Overview
This page helps attorneys, agencies, and organizations provide safer, more effective legal support to transgender survivors by identifying common barriers, explaining trans-specific advocacy needs, and translating trauma-informed principles into concrete practice steps.
Attorneys working with transgender survivors
Use this section to guide individual legal representation and litigation strategy. Attorneys should treat a survivor’s gender identity as potentially relevant to safety, case theory, court preparation, and client choice, while avoiding assumptions about its role in the survivor’s experience.
- Assess identity-related relevance without assuming it. Ask whether anti-transgender bias, threats of outing, misgendering, coercive control, or other identity-related dynamics affected the harm, legal claim, safety planning, or case strategy.
- Understand trans-specific abuse tactics. Be prepared to recognize tactics such as mocking a survivor’s gender, withholding medication or gender-affirming care, threatening disclosure, or using police and courts against the survivor.
- Prepare the survivor for how systems may respond. Discuss possible responses from judges, juries, law enforcement, opposing counsel, and other system actors, and consult experienced colleagues when needed.
- Flag disclosure risks before court or filings. Explain what information may need to be shared, what may become public, and whether a survivor’s gender identity, former name, or documents could arise.
- Respect the survivor’s choice about disclosure. Do not discuss a survivor’s gender identity as part of the case unless it is legally necessary or the survivor chooses that strategy.
- Prevent and respond to anti-transgender bias. Educate the court when needed, object to biased arguments or questioning, and counter myths or misconceptions that could affect the survivor’s credibility or safety.
- Use the survivor’s correct name and pronouns. Model correct language in court and filings, and discuss with the survivor whether written notice to the court or other actors is appropriate.
- Avoid gendered terms until invited. Do not use terms such as “ma’am,” “sir,” or gendered relationship labels unless the survivor has identified those terms as appropriate.
- Build safe referral pathways in advance. Identify LGBTQ+-specific and transgender-responsive resources, track survivor experiences with referrals, and avoid sending survivors to providers known to be unsafe.
Practice takeaway: Use the checklist to identify risks early, prepare survivors for system responses, protect client choice about disclosure, and address anti-transgender bias when it appears.
Agencies and organizations
Use this section to guide organizational readiness and referral practices. Agencies and organizations should focus on staff training, inclusive policies, safe intake practices, and accountable partnerships so transgender survivors can identify services as safe before a crisis occurs.
- Train all staff, not just direct service providers. Include terminology, trauma-informed practice, cultural humility, and trans-specific dynamics of violence, harassment, stalking, and abuse.
- Maintain and enforce nondiscrimination policies. Make clear that policies protect both clients and employees, and include a process for responding when discrimination occurs.
- Make the workplace safe for transgender staff. Review hiring, supervision, benefits, facilities, complaint, and workplace culture policies because organizations that are unsafe for transgender employees are unlikely to be safe for transgender survivors.
- Build inclusive intake practices. Ask about gender identity, sexual orientation, pronouns, safety needs, and disclosure preferences, while explaining why the questions are asked and making clear that survivors may decline to answer.
- Track local system barriers. Collaborate with partner agencies to identify patterns in how courts, law enforcement, and service systems respond to transgender survivors, then use that information for individual and systemic advocacy.
- Develop accountable community partnerships. Build mutually beneficial relationships with LGBTQ+ and transgender-specific organizations before referrals are needed, and update referral practices based on survivor feedback.
Practice takeaway: Use the checklist to assess whether transgender survivors can recognize the organization as safe, receive affirming intake, and access referrals that have been vetted for real-world safety.
Barriers to seeking and receiving legal services
Transgender survivors may need legal help after violence, harassment, stalking, or abuse, but they often encounter barriers before they ever speak with an attorney. These barriers are not simply logistical; many reflect realistic concerns about safety, disclosure, discrimination, and whether legal systems will understand or protect them.
Lack of safe and responsive legal resources
Transgender survivors often have few safe legal resources after experiencing crime. Trans-specific legal services are limited, and mainstream legal providers may be inaccessible or unsafe when attorneys lack training on transgender survivors’ experiences, courtroom storytelling, and trauma-informed advocacy. Even well-intentioned attorneys can cause additional harm if they do not understand a survivor’s identity-related safety concerns, legal needs, or risk of retraumatization.
