Many of my posts recount a law department practice. I rarely summon any theoretical framework because I cannot perceive for law department management any persuasive theories. No one has unified the field of managing in-house lawyers with fundamental principles that do not contradict at some point.
E=MC2 may someday also stand for Effectiveness = Mass (number of lawyers in a department) multiplied by the Speed of Thought Squared, but not now.
When Michael Shermer, Science Friction: Where the Known Meets the Unknown (Time Books 2005) at 71, states “Darwin’s Dictum” – extracted from a letter Darwin wrote in 1861 – I cringed for not complementing observations on this blog with some “view,” some larger theoretical construct (See my post of June 10, 2007: facts gathered depend on one’s theoretical understanding; Feb. 21, 2007: no “facts” without some theory and multiple explanations.). I wish I could advance over-arching theories, but, alas, such is not my gift, not yet.
My efforts on this blog have been a dog’s breakfast of theoretical thinking (See my post of June 6, 2006: mental models are closer to theories; Aug. 22, 2006: observations, trends and predictions; May 31, 2006: values underlie all management decisions; July 14, 2006: narratives, theories, and models; and Feb. 6, 2007: models of law departments.). Gradually, this chaotic and undisciplined field will lead to more synthetic thinking that pulls the strands together into broader insights.