The BIFF method: how to write a reply you would not mind a judge reading
- BIFF stands for Brief, Informative, Friendly, Firm. It is a way of answering a hostile message without giving it anything new to feed on.
- The method was developed by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq., of the High Conflict Institute, and first published in 2007. BIFF Response® is the institute’s registered mark.
- The shorter your reply, the less of it can be quoted back at you later. Length is the thing most people get wrong.
- Under the Federal Rules of Evidence a written message is a statement, and your own words offered against you by the other side are not excluded as hearsay. Your replies are part of the record whether or not you meant them to be.
- Most hostile messages need no reply at all. The method is for the ones that do.
What does BIFF stand for, and what is the BIFF method?
BIFF stands for Brief, Informative, Friendly, Firm. It is a four-part shape for a written reply to a hostile or inaccurate message: keep it short, state only the facts that need stating, hold a neutral tone, and close the subject rather than inviting another round.
The whole method fits in a sentence, which is why it travels so well. Applying it while you are angry is the hard part.
Brief
Two or three sentences, not two or three paragraphs. Brevity is doing most of the work here, and it is the part people abandon first, because the instinct under attack is to explain everything.
Informative
State the facts that actually need stating. Not every fact, and not a rebuttal of every claim in the message you received. If a pickup time is in dispute, give the pickup time.
Friendly
Neutral to pleasant. Not warm, not sarcastic, not wounded. The register you would use with a contractor you did not much like but still needed on the job.
Firm
Close the loop. Say the thing, and do not add an opening that invites more discussion of a matter already settled.
Who is Bill Eddy, and where did the BIFF Response® method come from?
BIFF was developed by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq., a lawyer, therapist and mediator who co-founded the High Conflict Institute. He published the original BIFF article in June 2007, aimed at hostile email in divorces, workplace grievances and neighbor disputes. BIFF Response® is a registered mark of the High Conflict Institute; the method is theirs, and this page is a reader’s guide to it rather than a version of it.
His own framing of why most hostile mail deserves no answer at all is worth reading in the original.
“The letter itself has no power, unless you give it power. Often, it is emotional venting aimed at relieving the writer’s anxiety.”
That is the first decision, and it comes before any question of wording. A message with no audience beyond the two of you, asserting nothing that will travel, usually needs nothing at all.
Why does BIFF communication work on a hostile email?
Because a hostile message is looking for a response, and a short factual one does not supply what it was looking for. Two mechanisms are doing the work.
Why BIFF works when a long reply does not
A long reply is more surface area. Every extra sentence is another thing that can be answered, misread, or read out later on its own.
“Extended responses create ammunition. The more you write, the more material exists for misinterpretation, selective quoting, or twisting.”
That is the practical case for brevity, and it is a different argument from the emotional one. A reply can be entirely reasonable and still get longer the more carefully you defend yourself, and length is what gives the next message something to work with.
Matching hostility escalates high-conflict communication
The second mechanism is simpler. Heat answered with heat produces more heat. A neutral reply gives the exchange nowhere obvious to go, which is usually the point.
How do you write a BIFF response?
Write the reply you want to send. Then do not send it. Open a new one and write the version that survives being read by somebody who was not there.
- Decide whether a reply is needed at all.
- Identify the one or two facts that genuinely need to be on the record.
- Write those facts, and nothing else.
- Read it back for tone. Remove anything that scores a point.
- Read it back for openings. Remove anything that invites a reply you do not want.
How to respond to hostile email without answering every claim
You are not obliged to answer a claim just because it was made. Answering it is what most people do, and it is what turns one message into eleven. Correct what is inaccurate and would matter to somebody else reading it, and leave the rest.
What do BIFF response examples look like?
The difference is easier to see than to describe.
| The message you received | The reply that escalates | The BIFF reply |
|---|---|---|
| “You obviously don’t care that they were up until midnight.” | “That is completely false, they were in bed by 9:30, and I have no idea why they would say that unless you put them up to it.” | “They were in bed at the usual time. Let me know if you have questions about pickup this week.” |
| “I need you to switch weekends. You owe me.” | “I owe you? I switched three times last month alone for your convenience.” | “I am not able to switch that weekend. Happy to look at alternatives if you want to propose dates.” |
| “They came back filthy again. This is neglect.” | “They played outside. That is not neglect, it is called childhood.” | “They played outside before pickup. See you Sunday at the usual time.” |
Notice what the third column does not do. It does not defend, it does not concede, and it does not leave a door open.
