There are moments when insight arrives not through complex theory but through a single, ordinary sentence.

A colleague once described a cabinet that had been sitting in the middle of her living room for months. She knew where it ultimately belonged, but it was not yet “time” to move it. The wall had not been painted. The flooring had not been installed. There were, in her words, “a million reasons” why moving it would be premature.

So the cabinet stayed.

Its presence created a persistent, low-level strain. It obstructed movement through the room, prevented other items from being put away, and made the space more difficult to manage. What began as a temporary placement became both a functional barrier and a psychological one.

During a conversation, a friend offered a simple observation: “You know you can just move the cabinet.”

Not permanently. Not perfectly. Just move it.

And, if necessary, move it again.

This deceptively simple insight reflects a broader challenge frequently encountered in legal practice.

THE “CABINET PROBLEM” IN LEGAL PRACTICE

Attorneys are trained to think sequentially: Identify the issue, apply the rule, analyze, and conclude. They are also trained to anticipate risk, avoid error, and produce work that is both precise and defensible. These are essential professional competencies. However, in certain contexts, they can contribute to a form of functional paralysis.

Many lawyers encounter their own version of the “cabinet problem”:

• A file that cannot be started until it is fully organized
• A brief that cannot be drafted until all research is complete
• A workspace that cannot be rearranged until larger improvements are finished
• A personal health or time-management plan that cannot begin until conditions are ideal

In each instance, a step that is, in reality, movable is treated as though it were fixed because it is tied to a future, preferred state. The result is delay, accumulation of unfinished work, and increasing stress.

WHEN SOUND REASONING BECOMES A BARRIER

The difficulty in these situations is that the underlying reasoning is not flawed.

It is, in fact, logical to wait until flooring is installed before placing furniture.

It is logical to complete research before drafting a brief.

It is logical to prepare thoroughly before acting.

However, when such reasoning is applied rigidly, it can function less as guidance and more as a barrier to progress.

In the cabinet example, waiting for ideal conditions resulted in unintended consequences:

• Ongoing environmental stress
• Reduced usability of the space
• Additional friction in completing unrelated tasks

In legal practice, similar patterns may do the following:

• Delay forward movement on active matters
• Increase cognitive load across multiple cases
• Contribute to feelings of overwhelm and professional burnout

Perfectionistic thinking — prevalent in high-achieving professions, including law — has been linked to procrastination, increased stress, and diminished well-being.¹

FROM FINAL DECISIONS TO PROVISIONAL ACTIONS

The directive to “just move the cabinet” is not an argument against planning or professional standards. Rather, it highlights an important distinction between final decisions and provisional actions.

A significant portion of legal work is inherently iterative. Drafts are revised. Strategies evolve. Files are reorganized. Arguments are refined.

Despite this, attorneys often approach intermediate steps as though they must be executed once, correctly, and in final form.

Reframing these steps as provisional allows for progress:

• Drafting a brief with the expectation of revision
• Organizing a file with the understanding that it will change
• Adjusting a workspace without waiting for ideal conditions This shift does not reduce quality. Instead, it facilitates movement and reduces the psychological burden associated with initiating tasks.

COGNITIVE LOAD AND THE COST OF INCOMPLETION

From a psychological perspective, unfinished tasks are not neutral. Psychologists have long observed that incomplete activities tend to remain cognitively active — a phenomenon known as the Zeigarnik effect.²

In practice, this means that unresolved items continue to occupy attention, even when not actively being worked on. The cabinet in the middle of the room functions as a constant signal of incompletion.

Accumulated across multiple files, deadlines, and responsibilities, these “open loops” increase mental load and reduce available cognitive resources for focused work. Taking even a small, reversible action can begin to close these loops. Examples include the following:

• Producing a preliminary draft rather than waiting for ideal language
• Moving a file into active review status rather than allowing it to remain dormant
• Clearing a limited portion of a workspace rather than postponing action until a full reorganization is possible

Such actions do not complete the task. However, they reduce friction and create momentum.

THE ROLE OF PERMISSION IN PROFESSIONAL FUNCTIONING

Notably, the turning point in the cabinet example was not new information. It was permission.

“You can move it. And you can move it again.”

Within the legal profession, internalized standards — often reinforced by training, workplace expectations, and professional culture — can become rigid constraints. These constraints may not be externally imposed, but they nonetheless shape behavior.

Permission, whether external or internally generated, can disrupt this pattern. It allows attorneys to engage in iterative work without perceiving it as substandard.

This is not a lowering of expectations. It is a recognition that highquality work is often produced through a series of refinements rather than through a single, perfectly executed step.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION IN LEGAL PRACTICE

The “move the cabinet” principle can be operationalized through a structured approach:

1. Identify the obstruction
Determine what task, file, or condition is currently impeding progress.
2. Evaluate whether the constraint is real or assumed
Ask whether the step is truly irreversible or whether it can be modified later.
3. Take a provisional action
Initiate movement — draft, organize, or begin — without requiring completion.
4. Normalize iteration
Recognize that the initial action is part of a process, not a final product. This framework is applicable across practice settings, from litigation and transactional work to administrative and personal domains.

CONCLUSION

Legal practice demands accuracy, foresight, and discipline. It also requires adaptability.

Not every step must be final. Not every condition must be ideal before action is taken.

In many instances, progress is achieved not through comprehensive planning alone but through incremental, reversible action.

Sometimes, the most effective course is also the simplest:

Move the cabinet.

And, if necessary, move it again.