This age of instant communication has created an expectation of immediate response across all aspects of our lives. We assume the speed of reply should match the ease of sending a message: quick, fast, immediate. While such expectations might be manageable (though still unreasonable) for casual conversations, they become dangerous—even reckless—for professional queries or requests.

Professional responses inherently demand attention, study, understanding, and thoughtful consideration, all of which require time. This creates an unavoidable delay to any considered response. Attempts to eradicate delay inevitably result in a corresponding erosion of quality. There is only so much we can do to hasten the process of contemplation—we cannot consciously tune our synapses to fire quicker or exponentially increase our neural connections.

Notwithstanding these biological limitations, we can improve our response process by learning to recognize patterns in situations, relationships, and forces, and by knowing different ways of approaching them. This is where mental models become invaluable tools for professionals, particularly like law where considered judgment is essential.

A mental model is a cognitive tool that describes a truth about the world based on confirmed human experiences. These models function like lenses, giving us frameworks to examine problems from different angles. The more lenses we use, the wider we can see and the more perspectives we can bring to bear on a situation.

Charlie Munger, business partner of renowned investor Warren Buffet, emphasizes that to think efficiently and powerfully, we need a “latticework of mental models.” As he explains:

“Well, the first rule is that you can’t really know anything if you just remember isolated facts and try and bang ’em back. If the facts don’t hang together on a latticework of theory, you don’t have them in a usable form. You’ve got to have models in your head. And you’ve got to array your experience both vicarious and direct on this latticework of models. You may have noticed students who just try to remember and pound back what is remembered. Well, they fail in school and in life. You’ve got to hang experience on a latticework of models in your head.”

Though there are hundreds of mental models, Munger suggests that 80-90 of them tend to be used most frequently and are worth knowing. They operate not in isolation but cohesively and more powerfully when combined.

As an introduction to these models, let’s examine one particularly relevant to the legal profession: the Circle of Competence.

Competence represents knowledge gained through direct experience, deep study, and skills acquired through practice—what we know intimately and can deploy confidently. The circle boundary symbolizes our knowledge’s limits. As lawyers, we stay inside our circle of competency to remain close to what we know and are good at. When we step outside, negligence looms large for any misstep.

For example, a family law attorney consulted on a complex corporate tax matter might recognize the situation falls outside their Circle of Competence. Rather than providing hasty advice driven by time pressure, they might recommend a qualified tax specialist while helping the client understand the fundamental legal questions that need addressing. This approach preserves quality while still providing timely guidance.

Competence must be distinguished from the illusion of competence—those with seemingly impressive but ultimately superficial grasp, which lie beyond their actual circle. These individuals lack understanding and insight; they know the what but not the why or how. Yet they tend to be the loudest, most easily accessible, and flashiest.

In practice, distinguishing true competence from illusion is challenging but possible. Someone with genuine competency can likely figure out different or many ways to solve a problem. They are adaptable and can develop less obvious, complex, or counterintuitive solutions. The difference lies in possessing intimate knowledge of foundational concepts—something illusionists lack.

Since competency is embedded in humans, it is subject to entropy. Our acquired competency exists in a perpetual state of potential loss and must be constantly practiced and refined. This is why continuing professional development programs are vital to ensuring our profession remains competent, current, and continuously improving.

Can and should we step out of our circle of competence? Yes. Our circle of competence is also our comfort zone, and growth requires stepping beyond it to gain new competencies. However, we must appreciate that risks increase the further and quicker we venture from our established circle.

To mitigate these risks when expanding our competence:

Firstly, be humble and patient. Do not assume limited exposure is definitive of everything outside the circle.

Secondly, Speak to those already competent in your area of interest. Learn what they know, what to read, and where to look.

Thirdly, cultivate other mental models, building your latticework and clearning when and how to apply them.

Some might argue that modern technology and specialized tools eliminate the need for developing these cognitive frameworks. They might suggest that AI assistants, specialized software, or simply having a network of experts on call provides sufficient coverage outside our Circle of Competence.

While these resources are valuable, they cannot replace the fundamental understanding that mental models provide. Technology may help process information faster, but it cannot replicate a nuanced, discerning judgment formed through experience and a well-developed latticework of mental models. Tools may change, but the principles of sound thinking endure.

For example, consider a corporate lawyer faced with a time-sensitive merger. By applying mental models such as opportunity cost (economics), inversion (mathematics), and second-order thinking (systems), they might quickly identify potential regulatory hurdles others miss, despite tight deadlines. This pattern recognition allows for both speed and quality in their response.

Others might contend that specialization is more important than developing broad mental models. However, this view misunderstands the complementary nature of depth and breadth. Specialization without broader patterns of thinking creates fragility in one’s knowledge and reasoning abilities.

The tension between speed and quality in our responses won’t disappear—if anything, it will intensify as communications continue to accelerate. Rather than succumbing to dangerous expectations of instantaneous yet high-quality responses, we should invest in developing our cognitive toolkit.

The circle of competence is merely one mental model. I encourage acquainting ourselves with many more, particularly those that help us quickly recognize patterns and frameworks in our fast-paced environment. An excellent starting point is The Great Mental Models, a three-volume series published by Farnam Street, which compiles well known and helpful mental models from various domains.

By deliberately building this latticework of models, we can achieve something remarkable: responses that are both thoughtful and timely. We may never match the speed of digital communication, but we can develop the mental agility to grasp complex situations quicker without sacrificing the quality our profession demands.

Note: This essay was originally written for the Malacca Bar Committee. It was published in Re: Lex 2024/2025 Edition, the Malacca Bar Committees. I made minor revisions to the original version for this post on From the Bar Stool.