Does the BIFF method work in family court?
It is not a legal technique and it wins nothing on its own. What it does is shape the version of you that appears in writing, over months, in the one part of a dispute that gets preserved automatically.
Judges in custody matters read a lot of message threads. A thread in which one person escalates and the other answers briefly and factually reads differently from one in which both escalate. That is less a legal advantage than the absence of a self-inflicted disadvantage.
What happens to your replies once they are part of the record?
This is the part the method’s own literature spends least time on, and it is the reason to take it seriously.
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a) a statement includes a written assertion, so your texts and emails are statements. Under Rule 801(d)(2) a statement offered against an opposing party that was made by that party is not hearsay. In plain terms: the other parent’s hostile messages can be offered against them by you, and yours can be offered against you by them. Neither side is shielded by the hearsay rule from their own words.
Rule 106 adds the other half. If one party puts in part of a writing, the adverse party may require that any other part which in fairness ought to be considered be introduced at the same time. You do not get to have only your best line read out.
So the record is not something you assemble later out of your good days. It is being written continuously, by both of you, in every reply. The BIFF method is a way of writing your half of it deliberately.
If you keep your own account of parenting time alongside those threads, the two do different jobs. The messages show the exchange. A contemporaneous record shows what happened that day, in your own words, written at the time. Documented keeps that second record sealed and time-stamped, so the entry you wrote in March is demonstrably the entry you wrote in March.
Are there common mistakes to avoid with the BIFF method?
- Length creep. A four-paragraph reply written in a friendly tone is not a BIFF reply.
- The friendly sting. “Thanks for finally letting me know” is not friendly. Sarcasm reads worse in a transcript than plain anger does.
- Answering everything. Addressing all nine accusations concedes that all nine deserved addressing.
- Leaving an opening. “I hope you can see why this does not work for me” invites a reply explaining why they cannot.
Answering personal attacks with personal attacks
The most common failure, and the most understandable. A remark about the other person’s character has never once changed their behavior, and it is reliably the line that gets quoted back.
When should you use the BIFF method, and do you need to respond at all?
Use it when a reply is genuinely needed: a scheduling fact to confirm, an inaccuracy that other people will see, a decision that has to be recorded.
Do not reply at all when the message is venting addressed only to you and asserts nothing that will travel. Silence is not rude here, and it is not evasive. It is the option most people forget they have.
What should you leave out?
- Anything about the other parent’s character, motives, or state of mind.
- Anything your child said, repeated as proof that it happened.
- Anything you would not want read aloud slowly.
- The last word. It is almost never worth what it costs.
Frequently asked questions
What does the acronym BIFF stand for?
Brief, Informative, Friendly, Firm. It describes the four qualities of a reply to a hostile message.
What is the BIFF method of communication in divorce cases?
The same method applied to divorce and custody messaging, where hostile email is common and where the resulting threads are frequently read by lawyers, mediators and judges.
Can you provide some examples of BIFF responses?
Yes, see the table above. The pattern is a factual sentence, then a closing sentence, and nothing else.
Does using BIFF mean I can never defend myself?
No. It means correcting what is inaccurate and would matter to a third party, rather than answering everything. A short factual correction is a defense.
Do you need to respond to every message?
No, and most of the time you should not. A reply is worth writing when there is a fact that needs to be on the record, or an inaccuracy others will see.
Is the BIFF method the same as ignoring someone?
No. Ignoring a message leaves an inaccuracy unanswered. A BIFF reply answers it in two sentences and stops.
References
This article explains general, well established concepts and is not legal advice. Documented is not a law firm. State evidence rules differ from the Federal Rules quoted here. Confirm specifics with an attorney licensed in your state or your court’s self-help center.
- Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801: Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay
- Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 106: Remainder of or Related Statements
- Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq., High Conflict Institute: How To Write A BIFF Response®
- Atticus Family Law, S.C.: What Is The BIFF Method For Conflict Resolution?
Related articles
Documented is a private, tamper-evident record of how you show up for your kids. This article is general information, not legal advice, and Documented is not a law firm.