I’ve heard it said that facing multiple lawsuits is almost a ‘badge of honor’ in project consulting, as a sign of being deeply involved in complex, high-stakes work. How accurate is this perspective in your experience? More importantly, what would you consider a true ‘badge of honor’ for a consultant in project management?
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
That’s a thoughtful and important question, especially for how we define professional excellence in project consulting.
I understand where the idea comes from. Complex, high-stakes environments do increase exposure to conflict, and consultants working at that level inevitably operate closer to legal and contractual tension. In that sense, litigation can signal proximity to complexity, scale, and pressure.
However, treating litigation as a “badge of honor” risks normalizing what should remain an exception, not a measure of excellence.
From a governance perspective, recurring litigation is rarely a sign of distinction. More often, it is a signal worth examining. It may reveal misaligned expectations, weak contracting, unclear decision rights, or insufficient stakeholder engagement. In other words, it often points to gaps in the architecture of decision and accountability.
For me, the true “badge of honor” sits elsewhere.
It is the ability to operate in complex environments and still reduce the likelihood of conflict through clarity, transparency, and disciplined decision-making. It is creating conditions where difficult trade-offs are surfaced early, where stakeholders are genuinely consulted, and where decisions are both robust and ethically grounded.
A strong consultant is not the one who survives disputes, but the one who designs systems where disputes are less likely to escalate.
Because in the end, litigation is not a signal of mastery. It is often a signal that the system of decisions failed somewhere upstream.
In today’s context, with increasing complexity, multi-stakeholder environments, and AI-augmented work, this becomes even more critical. The role of the consultant is evolving from delivery expert to designer of decision environments and steward of trust.
So perhaps the real “badge of honor” is this:
Consistently delivering outcomes that create real value, while preserving trust, strengthening relationships, and leaving behind systems that are more coherent, more transparent, and more capable of making sound decisions in the future.
Litigation may sometimes be unavoidable. But when it becomes frequent, it should trigger reflection, not recognition.
...
2 replies by Akin Fadare and Albert Pita
Mar 30, 2026 1:31 PM
Akin Fadare
...
Thank you Luis Branco. Your submission is thoughtful and I learned a lot from it. I agree that frequent litigation is a red flag and can damage an organization’s reputation. At the same time, the longer we operate in the consulting space, the more likely we are to encounter disputes. In many cases, as Keith Novak pointed out, these can be constructive rather than purely negative. At some stage in a professional career, litigation can be difficult to avoid, whether due to project complexity or gaps that only become visible during execution. Thanks again, Luis, for sharing your perspective.
I would say that it depends on the nature of the lawsuits. Facing multiple suits for unethical behavior would strike me as a big red flag.
On the other hand, I was involved in a patent dispute that lasted multiple years over a new technology where another company tried to claim our invention as their own. I looked at that dispute as a badge of honor for two reasons:
1) It was both innovative and valuable enough that someone was willing to spend significant legal fees to try and claim our intellectual property as their own. I look at that as the sign of a solid invention.
2) Every time we re-submitted our patent with edits based on the ongoing dispute, I received a very nice cash award in the mail from my employer. I was actually disappointed when we finally won and were granted the patent. I got a nice plaque to hang on my wall, but that was the end of finding random cash awards in my mailbox. :-) Saving Changes...
That’s a thoughtful and important question, especially for how we define professional excellence in project consulting.
I understand where the idea comes from. Complex, high-stakes environments do increase exposure to conflict, and consultants working at that level inevitably operate closer to legal and contractual tension. In that sense, litigation can signal proximity to complexity, scale, and pressure.
However, treating litigation as a “badge of honor” risks normalizing what should remain an exception, not a measure of excellence.
From a governance perspective, recurring litigation is rarely a sign of distinction. More often, it is a signal worth examining. It may reveal misaligned expectations, weak contracting, unclear decision rights, or insufficient stakeholder engagement. In other words, it often points to gaps in the architecture of decision and accountability.
For me, the true “badge of honor” sits elsewhere.
