Consider a hypothetical situation: A high-net-worth husband and wife (say $15 million in assets) are approaching their 70s. They come into your office one day and explain a heavy burden that they're feeling. Education has always been a priority, they say, and they want to ensure a legacy of higher learning in their family. So they agreed to pay for the educational expenses of their two grandchildren. Sounds nice, right?

Further suppose they made that commitment several years ago when the markets, and their portfolio, were rolling along just fine. But their family tree started growing with a third, fourth and fifth grandchild. And it kept growing: six, seven and eight. Eventually they had 12 grandchildren. And then, suppose, the markets fell off a cliff.

So what began with the best of intentions-and frankly, not too onerous an obligation given their means-is now a potentially nest-egg-destroying commitment. (Let's assume they don't want to simply rescind their offer to pay for private school; they feel honor-bound to fulfill their promise, and their adult children had chosen schools based upon that promise.)

But after a substantial market decline like the one we've seen over the past year, that couple would no longer be certain they could afford to fulfill their promise. They wonder if they can fund their grandchildren's education without the risk of going bankrupt.

How could an advisor address this problem? One approach would be to determine how much of the couple's portfolio would be needed for them to continue living comfortably for the rest of their lives, including an amount earmarked for unexpected medical expenses. Next, determine how other goals could be met with the remaining asset base. During the planning process, prioritize and quantify goals to create a cash-flow model to illustrate how the prospects could live their lives and provide for their grandchildren.

One could suggest that the couple open a dialogue with their adult children about the possibility of the tuition payments stopping in a few years, but only if the markets didn't cooperate. The children may not be happy to hear that, but they would have time to prepare.

I have used this kind of approach time and time again to differentiate myself. I focus on breaking goals down into manageable pieces and creating scenarios where they are likely to achieve one or more of the goals-or make some compromises. This approach takes patience, but I have found that taking the time to work it out lays the foundation for a long, mutually beneficial relationship.

Many advisors focus the initial conversation with a prospect on portfolio management goals such as income needs, time horizons and risk tolerance. Instead, I focus on the personal goals and the available options to achieve these goals.

One thing I've learned over the years is that wealthy people have a lot of goals because they can afford to think bigger. In an up market, they rarely seem worried about achieving all of them. In a down market, they start to realize their limitations. This can be a disturbing realization, as these goals often involve commitments to others, such as charities, adult children or grandchildren. Some even become paralyzed by worry, afraid they won't be able to live their desired lifestyle and meet all of their commitments. If, as an advisor, you can help them address this paralysis, you'll likely have a client for life.

Margaret Starner, CFP, is president of the Starner Group of Raymond James & Associates in Coral Gables, Fla.