In the past few weeks, our in-house office has defended a suit filed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, advised on rights of a prisoner transported to one of our hospitals for treatment, and helped sort through who has the power to authorize medical services for a minor child as between a step-parent, a grandparent, and a cousin.
Although we work for a hospital network, a background in health law was not exactly helpful when addressing any of those issues.
Sometimes the best solution is, truthfully, to fake it until you make it.
What Even Is AI ‘Competence’? It Depends.
Takeaways from a Legalweek panel on evolving malpractice risks.
I am not suggesting you commit malpractice and pull answers from thin air, but in an in-house world where the variety of issues that comes across your desk varies more than Taylor Swift’s latest fling, it is impossible to be an expert in all areas of law.
Heck, any Biglaw office worth its salt has an entire division dedicated to each of the areas described above, but how does an understaffed in-house office stand a chance?
Hence, the faking it until you make it (i.e., appropriately research and advise on the issue). Often in-house counsel knows enough to know when to hit the proverbial pause button until we are able to fully vet the question and come back with a well-thought-out answer. This allows us to perform the requisite due diligence to avoid malpractice while still instilling a sense of trust into our colleagues who sought our counsel in the first place.
This tactic is certainly nothing new to my office and is likely shared by many of my fellow in-house colleagues who are burdened with more and more responsibilities as businesses look to trim their outside counsel budget. And while it may be a tried and true formula for advising on in-house legal issues, it can also be quite helpful in management as well.
Labor and Employment Federal Litigation Trends 2026
Drawing on more than a decade of data, the report equips law firms and corporate legal teams with actionable insights to better assess risk, refine strategy, and anticipate outcomes in today’s evolving workplace disputes.
I presently manage a team ranging from skilled clinicians to recent college graduates who each present their own unique variety of issues.
During one of my first meetings with a new team member, I asked if there was anything I could do to assist their day-to-day duties. Unbeknownst to me, I had opened a proverbial Pandora’s box as this team member launched into a very passionate, and very technical, explanation into why we should change a current business practice.
I honestly did not have the faintest idea what she was talking about or why it mattered to the organization, but I dutifully took as many notes as I could and assured her I understood her concerns and would look into the matter. After she left, I was able to decode my notes and hunt down an appropriate answer to her concerns while she was, thankfully, none the wiser of my struggles during our first meeting.
Yes, there are times when I can freely ask my team to dumb down what they are saying to me so I can follow along. For instance I learned today that a Uvulopalatopharyngoplasty is nothing more than “when they cut out the hang down thing in the back of your throat to prevent snoring.”
But other times when a team member is sharing their ideas or colleagues are seeking legal advice, asking them to dumb it down likely isn’t the right call.
Instead, within reason and all applicable malpractice guidelines, sometimes faking it until you are able to appropriately research and respond to the issue isn’t such a bad choice.
Stephen R. Williams is in-house counsel with a multi-facility hospital network in the Midwest. His column focuses on a little talked about area of the in-house life, management. You can reach Stephen at [email protected].