I count myself among those observers of, and participants in, the legal scene who initially subscribed to this explanation, but I’m coming to doubt whether I should have.

Not that the story isn’t true: Bingham’s practice mix has indeed included a relatively high proportion of such practices, compared to most firms. No, I mean something else, but something else that has perhaps even more portentous overtones for our industry.

Let’s back up. “Countercyclical” is, in the abstract, no better or worse than “pro-cyclical;” it’s just the obverse. Many firms would deem it prudent to configure themselves pro-cyclically, assuming the overall trajectory of the global economy is growth and not contraction or stasis. My point is, I hope, not obscure. Every firm, counter- or pro-cyclical, will experience years when its configuration and that of the relevant economy are out of sync. As J.P. Morgan famously observed when asked what would be the future course of the market, “It will fluctuate.”

So every law firm, particularly in a “growth is dead” world, needs to expect down or disappointing years.

My worry—and the potential portent for us all—that Bingham raises is whether we are all built of stout enough stuff to withstand a bad year. Or two, or three. I worry, in other words, that too many of us may have become so short-term oriented that our firms and our leaderships are losing their room for error. And it’s not even “error” they need room for.

They simply need room to breathe, to stand back, regroup, reassess, make a midcourse correction, and proceed on to ever greater strength. Too many of us seem not to want to give it to them.

Finally: This is positively odd on our part. Odd because the vast bulk of the economy does not operate on an assumption of uninterrupted linear triumph upon triumph. Most new consumer products fail. Most startups fail. Most mergers underdeliver on expected benefits. Nevertheless, many new products (the iPhone, obviously, but also far more humble newcomers such as Swiffer, Greek yogurt, or even suitcases with wheels) vastly improve the quality of life for customers. Succcessful startups are the stuff of legend. Mergers can be an inordinately valuable strategic tool.

But we think we’re different. We think our firms can never disappoint, that the upward-right-trending trajectory is a law of mathematics, that the second derivative in Law Land economics can always and only have a non-negative value.

I ask you, then, to ponder this: If you experience recalcitrant behavior by reality, if it refuses to conform to your expectation of linearly increasing grandeur in your corner of the world, what is it that’s truly at odds with the way the world in general works? The non-magical world of law firm economics, or your privileged world view?

Let me amend that. For the sake of your firm and your partners, I don’t want to ask you to ponder that. I implore you.