Do you need to have a Red Team?

Somewhat out there, but the article has some good points.

Litigation can be a battle. You marshall your forces and attack the opposing party. But there is a long lead time from the filing of a lawsuit to the commencement of a trial. During that time you lay out your strategy. How to approach the case, handle witnesses, develop a compelling narrative and theme. But you don’t want to be surrounded by yes-men. While working on a project it is easy to develop a cocoon. A selective filter bubble that only incorporates what works and fits in neatly with your narrative. But you have to push back against it and organize dissent.

You need a Red Team.

Red Teams are heretics. They try to buck expectations and throw a monkey wrench into solidified plans with little manpower and small resources. Red teams are generally smaller, underfunded, and placed at a disadvantage from the get-go. All things being equal, they are supposed to lose.

But a Red Team’s weaknesses also give rise to: creative problem solving, lateral thinking, intense team cohesion, strategic surprise, deconstruction of dogma. Essentially, a Red Team takes the role of advocate for a disadvantage adversary. Which is exactly what you need to cultivate within your office heading into litigation. Especially when you feel confident about your case.