For His Board and Advisors
The honest answer to the parts that matter.
If you are responsible for him, or for what depends on him, you are weighing one question: does bringing in an advisor reduce your exposure, or add to it?
The absence problem
A man in this position is usually offered two things: outpatient therapy that changes nothing, or a facility that takes him out of the seat for a month. The second forces a disclosure conversation, an interim structure, and a leak risk you cannot fully control. This is the real option. The work happens while he keeps leading. No absence, no gap for anyone to notice or exploit.
Confidentiality, as architecture
Every engagement is covered by a mutual NDA. What records our work requires are our call notes and my working notes, and that’s it. They never leave the engagement, and no one else sees them. I am not his attorney or his physician, so I do not carry legal privilege, and I will never pretend otherwise. What I offer is a disciplined container, deliberately kept off the record, and full coordination with counsel on anything that touches legal exposure.
References
For serious inquiries, private conversations with former clients can be arranged under the same NDA architecture.
How I work alongside the apparatus
I do not replace the general counsel or the communications team, and I do not step into their work. I operate underneath it, on the man they are all working to protect, in a way that reinforces their strategy rather than complicating it.
What I will not do
I will not take an engagement a man does not choose for himself. Mandated help fails, and you have likely watched it fail. If he does not believe he needs this, I am not the answer, and I will tell you so directly.
If you want to talk before he does, that conversation is confidential and commits him to nothing.
Reach me directly