Exclusive language on organizational materials
Gendered websites, outreach materials, and intake language can signal that services are not intended for transgender survivors. When organizations do not explicitly name LGBTQ+ survivors or transgender survivors’ experiences, survivors may reasonably assume they do not qualify, will not be understood, or will not be safe accessing those services.
Non-inclusive referral and intake practices
Referral and intake practices can either build trust or confirm a survivor’s concerns. From the first contact, staff who do not know how to ask about gender identity, pronouns, safety needs, or disclosure concerns may communicate that the organization is not prepared to serve transgender survivors. Missing this information can also lead to unsafe referrals, incomplete legal analysis, or representation that fails to account for identity-related risks.
Past experiences with legal systems
Past experiences with police and courts can make transgender survivors reluctant to seek legal help or report harm. In the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey, 47% of respondents reported feeling very uncomfortable going to the police, and 26% reported feeling somewhat uncomfortable.[i] Research also shows high rates of police mistreatment, especially for transgender people of color and transgender people experiencing homelessness, disability, or unemployment.[ii] An ACLU study found transgender people are stopped, searched, arrested, or held in custody at higher rates than cisgender LGBTQ+ people and non-LGBTQ+ people.[iii] Given these risks, reluctance to contact police or enter court systems should be understood as a safety-informed response, not a lack of engagement.
Varying identity documents
Differences between a survivor’s current name, affirmed name, legal name, and identity documents can create privacy and safety concerns. A survivor may fear that filing a case under a former name, producing identification, or discussing gender-marker documents will out them as transgender, which can cause emotional, economic, or physical risk.[iv] Attorneys should discuss early whether a former name or gender marker is legally necessary, whether it might arise in litigation, and what advocacy options may protect the survivor’s privacy.
Financial barriers
Financial barriers can sharply limit transgender survivors’ access to legal help. Transgender people experience poverty and unemployment at higher rates than the general population; the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that 29% of respondents were living in poverty, while the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey Early Insights Report found 34%. These disparities are even higher for transgender people of color, undocumented transgender people, people working in underground economies, people living with HIV, and people with disabilities.[v] Because low-income people often cannot obtain legal help—the 2022 Justice Gap Survey found that low-income Americans received no or inadequate help for 93% of civil legal problems—cost is likely a heightened barrier for transgender survivors seeking legal services.[vi]
Trans Specific Dynamics
Throughout representation, attorneys should connect trans-specific dynamics to concrete legal advocacy: identify identity-related risks, prepare clients for system responses, protect client choice, and avoid assumptions about what a survivor’s gender identity means for the case.
Understanding transgender survivors’ experiences
Anti-transgender bias may shape the violence, harassment, stalking, or abuse a survivor experiences, but attorneys should assess that connection rather than assume it.[vii] In the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, 27% of respondents reported coercive control by an intimate partner related to being transgender, including tactics such as mocking gender expression or withholding medication or medical care.[viii] Attorneys should ask careful, relevant questions to understand whether identity-related dynamics affected the harm, legal claims, safety planning, or desired remedy.
Addressing bias in legal systems
Legal systems may misunderstand transgender survivors’ experiences or reflect anti-transgender bias. To effectively litigate on behalf of transgender survivors, attorneys need to be able to tell authentic stories to the court or jury and simultaneously educate the court and jury to help them understand the client’s experiences and dispel anti-transgender bias. Attorneys should prepare clients for possible bias from judges, juries, law enforcement, opposing counsel, or other actors, and should plan how to respond if bias affects credibility, safety, or case strategy.
Educating the court when needed
When a survivor’s gender identity is relevant to the case (or may become known to others through the legal process), attorneys may need to help the court understand the connection without turning the survivor’s identity into the focus of the case. This may include countering myths, explaining tactics such as threats of outing, and preparing the survivor to describe concrete impacts in their own words. Attorneys should use this strategy only when it advances the survivor’s goals and respects the survivor’s choices about disclosure.
Trauma-informed interviewing and client counseling
Attorneys should always employ trauma-informed practices in working with clients.
- Do explain confidentiality, privilege, and disclosure limits in plain language before asking sensitive questions.
- Avoid asking questions about a survivor’s body, medical history, former name, or gender history unless the information is legally necessary.
- Consider non-litigation options when they better match the survivor’s safety, privacy, and practical goals.
