Why I hate "practicing law"

No, not the career. The phrase.

Why do we say that we "practice" law? It has a connotation that we need to practice before we get any good. "Keep practicing, counselor. You'll get there." (As in "Carnegie Hall," as the old joke goes.)

But my problem with "practicing law" is more serious than that. I think the use of the term subtly affects what we as lawyers think we should be doing. Let's see what my dictionary (the New Oxford American Dictionary, the very best) says:

verb [ trans. ] ( Brit. practise)

1. perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to improve or maintain one's proficiency : I need to practice my French | [ intrans. ] they were practicing for the Olympics.

2. carry out or perform (a particular activity, method, or custom) habitually or regularly : we still practice some of these rituals today.

Here's where my problem is. "Performing an activity repeatedly or regularly ..." "Carrying out an activity habitually ..." And how about that use of the word rituals?

The way we describe to the world what we do is with these words that connote that we keep doing the same old thing. And that fits in perfectly with the nature of most lawyers. Precedent. Tradition. These are the watchwords of our profession.

But no one else "practices" in the business world. They innovate. Or they go out of business. The same is true for lawyers; we just don't like to talk about it. So we cling to our 1919 business model based on timesheets, like we used to cling to powdered wigs. Like we still cling to fax machines and bike messengers.

We need to stop "practicing" and start innovating, or those rituals we perform will soon become unnecessary and extinct.

What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Think I'm picking nits, or am I on to something serious? Shout out in the comments below.