Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Lawyers are trained to think deliberately, with precision and restraint. Statutes, precedents, and processes form the bedrock of legal reasoning. And yet, many experienced lawyers will admit to moments when instinct takes over, writes Rebecca Ward, MBA.
Lawyers are trained to think deliberately, with precision and restraint. Statutes, precedents, and processes form the bedrock of legal reasoning. And yet, many experienced lawyers will admit to moments when instinct takes over, what Malcolm Gladwell calls the “blink”, a gut feeling about a witness, a quiet certainty about how a jury will lean, or even an immediate dislike of a client. These reactions often feel justified, even infallible. But psychology and lived experience tell us something else: intuition isn’t always insight. Sometimes, it’s bias. Sometimes, it’s emotional residue. And sometimes, it’s just plain wrong.
Blink in the courtroom
In Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking (2005), Gladwell explores the unconscious snap judgements we make in seconds. His concept of “thin-slicing” suggests that our brains can distil enormous complexity into fast, surprisingly accurate impressions when those impressions are grounded in deep expertise. For lawyers, this can be a powerful tool: reading a witness’s discomfort before words are spoken, anticipating an objection, or sensing that a line of argument won’t land. But Gladwell also warns us that intuition only works well when it’s not clouded by noise. And in law, there is a lot of noise.
When the gut gets it wrong
Take the example of a lawyer who says, “I just didn’t like that client.” The client had done nothing wrong, yet something felt off. Days later, the lawyer realises the client shared a surname with an abusive ex-partner. That “gut instinct” wasn’t wisdom; it was transference. Emotional debris masquerading as professional judgement.
Or the barrister who is convinced a witness is lying because of poor eye contact or odd speech rhythms. In therapy, we often remind clients that just because it feels true doesn’t mean it is. In law, the stakes are higher, but the same rule applies. Intuition isn’t neutral; it’s shaped by history, context, and personal baggage, and in high-pressure environments like courtrooms, that baggage can become very heavy.
Heuristics, halos, and habit
What we call instinct is often just a shortcut. A cognitive pattern that once served us but no longer fits. The halo effect is one such shortcut; the unconscious belief that someone is articulate or attractive is also credible. This bias can quietly influence everything from jury selection to sentencing recommendations. It doesn’t feel like prejudice. It feels like confidence. But it is still bias.
Then there’s repetition. A family lawyer who’s dealt with dozens of manipulative parents might start assuming deception where there’s just confusion. A criminal barrister hardened by repeat offenders might mistake trauma responses for dishonesty. Experience sharpens intuition, but it can also dull nuance. When we say, “I know how this story goes,” we might be right, or we might be blind to what’s different.
Experience can deceive
Gladwell is clear: thin-slicing works when rooted in genuine expertise. But even expertise can warp. If your past cases have rewarded suspicion, you’ll be quicker to doubt. If you’ve been burned by a charming client, you might distrust charisma entirely. These patterns feel like wisdom, but they’re really defence mechanisms dressed up as instinct.
The trickiest part? The more seasoned you are, the more likely you are to trust your gut. And the more subtle the distortion becomes.
The case for reflection
Legal work often rewards speed and decisiveness. There’s little time, or appetite, for slowing down and questioning your instincts. But reflection isn’t indulgent; it’s protective. Some firms now incorporate unconscious bias training into CPD. Others encourage post-case debriefs to unpack assumptions and surface what might have gone unexamined.
As Carl Jung once said, “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life, and you will call it fate.” In law, that fate might be a missed red flag, a mistrusted client, or a verdict that doesn’t sit right. Reflective practice won’t slow you down. It will sharpen your edge.
Intuition isn’t gospel
Gladwell doesn’t argue that we should discard intuition. Only that we should interrogate it. Gut instinct is one data point, not the whole picture. Sometimes, it’s hard-won wisdom. Other times, it’s a scar you forgot you had. In courtrooms, where reputations and futures are on the line, the real work isn’t in deciding fast; it’s in knowing when to pause.
Because the blink can reveal, but it can also mislead, and knowing the difference might just be the most important judgment of all.
Rebecca Ward is an MBA-qualified management consultant with a focus on mental health. She is the managing director of Barristers’ Health, which supports the legal profession through management consulting and psychotherapy. Barristers’ Health was founded in memory of her brother, Steven Ward, LLB.
