When the same issue arises for the third time, the person at fault is no longer sought.

There is a moment that almost every manager experiences, even if they do not always acknowledge it.

A problem that they believed had been resolved resurfaces. Not identical, but similar enough to leave behind the same sense of déjà vu. It might be a poorly negotiated contract. It might be an employment dispute. It might be a complaint from an important client, an authority inspection, a disciplinary breach, or a managerial decision that once again produces the same undesirable effects.

The initial reaction is natural. Explanations are sought. Discussions are held with the people involved. Documents are analysed. Efforts are made to identify the person responsible, because there is a belief that once the culprit is found, the problem will also be resolved.

In many situations, matters stop here.

Conclusions are drawn. Warnings are issued. New training is organised. Sometimes the person is replaced. Other times, the manager is replaced. Everyone leaves the meeting with the impression that the matter has been closed.

Until, a few months later, the same situation returns.

Not with the same people.

Not in the same department.

Not always in the same form.

But similar enough to realise that the organisation is no longer dealing with an isolated incident, but with a pattern.

Whenever I enter a company where a problem keeps recurring, I try to discipline my first impulse. It would be easy to join the discussion about blame, individual mistakes, or the disciplinary measures that might follow. Yet experience has taught me that, in such moments, the most important question is not who made the mistake.

The question is different.

What is it about this organisation that makes the same mistake possible?

The difference may seem subtle. In reality, it completely changes the perspective.

A director sees a conflict with a supplier.

I try to understand why that contract was negotiated without the obvious risks being discussed in time.

The director notices that a manager made an unwise decision.

I ask who prepared that person for the role, what limits their mandate had, and why the control mechanisms failed before the effects became visible.

The director sees a dispute.

I try to find where the chain of decisions broke, making the dispute inevitable.

In our profession, there is a temptation to view each problem as an isolated event. Reality, however, is far less spectacular and, precisely for that reason, harder to spot. The most costly mistakes do not appear out of nowhere. They form slowly, from incomplete procedures, unclear responsibilities, delayed decisions, exceptions that have become rules, and from that phrase you hear surprisingly often in companies: “It’s worked like this so far.”

A legal counsellor who limits their work to interpreting the law will probably resolve the effects. They will analyse the contract, draft a response to the authorities, prepare a defence in a dispute, or propose the necessary disciplinary measures.

All of this is important.

But if the same company faces the same problem again in six months, it means the legal intervention was correct but insufficient.

I believe the true value of a legal counsellor begins at the moment they take on a more uncomfortable role: that of asking the questions no one wants to hear.

Why does this procedure allow for different interpretations?

Why does important information stop at a certain level?

Why does the same decision depend, every time, on the same person?

Why do people choose to resolve exceptions but avoid correcting the rule that produces them?

These questions are not aimed at finding a culprit. They seek to uncover the mechanism that, with almost mathematical regularity, generates the same outcome.

Perhaps this is where the difference lies between a lawyer who reacts and one who prevents.

The first appears when the problem already exists.

The second tries to understand why the organisation continues to produce the same problem, even after people have changed, procedures have been rewritten, and promises have been made.

In such situations, experience tells me one simple thing.

If the same difficulty arises for the third time, it is very unlikely to be about people.

Most likely, the problem has moved to a far less visible place.

To the way the organisation makes decisions.

And there, more often than not, the real work of a legal counsellor begins.