Despite our technical requirements making us able to do so, as a matter of competence, lawyers must refrain from practicing beyond their scope of practice.
We cannot, for example, do a murder trial one day, and then draft a will with complicated tax implication the following week. We cannot negotiate a messy settlement in family law, only to then turn around and create subsidiary corporations for a construction company.
As a profession, we cannot continue to perpetuate the notion that there is no legal problem too big, small, obscure, or broad for us to competently address. To be fair, many of us self-regulate to ensure we do not go beyond our expertise but this does little to ensure competence is delivered and the public is adequalty protected from unscrupoulous lawyers who do.
Therefore, in the age of hyper-specialization in all areas of professions, we are left with a choice: do we continue to perpetuate the archaic notion of a Lawyer for All Seasons, or do we embrace the model of hyper-specialists who earn varying degrees of recognized competence?
Generality is not a virtue in any market, especially when that generality is creeping closer to what non-qualified members of the public can achieve on their own with the assistance of the internet. We cannot, as individuals, leave our options open in perpetuity to the manner of law we wish to practice or the cases we accept. We either specialize, or we die as a profession.