The lawyer: trusted advisor, consigliere, counsel, expert. The smartest person in the room. Smarter than the opponent. Smart in general.
As lawyers, so much of our identity is entangled with our careers and our intelligence. We are a profession addicted to prestige — what schools did you attend, where have you worked, who are your clients? We jockey to be the alpha in the room; to assert dominance in personality, expertise, and intelligence. We expect it from others and we do it ourselves, whether consciously or unconsciously.
I am so accustomed to watching my colleagues and compatriots battle for intellectual superiority, I was surprised when I watched a capable, talented, and yes, intelligent, attorney play dumb to excellent effect. The act took enormous confidence because we were engaging with aggressive business colleagues and I watched this attorney unabashedly say, “I don’t understand what you are talking about, can you simplify for me?” He didn’t say it once. He didn’t say it twice. He repeated it throughout the day. I watched our business colleagues roll their eyes and laugh at his ignorance. I watched him hold firm on his position of ignorance as others bullied him to get over it and accept their position simply to resolve the issue. Ultimately, he wasn’t the only one who confessed to not understanding the issue presented to the team that day. By forcing others to explain their position and simplify it, he allowed them to demonstrate the flaws in their position. By holding firm in his confusion, he created a safe harbor for others to also say, “I don’t understand either.”
Why Better Billing Statements Can Improve Your Firm’s Finances—And Your Client Relationships
Outdated billing is costing law firms money. Discover how clear, modern billing practices boost profits, trust, and cash flow in 2025.
I’ve seen playing dumb work well in other ways too. For example, in managing others, especially new colleagues, there is the desire of the new colleague to show her intelligence — to prove her value as part of the team. I know I’m guilty of this. Sometimes, however, “smart” is not what is needed; what’s needed is “short”, “concise”, “focused”, or “simple”. Obviously, one can be smart and short, concise, focused, or simple, but lawyers usually don’t think that way. We like to believe that if we describe enough hypotheticals, provide more alternatives, add more caveats, another layer of analysis, our prowess as an attorney will be objectively recognized by all. Instead of criticizing a new colleague’s work, work that in and of itself may be quite good but is not what is needed to meet the objective, I can play dumb. I immediately cede the position of “who is smarter” to my colleague and let my colleague know I’m not capable of grasping the complexity of the treatise provided to me — could she simplify it for someone of my mental capabilities (the phrase I like to use is, “Barney it up for me,” referencing the repetitive purple dinosaur of many years ago)? By removing the psychic hurdle of proving herself to me, I can get the deliverable I need, and my colleague is not embarrassed and feels like her work and contributions are appreciated, which they are.
Naturally, one should be judicious in employing this tactic. You don’t want to erode your credibility. Nor do you want to play into stereotypes. If you are young, and your work product is not known by those who matter, it makes sense to use other strategies that build your reputation. If you have the luxury of using softer tactics, playing dumb can be a smart move.
Celeste Harrison Forst has practiced in small and mid-sized firms and is now in-house at a large manufacturing and technology company where she receives daily hugs from her colleagues. You can reach Celeste directly at [email protected].