Start by explaining confidentiality, privilege, and disclosure limits in plain language. This helps survivors understand what information is protected, what may need to be shared, and how the attorney’s role differs in civil, criminal defense, or prosecution contexts.
For civil attorneys and criminal defense attorneys, communicating these ethical and legal requirements can alleviate a client’s concerns regarding privacy and let the client know that the attorney works for them. For prosecutors, being transparent with survivors about what information they need to disclose to defense counsel and what information does not need to be disclosed can help build trust, as well as empower survivors to understand what will happen with information they provide.
Ask only questions that are necessary for the legal matter, and explain why sensitive information is needed before asking. If questions involve a survivor’s body, medical history, former name, or gender history, connect the question to a specific legal purpose and offer the survivor a chance to pause or decline.
Give survivors meaningful choice about what they share. If information is legally important, explain why, discuss the risks and options, and work creatively around information the survivor does not want to disclose whenever possible.
Center representation around the survivor’s goals. Ask what outcome the survivor wants, explain legal and non-legal options, and recognize that reporting, court involvement, or litigation may not be the safest or most effective path. Attorneys may be able to support the survivor through safety planning, informal advocacy, workplace or school accommodations, documentation strategies, or referrals even when the survivor chooses not to pursue a legal remedy. Remember that survivors know what is best for them.
Sometimes, the risks of retraumatization in going through legal processes, especially for transgender survivors, outweigh potential benefits. For example, an attorney has a consultation with a transgender survivor who is considering filing for a protection order against a coworker who sexually assaulted them. The attorney asks what their goals are, and the survivor says that they do not want to have to work shifts with the person who harmed them. The survivor also tells the attorney that they are not comfortable with talking about the assault in court, in part because the details would out them as transgender. The attorney should talk to the survivor about other options to prevent having shifts with their assailant and identify ways that they can support the survivor. The attorney might engage in informal advocacy with the employer or help the survivor seek changes in their work schedule as an accommodation, if relevant.
Throughout representation, revisit concerns about safety, privacy, disclosure, and how the survivor’s story will be presented. Survivors should not be surprised in court by how their experiences are described or by what information may become part of the legal process.
Case Examples
Scenario 1: Trauma-Informed Interviewing/Client Counseling
Jay is a nonbinary teenager who has experienced worsening online stalking and harassment. They reach out to a legal services program to talk about pursuing a protection order and reporting to the police, and they schedule a consultation meeting with an attorney, Helen.
At the meeting, Helen describes confidentiality and attorney-client privilege in plain language and gives Jay the opportunity to ask questions. Helen tells Jay that her role is to give Jay information about their legal options, and that it is up to Jay to decide what to do with that information.
Helen asks Jay to tell her about their experiences so that Helen can identify potential options. Jay shares with Helen that they are being bullied by two classmates for being nonbinary. The classmates have sent Jay messages from multiple social media accounts. They have also made public posts about Jay, including posting pictures of Jay that Jay did not know were taken.
Helen asks Jay what their goals are. Jay says that they want the online harassment to stop and they want the classmates to stop taking pictures of them at school. Helen describes potential options for achieving those goals. Helen explains the pros and cons of filing for a protection order and reporting to the police. Helen also discusses additional potential options, such as going through their school.
Helen asks Jay if they have any questions or concerns about the options. Jay tells Helen that they are 17. Jay says that they did not mention it earlier because they were worried that Helen would not be able to help them. They are scared of their parents finding out about the harassment because their parents do not know they are nonbinary. Jay is not ready to come out to their parents. Helen explains that confidentiality and privilege still apply, and that Jay is old enough to be able to speak to a lawyer themselves. Helen asks Jay questions to understand the nature of Jay’s concerns regarding their parents learning their gender identity. Helen discusses if/how information provided in protection order cases, criminal cases, or with the school might be shared or protected. Helen informs Jay of any related laws that require involvement of parents of minors or disclosure of information to parents.
