In World War Z, one of the movie’s most memorable ideas has nothing to do with zombies.
The film introduces a fictionalized Israeli intelligence concept known as the “Tenth Man.” If nine people in a room reach the same conclusion, the tenth has a responsibility to challenge it and seriously consider the opposite, even when that alternative seems completely illogical. That means asking whether reports of people fighting “demons” might describe something much stranger than a conventional military threat.
For legal teams, the threat is usually less cinematic. But the lesson is useful: when everyone agrees too quickly, that may be exactly when someone needs to start asking tough questions.
That’s the basic premise behind red teaming.
At its simplest, red teaming means deliberately stepping outside your normal perspective and looking at a situation through an adversary’s eyes. It’s designed to challenge assumptions, overcome groupthink and force teams to consider scenarios they otherwise might dismiss.
That matters because confidence can create blind spots.
During litigation or an investigation, lawyers naturally begin developing a theory of the case. Over time, evidence can start fitting neatly into that theory. Team members reinforce one another’s conclusions. Junior attorneys may hesitate to challenge a senior partner. Clients may leave out uncomfortable information. Everyone involved can begin seeing what they expect, or worse, want, to see.
Red teaming deliberately disrupts that process. Rather than simply asking another colleague to critique the legal argument, a true red-team exercise takes a more detached, adversarial approach. What would opposing counsel look for? What would an investigator find? What assumptions is the team making about the client, witnesses or opposing party? What information is publicly available that could be used against them?
That last question has become particularly important in an era when very little is truly private.
A red team might examine a client’s public footprint, relationships, business history or social media activity from the perspective of opposing counsel. It may identify facts that are legally irrelevant but reputationally damaging, connections that could create unwanted questions, inconsistencies that undermine credibility or vulnerabilities that an adversary could exploit.
The goal is not to assume the worst about a client. It’s to understand what an opponent might see before they do.
The same thinking applies to investigations and due diligence. Business teams can become so focused on completing a transaction or pursuing an opportunity that they rationalize away warning signs. What initially looks like a routine contractual dispute may actually involve a sophisticated fraud. A seemingly unlikely scenario may deserve more consideration precisely because no one else is considering it.
Red teaming is most valuable early, when strategy is still being formed, opposition research is beginning and there is time to mitigate vulnerabilities. But it’s never too late to introduce an adversarial perspective.
The lesson from World War Z isn’t that every unlikely threat will materialize. It’s that even the most confident teams need someone willing to play the “Tenth Man,” challenge conventional thinking and ask the question nobody else wants to consider: What if the monsters are real?