asylum seeking clients. Attorney-specific subthemes included A) clinician flexibility and willingness to engage with legal priorities in affidavit/report-writing; B) at least a baseline legal knowledge of the legal “arena” in which their expertise was to be used; and C) deep cultural insight or shared linguistic background with the immigrant clients that they served. Clinician-specific subthemes included: A) attorneys who demonstrated respect for and knowledge of the scope of their role and their professional limitations; B) attorneys open to education on the clinician role; C) independence and respect for clinicians’ expertise even if it differed from attorneys’ preferred perspectives; and C) attorneys who connected their clients with additional supports or more holistic advocacy, allowing clinicians to fully focus on their evaluative role. Participants offered insights about how each aspect shaped not just their working relationship, but their ability to provide effective outcomes that best addressed their immigrant client’s needs.

Discussion

These findings align well with Bronstein’s (2002) Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration, which emphasizes the necessity of shared professional goals, mutual respect, and flexibility. However, some professional priorities identified by participants may be in tension, such as clinicians’ expectation of professional independence, versus attorneys’ desire for clinician receptiveness to the structure of their legal argument and flexibility in putting together a report for the court. Competing professional priorities can be navigated and successful compromise found by developing relationships based in mutual trust and re-centering practical steps needed to achieve shared professional goals of justice for immigrant clients.