We talk a lot about defensive medicine — decisions driven not by what’s best for the patient, but by what is safest for the doctor or the system.

What we talk about far less is that the same incentive pattern shows up across other professions — including law. Not incompetence. Not bad intent. But decisions optimized primarily for institutional self-protection, even when that narrows outcomes for the client.

What it looks like in practice

• Narrow the problem early
• Segment issues instead of integrating them
• Avoid escalation even when the facts support it
• Keep the work inside the safest lane (process, policy, department, practice group)
• Prefer what’s defensible internally over what’s optimal externally

None of this is inherently unethical. In many systems, it’s rational. But it carries a real cost: leverage, optionality, and outcomes narrow quietly.

Why it happens

This dynamic shows up anywhere the downside risk is asymmetric and reputational: medicine, law, engineering, architecture, finance, cybersecurity, and yes — accounting.

The professional often controls the frame. Once a conservative frame is chosen, alternatives disappear, escalation becomes “unnecessary,” and the client may assume the outcome was inevitable. Often, it wasn’t. It was selected because it was safer.

Defensive medicine is widely acknowledged. Defensive professionalism is everywhere — just quieter. Seeing it early can make all the difference.