Jay tells Helen that it sounds like a protection order would be helpful, but that they don’t want their parents involved. Helen explains to Jay that they do not need their parents to file for the order, but that some information will be available publicly about the case. Helen also identifies that if a protection order is filed, the school may find out and notify Jay’s parents even if Jay does not go to the school themselves. Jay and Helen talk about these risks, and Jay decides that a protection order would be helpful, but they want to wait to file for one because they are not ready for their parents to find out about the harassment or about Jay being nonbinary. Helen tells Jay that if they ever want to discuss it again, or they decide that a protection order is the right option for them, Jay can reach back out. Helen talks to Jay about safety planning. Helen and Jay make a safety plan for Jay, both for online and in-person safety needs. They also discuss ways to document the harassment. Helen also provides Jay with information on resources for transgender teenagers in their local community as well as general resources for transgender youth experiencing harassment.
In this scenario, Helen provided trauma-informed, responsive, client-centered services to Jay. Helen built trust with Jay by explaining ethical and legal protections and explaining the role of attorneys and clients. She used an open-ended approach that gave Jay opportunities to share what they experienced and what their goals were. Helen worked collaboratively with Jay to understand what options might meet their goals. When Jay shared additional information about their parents, Helen did not judge Jay for not initially sharing this information. Rather, Helen affirmed that confidentiality and privilege still apply, and discussed additional considerations given Jay’s priority of not having their parents find out. This included Helen acknowledging that it might be difficult to pursue any legal remedy without their parents learning about it. This helped to avoid Jay feeling any pressure to go forward with a legal option. Helen also asked follow-up questions about Jay’s concerns with their parents to identify if Jay was unsafe at home. When Jay decides not to pursue a legal remedy, Helen identifies additional sources of safety and support for Jay, including safety planning with them and offering information on community resources.
Discussion questions:
- What are some components that might be included in a safety plan for Jay?
- What role might the school be able to play in helping keep Jay safer, if any?
- In your state, would Jay’s age (17) be old enough for them to talk with an attorney without mandatory reporting involvement? Or without contacting their parents?
Scenario 2: Inclusive Interviewing & Legal Advocacy
Jana is a transgender woman who was arrested for domestic violence. Jana’s defense attorney, Marco, meets with her to discuss the case. Jana explains to Marco that her girlfriend, Avery, had hit her, and Jana called the police. While still on the phone, Jana pushed Avery away, and Avery began screaming that Jana was hurting her. When the police arrived, Jana was arrested, even though she tried to explain to the police that Avery had been hitting her. Marco asks Jana about her relationship, including questions about whether Avery has physically assaulted her before; if either of them has called the police before or threatened to call the police; about how Avery treats her in general. Marco learns that Avery has regularly used physical violence against her and consistently threatened to call the police and accuse Jana of abuse. Jana has text messages that show some of these threats, as well as text messages where Avery mocks Jana and refers to her as a man. Jana informs Marco that Avery misgendered her when the police arrived, and that the police repeatedly addressed Jana as “sir.”
Marco obtains the police body-worn camera footage, which confirms what Jana told him. The footage shows that when the police arrived, they interviewed Avery but did not ask the same questions of Jana. The footage also shows both Avery and the officers misgendering Jana. At the next hearing, Marco speaks to the assigned prosecutor and advocates for the charges to be dropped. Marco informs the prosecutor that Jana is a victim of domestic violence and provides the prosecutor with a list of timestamps for the footage identifying police officers’ failure to follow typical domestic violence procedure, and a list of times that they misgender Jana. Marco also notes that he has several text messages in which Avery threatens to accuse Jana of abuse. Initially, the prosecutor discusses a plea deal, but after additional discussions, the charges are dropped.
In this scenario, Marco engaged in effective legal advocacy by listening to his client’s experience and identifying early on that Jana was being abused by Avery. Marco asked follow-up questions that helped him understand the abusive dynamics involved. Asking the right questions allowed Jana to share additional evidence that she might not have known was important. He then conducted a thorough investigation by watching the police camera footage and thoroughly analyzing it. Finally, Marco engaged in advocacy with the prosecutor to help Jana avoid being punished unfairly and retraumatized through a trial.
Discussion questions:
- Frequently, transgender women are arrested or accused of being the offender, when they are actually the victim. Discuss why this might happen and what some strategies are for various roles of professionals to be better able to identify who offenders and victims are?
- In your area, would you be able to access body-camera footage?
- What are some ways that Jana can stay safer (from Avery, the system, or any other harms) throughout this process and beyond?
Resources
- Transgender Law Center, Tips for Lawyers Working with Transgender Clients — A practical attorney-facing resource with foundational guidance on respectful communication, intake, confidentiality, and representation of transgender clients.
- ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence, LGBTQI+ Publications — A collection of publications for legal professionals working with LGBTQ+ survivors of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking.
- Prosecutor Guide to Best Practices in Cases with LGBTQ+ Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Violence, and Stalking — A specialized guide for prosecutors on survivor-centered, bias-aware approaches to cases involving LGBTQ+ victims.
- Prosecutor Guide to Jury Selection in Cases with LGBTQ+ Victims of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking — A trial-focused resource for identifying and addressing potential juror bias in cases involving LGBTQ+ survivors.
Sources referenced on this page:
- 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey — Provides national data on transgender people’s experiences with poverty, unemployment, police mistreatment, intimate partner violence, coercive control, and other barriers that shape legal needs.
- 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey Early Insights Report — Offers updated national findings on transgender people’s economic vulnerability, safety concerns, and experiences relevant to accessing services and legal systems.
- ACLU Research Report: Policing Progress — Documents LGBTQ+ and transgender people’s experiences with law enforcement, including disparities in police contact, searches, arrests, custody, and mistreatment.
- Legal Services Corporation, 2022 Justice Gap Survey Report — Provides evidence on unmet civil legal needs among low-income people, supporting the discussion of financial barriers to legal help.
Resources to share with survivors
Legal help desks and guides for locating legal resources:
- Advocates for Trans Equality, Trans Legal Services Network — A directory survivors can use to look for transgender-informed legal services and advocacy resources.
- Lambda Legal Helpdesk — A national helpdesk that provides information and referrals for LGBTQ+ people facing discrimination or legal concerns.
- LGBTQ+ Bar Association lawyer referral information — A referral resource survivors can use to look for LGBTQ+-affirming attorneys or legal support.
- National Center for Lesbian Rights, Direct Services Programs for Low-Income LGBT Clients — A guide to direct legal services programs that may be useful for survivors seeking low-cost or free legal assistance.
- National Center for Transgender Equality, Trans Legal Services Network Directory — A directory survivors can use to identify legal organizations that have experience serving transgender people.
- Transgender Law Center Helpdesk — A helpdesk that offers information and referrals for transgender people seeking legal support.
[i] James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Durso, L. E., & Heng-Lehtinen, R. (2024, February). Early Insights: A Report of the 2022 U.S. Transgender Survey. Transequality.Org. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/2022%20USTS%20Early%20Insights%20Report_FINAL.pdf
[ii] In the 2015 US Transgender survey, survey respondents reported that, when they believed police officers knew they were transgender, 49% experienced misgendering, 20% experienced verbal harassment, 19% experienced inappropriate questions about their transition, and 11% had officers assume that they were sex workers. The survey further found that “American Indian (74%), multiracial (71%), Latino/a (66%), and Black (61%) respondents […] were more likely to have experienced one or more forms of mistreatment. Respondents who were homeless in the past year (78%), those who were currently unemployed (75%), and people with disabilities (68%) were also more likely to report one or more of these experiences.”
James, S. E., Herman, J. L., RAnkin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
[iii] Policing Progress: Findings from a National Survey of LGBTQ+ People’s Experiences with Law Enforcement. (n.d.). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved September 2, 2026, from https://www.aclu.org/publications/policing-progress-findings-from-a-national-survey-of-lgbtq-peoples-experiences-with-law-enforcement
[iv] In the 2015 US Transgender survey, 30% of respondents completed a legal name change. (2015 US Transgender Survey p 82-84 James, S. E., Herman, J. L., RAnkin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
[v] James, S. E., Herman, J. L., RAnkin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
[vi] Justice Gap Full Report 2022.pdf | Powered by Box. (n.d.). Lsc-Live.App.Box.Com. Retrieved September 2, 2026, from https://lsc-live.app.box.com/s/xl2v2uraiotbbzrhuwtjlgi0emp3myz1
[vii] Forty-eight percent of transgender survey respondents indicated that, in the past year, they were denied equal treatment or service, verbally harassed, and/or physically assaulted because they were transgender. Sixty-six percent of those who experienced physical attacks reported that these were in response to their gender identity or expression. Eighty-four percent of those who experienced verbal harassment reported the harassment was in response to their gender identity or expression. James, S. E., Herman, J. L., RAnkin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf
[viii] James, S. E., Herman, J. L., RAnkin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf