Over more than three decades of legal practice, handling mergers, acquisitions, public and private offerings of securities, joint ventures, regulatory compliance and so forth, often in a context where participants have competing or unspoken interests and agendas, I have observed countless professional errors — some reflecting a lack of experience or knowledge; some reflecting misunderstanding or misapprehension of the implications of ambiguity; and some reflecting oversight. More often than not, the consequences are trivial and the adversities (if any) can be resolved.

Let’s clarify at the outset what we mean by “professional error.” We’ll start by an exclusion. We do not mean sloppiness that results in a sub-optimal outcome. In this regard, we cannot infer error from the occurrence of a sub-optimal outcome. A sub-optimal outcome may reflect an error or the sub-optimal outcome may occur notwithstanding an error-free performance by the professional. Conversely, we cannot infer the absence of error from an optimal outcome. The professional may have committed errors along the way that, in the event, did not make a difference to the outcome.

Let me further clarify: we are addressing medical, legal, accounting and similar errors. We are addressing errors that the professional has the ability, and aptitude, to avoid. We are addressing errors in a context of complexity where the error is not recognized at the moment it is committed (perhaps by commission or omission – or, most likely, oversight) and only after the fact becomes apparent to the professional.

The errors we address are invariably subject to remediation, albeit with costs, including, potentially, costs to the professional’s reputation. The errors may not be “fixable” (meaning, the slate cannot be wiped clean of the error) although the adverse consequences may be subject to mitigation, again (potentially) with costs that, but for the errors, would not have been incurred.

Finally, we are addressing a narrow subset of professional errors: the error recognized (initially) by, and only by, the professional who committed the error. We are addressing the context when the professional recognizes or begins to suspect commission of an error.

A final introductory point: the errors we are considering do not present themselves labeled as errors – they are not self-defined. They are errors because, at least for our purposes, the professional who “committed” the error(s) believes he has committed them. In this sense, the errors we are addressing are always subjective; they may or may not be viewed by others as errors. This potential lack of consensus is common, where decisions, omissions, or oversights occur within a complex swirl replete with unsorted data; where blame is beside the point; where the well-being of the client or patient is the point.

I will dwell no further on sources and manifestations of errors. The pressing question is what the professional should do when he or she recognizes or suspects an error?

Years ago I wrote a piece that addressed this question, and, having recently re-read it, I am comfortable that my recommendations remain as applicable today as a decade ago.

First, push aside any (natural) inclination to ignore the error. Disregard of the error will generally only increase ultimate remedial costs.

Second, consult a trusted colleague. If the recognition of an error generates consternation for the professional (as would be expected of a conscientious professional) then involvement of a skilled, experienced colleague will introduce a fresh perspective largely free of emotional bias that might skew the development of a sound remediation strategy.

Third, avoid self-flagellation. Easier said than done. Many decisions and judgements that we label as erroneous are not in fact erroneous in the common sense usage of the term. After all, we operate in a context of ambiguity and partial information. We may recognize the correlation or causal link of, for example, A and B (if A then B). But often the strength, trajectory and duration of the relationship presupposes the presence of C and absence of D. And we may have limited or no control over the presence, absence or extent of C or D.

Finally, for the skilled and creative professional, who acts with integrity and is committed to the patient or client, adversity is not (or should not be) a weight that suppresses initiative and engagement; rather, it is (or should be) an opportunity and a responsibility for the professional to “rise to the occasion” and to seek a creative and effective solution and resolution.

Fortitude, perseverance, creativity, integrity and passion, when fused together, become a potent antidote to most setbacks. Here is where lofty rhetoric animates and propels identification and implementation of solutions.