Fair enough, but a thorough look at the economics of law firms still requires an understanding of in-house counsel. I believe that your blog would be enhanced by some examination of in-house dynamics, for many reasons. Off the top of my head, here are three: 1. In-house lawyers are the point of contact with the most valuable clients that the most profitable law firms have. Do most law firms, even on bet-the-company cases, mostly deal directly with the CEO, or the GC or Deputy GC? An understanding of what in-house departments want and need is crucial. And surely economic analysis could be helpful in determining how an in-house deartment is likely to behave, and what it looks for when it hires outside lawyers. 2. In-house law firms have had and may have an interesting role in the rise of women in the legal profession. That is, I believe (based on anecdotal evidence and some minimal Westlaw searching) that women are better represented in the higher ranks of in-house departments than they are in the higher ranks of law firms. Examining why this is so -- and what effect it might have on law firms, who are constantly trying to charm and win business from in-house departments -- could illuminate a good deal about the dynamics of the law biz. A trivial example: today law firms would be foolish not to bring along at least one woman to any pitch meeting. Was this the case fifteen years ago? I doubt it. 3. Should law firms have their *own* general counsel? In what other industry would a business with a few hundred million dollars in revenue not have a designated general counsel? Heck, I haven't checked, but I would not be surprised if even some of the firms with a billion dollars in revenue don't have general counsel. This is interesting -- to me, at least -- and I'd love to hear your musings on the matter.