Based on the concept introduced by Albert Wu in 2000—regarding the healthcare professional who becomes a second victim after making an unintentional error—this article adapts that perspective to the legal field. It also explores how the law firm can suffer negative effects, assuming the role of a third victim.

Full article

The second and third victim in law: when unintentional error also hurts the lawyer and their firm

  1. Origin and definition of the “second victim” phenomenon

The term second victim was coined by Albert Wu to describe the profound emotional impact often experienced by healthcare professionals after adverse events affecting a patient, even without malpractice. This concept has been widely recognized in studies on patient safety and professional health.

According to the European ERNST Consortium (2024), the definition extends to “any healthcare professional directly or indirectly involved in an unforeseeable adverse event, unintentional error, or patient injury, who is negatively affected.”

Effects include guilt, anxiety, loss of confidence, insomnia, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and even suicide or professional abandonment. All of this carries a significant personal and professional cost, as well as for organizations. In recent years, support strategies such as peer programs, psychological care, or “emotional first aid” have been established and have proven effective.

2. Application to law: who are the second victims
In the legal field, a lawyer may make an unintentional error—a failure to present evidence, an incorrect calculation of a procedural deadline, a flawed interpretation of a regulation—that, without being the result of gross negligence or malpractice, leads to a negative outcome for the client.

In these cases, the most evident impact falls on the client and their family: loss of the case, financial damages, or the inability to restore a violated right. This is undoubtedly the first victim.

But behind every case file there is also a person practicing law, who may be devastated by the awareness that their own act or omission has had painful consequences for someone else. This professional, just as in medicine, becomes the second victim.

The lawyer, feeling responsibility and guilt for the harm caused, may face:

·         Guilt and self-reproach, with recurrent thoughts about what happened and the constant question “what if…?”

·         Anxiety and loss of confidence in their own professional judgment.

·         Isolation due to fear of colleagues’ judgment or the reaction of the professional community.

·         Reputational consequences that, even without formal sanctions, affect their career.

·         Physical and emotional symptoms—fear, anxiety, shame, anger, insomnia, post-traumatic stress—that can lead to burnout, depression, or leaving the profession.

Although the legal literature has not yet extensively developed this topic, studies in medicine show how even malpractice lawsuits generate lasting effects on professionals, affecting their well-being and performance.

A predictable recovery path for the second victim has been described, consisting of six stages: chaos and response to the incident, intrusive thoughts, restoring personal integrity, enduring the inquisition, obtaining emotional support, and moving on (abandonment, survival, or growth).

3. The third victim: the law firm
Similarly, and drawing from an analogy in the healthcare sector, some studies define the third victim as the system or organization that also suffers after an adverse event.

In the legal context, the law firm can become the third victim if it faces:

·         Reputational damage, affecting client trust.

·         Economic losses, whether from compensation payments, reduced income, or higher insurance premiums.

·         Internal tensions due to disciplinary proceedings or litigation.

·         A deteriorated work climate, with professionals more reluctant to take on complex cases for fear of error.

This organizational impact complements the individual suffering of the lawyer with systemic consequences for the firm.

4. Silence and the culture of error. Transformative proposals
In many contexts, the professional culture in law remains one of rigid perfectionism and zero tolerance for mistakes. Publicly acknowledging a failure can be perceived as a threat to reputation and the ability to practice, pushing lawyers to live these experiences in isolation.

Unlike healthcare, where support programs and error management protocols are beginning to be implemented, in the legal world there are hardly any mechanisms for emotional support or constructive reflection on such situations.

In medicine, progress has been made toward a “just culture” that recognizes human fallibility and promotes internal supports—such as peer support programs or professional resilience mechanisms.

Denham, in an article published in 2007, proposed five rights for second victims. These can be remembered with the acronym TRUST: T (treatment—fair treatment), R (respect), U (understanding and compassion), S (supportive care), T (transparency and opportunity to contribute).

In law, these practices are still absent but could be incorporated in formats such as:

1.      Error management protocols allowing constructive review.

2.      Professional or emotional support networks for lawyers.

3.      Transparent and strategic communication with clients to avoid reputational crises.

4.      Training to turn error into an opportunity for improvement, avoiding unnecessary escalations.

Conclusion

The second victim phenomenon is real and generates deep personal and professional repercussions in the legal field. The law firm can also be a victim of such errors, taking on the role of a third victim. Adapting more human-centered models, such as emotional support, a just culture, and open communication, can protect both the lawyer and the firm, and ultimately, the client.