“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”— Upton Sinclair
Lawyers pride themselves on critical thinking. But even the sharpest legal minds fall prey to motivated reasoning.
What is it? Motivated reasoning is an invisible force that makes us rationalize, not reason. We accept what suits us and nitpick what threatens our views—without realizing it.
It’s not just about politics or internet arguments. It affects client meetings, strategy sessions, and our case assessments. Left unchecked, it can diminish the quality of your advice and decision-making, no matter your experience.
Why Lawyers Are Vulnerable
The adversarial system trains us to “think like a lawyer”—to advocate, poke holes, and defend vigorously. But motivated reasoning means we sometimes defend ourselves, not just our clients.
Our egos, beliefs, or business interests can take over. Sinclair’s quote isn’t just about corrupted officials—it’s about professionals whose paychecks, status, or self-image lead them to “not understand” the inconvenient facts.
Yes, it’s subconscious and part of human nature. You can’t see it in the mirror.
Two Motivations: Truth and Comfort
Psychologist Ziva Kunda—whose 1990 paper (The Case for Motivated Reasoning) coined the term—describes two kinds of motivation in reasoning:
- Accuracy motivation: Seeking the correct answer, even if it hurts your pride.
- Directional motivation: Wanting a specific conclusion to protect your identity, tribe, or bottom line.
Directional motivation turns every lawyer (and client) into an advocate for their own worldview.
Sound familiar?
Real-World Examples in Law
- Screening out contradictory facts or only looking for supporting evidence.
- Overestimating your client’s chances because you want them to win (or you quoted a flat fee).
- Ignoring new evidence because it’s inconvenient to adjust your strategy.
How to See (and Reduce) Your Motivated Reasoning
You can’t “think your way out” of motivated reasoning with brute force. But you can use simple checks to catch it before it does significant damage—especially in high-stakes legal matters:
1. Ask: “What Would Prove Me Wrong?”
If you can’t name anything that would change your view, you’re not reasoning—you’re rationalizing. This mini Popper test is your safeguard against self-serving blindspots.
2. Argue the Other Side
Make the best case against your own position. How would a skilled adversary attack it? This isn’t just for moot court; use it for real client matters.
3. Notice Asymmetrical Scrutiny
Are you scrutinizing the other side’s evidence while ignoring your own weak points? Motivated reasoning loves double standards. Catch yourself playing favorites.
4. State Your Biases
Say: “I want X to be true.” Naming the motivation doesn’t destroy it, but it loosens its grip. (Try it during team strategy meetings.)
5. Postpone Judgment
When stakes are high, say “I don’t know yet.” Wait overnight. Rushed reasoning favors hidden bias.
6. Mentally Review
Ask: “If my toughest colleague or the judge saw this, would they think I’m being honest or just clever?” Imagine explaining your thinking to a skeptic—not just someone who is supportive.
7. Write It Down
Journaling your reasoning process is a way of cross-examining yourself. Writing exposes logic gaps you can’t spot in your head.
Finally: Change Your Environment
Personal hacks help, but group norms are more powerful. Surround yourself with lawyers who reward truth-seeking—not just “winning.” Build a practice culture where honest critical thinking is valued above glib cleverness.
If you’re looking to sharpen your judgment alongside others committed to this higher standard, consider joining my Inner Circle. It’s a place where uncomfortable truths are brought into the open—and genuine growth happens.
Use technology to radically improve your law practice by focusing on the few core elements that have the biggest impact.
