Dr No - Why Smart Lawyers Make Dumb Decisions (and how to fix it)

"Unspoken expectations are premeditated resentments." —Neil Strauss

Have you noticed how your team meetings often spend 50 minutes debating small issues like the office coffee machine, while giving only a quick look at major concerns like a €50M contingency in an acquisition? Welcome to this month's Dr. No newsletter.

THREE POWERFUL THINKING TOOLS FOR LEGAL TEAMS

Gabriel Weinberg's "Super Thinking" is one of my favorite books (and Charlie Munger—Warren Buffett's famous partner—loves it too). I recently revisited these three key principles that can help GCs build more effective teams:

1. Sayre's Law & Parkinson’s Law of Triviality

"In any dispute, the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes."

A Simple Truth: We often focus more on small issues we understand than on bigger, more complex and important ones.

Example 1: Your team spends 20 minutes debating the wording in clause 17.3(b)(ii) but quickly passes over the €50M indemnity that could seriously damage the company.

Example 2: During annual planning, your department debates the mission statement wording for 45 minutes but spends only 10 minutes discussing how to reduce major litigation risks. One feels comfortable; the other feels overwhelming.

This is called "bikeshedding" – our tendency to focus on small issues we understand rather than complex ones we don't.

Practical Tip: Before your next meeting, identify potential "bikesheds." When discussion gets stuck on minor details, simply say: "I think we're building a bikeshed here. Let's move on to more important decisions." Your team will quickly remember their priorities.

2. The Principle of Leverage: Focus on What Matters

Results = Time × Intensity × Leverage

Most legal departments focus on Time (billable hours), sometimes think about Intensity, but often forget Leverage – identifying activities that create the most value.

The Simple Truth: A small number of your activities create most of your results.

Practical Tip: Sort your weekly activities by importance:

High Value Activities (Do more of these):

• Training your team on negotiation frameworks

• Creating template contracts that everyone can use

• Meeting with key executives like the CFO

Low Value Activities (Do less of these):

• Personally reviewing every standard NDA

• Attending meetings where you add little value

• Spending time on unimportant administrative tasks

3. Hanlon's Razor: Don't Assume Bad Intentions

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

The Simple Truth: When someone makes a mistake, it's usually not because they're trying to cause problems.

When the business team skips legal review, they're usually not trying to break rules – they're just trying to meet deadlines. When the CEO asks questionable things, they're usually not planning something wrong – they simply don't understand the legal issues.

Practical Tip: Before assuming someone has bad intentions, ask yourself: "Is this a deliberate problem or just a lack of knowledge?" The first requires warnings; the second needs education and better processes. This approach will reduce your stress and improve relationships.

THIS MONTH'S HELPFUL TECHNOLOGY

✅ Forage: This AI tool filters out less important emails and gives you a clean, daily summary. Imagine receiving those 47 "Just checking in on this!" messages from the same vendor as a single line: "Company X really wants your money (47 times)." This can save you significant time each day.

QUESTION OF THE MONTH

From entrepreneur Nathan Barry comes this month's thought-provoking question:

"When does it benefit me to be patient and when does it not?"

For GCs, this means:

• When should you review a contract one more time, and when should you accept it's good enough?

• When should you wait for the business team to come to you, and when should you proactively approach them?

• When should you accept a difficult colleague's behavior, and when should you address it?

I'd love to hear your thoughts. Replies to this email go directly to Rosa and me, not to an automated system.

Until next time, remember: The best lawyers don't just say no – they explain why, then offer three better alternatives that make everyone happy.

Best regards,

Dr. No