It is the ability to operate in complex environments and still reduce the likelihood of conflict through clarity, transparency, and disciplined decision-making. It is creating conditions where difficult trade-offs are surfaced early, where stakeholders are genuinely consulted, and where decisions are both robust and ethically grounded.
A strong consultant is not the one who survives disputes, but the one who designs systems where disputes are less likely to escalate.
Because in the end, litigation is not a signal of mastery. It is often a signal that the system of decisions failed somewhere upstream.
In today’s context, with increasing complexity, multi-stakeholder environments, and AI-augmented work, this becomes even more critical. The role of the consultant is evolving from delivery expert to designer of decision environments and steward of trust.
So perhaps the real “badge of honor” is this:
Consistently delivering outcomes that create real value, while preserving trust, strengthening relationships, and leaving behind systems that are more coherent, more transparent, and more capable of making sound decisions in the future.
Litigation may sometimes be unavoidable. But when it becomes frequent, it should trigger reflection, not recognition.
Thank you Luis Branco. Your submission is thoughtful and I learned a lot from it. I agree that frequent litigation is a red flag and can damage an organization’s reputation. At the same time, the longer we operate in the consulting space, the more likely we are to encounter disputes. In many cases, as Keith Novak pointed out, these can be constructive rather than purely negative. At some stage in a professional career, litigation can be difficult to avoid, whether due to project complexity or gaps that only become visible during execution. Thanks again, Luis, for sharing your perspective. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
I wouldn’t see litigation as a badge of honor. Being involved in complex projects can increase the chances of disputes, but if it becomes frequent, it’s usually a signal that something isn’t working, contracts, expectations, or stakeholder alignment.
The real “badge of honor” is delivering in complex environments while maintaining trust, clarity, and alignment. Avoiding unnecessary conflict is a stronger sign of maturity than navigating it repeatedly.
Litigation is not a badge of honor; it often reflects gaps in risk management, communication, or stakeholder alignment. A true badge of honor for a consultant is delivering successful projects, building trust, and preventing issues before they escalate. Real success is measured by impact, not conflicts. Saving Changes...
Albert PitaProject Management Professional | Government Operations & Community
Programs| Tampa Bay, United States
Mar 28, 2026 11:42 AM
Replying to Luis Branco
...
That’s a thoughtful and important question, especially for how we define professional excellence in project consulting.
I understand where the idea comes from. Complex, high-stakes environments do increase exposure to conflict, and consultants working at that level inevitably operate closer to legal and contractual tension. In that sense, litigation can signal proximity to complexity, scale, and pressure.
However, treating litigation as a “badge of honor” risks normalizing what should remain an exception, not a measure of excellence.
From a governance perspective, recurring litigation is rarely a sign of distinction. More often, it is a signal worth examining. It may reveal misaligned expectations, weak contracting, unclear decision rights, or insufficient stakeholder engagement. In other words, it often points to gaps in the architecture of decision and accountability.
For me, the true “badge of honor” sits elsewhere.
It is the ability to operate in complex environments and still reduce the likelihood of conflict through clarity, transparency, and disciplined decision-making. It is creating conditions where difficult trade-offs are surfaced early, where stakeholders are genuinely consulted, and where decisions are both robust and ethically grounded.
A strong consultant is not the one who survives disputes, but the one who designs systems where disputes are less likely to escalate.
Because in the end, litigation is not a signal of mastery. It is often a signal that the system of decisions failed somewhere upstream.
In today’s context, with increasing complexity, multi-stakeholder environments, and AI-augmented work, this becomes even more critical. The role of the consultant is evolving from delivery expert to designer of decision environments and steward of trust.
So perhaps the real “badge of honor” is this:
Consistently delivering outcomes that create real value, while preserving trust, strengthening relationships, and leaving behind systems that are more coherent, more transparent, and more capable of making sound decisions in the future.
Litigation may sometimes be unavoidable. But when it becomes frequent, it should trigger reflection, not recognition.
Community Champion
