Purpose. The article addresses the problem of preserving the unity of the juridical profession amid its institutional differentiation. The author argues that the foundations of this unity lie not in the external attributes of the profession, but in the commonality of the method of juridical thinking, which, being unified (analysis, classification, construction), manifests itself differently in three cognitive positions: rule-thinking, decision-thinking, and ideal-thinking. Drawing on the interval approach and the concept of Punctum Archimedis, the study demonstrates that the differences between the types of thinking are not a rupture, but necessary projections of a single method onto three ways of resolving the fundamental conflict between factual behavior and normative requirement. The proposed model has practical significance for reconsidering the content of legal education. Methodology: the research is based on the interval approach, which allows describing the truth of knowledge within certain boundaries of abstraction, as well as on the author’s concept of Punctum Archimedis, which captures the irreducible extralogical leap from the actual to the normative. The typology of Juridical thinking was developed by the author in 2012–2015 and verified in subsequent publications. Conclusions. Juridical thinking is unified in its method (analysis, classification, construction), but differentiated into three types depending on the cognitive position of the subject. The three types of thinking correlate with the three modes of Punctum Archimedis (normal, pathological, crisis), forming a closed loop that ensures the development of the legal system. The unity of the profession is preserved not despite but because of this differentiation. Scientific and practical relevance. The proposed model makes it possible to rethink the content of juridical education, shifting the focus from sectoral dogmatics to the formation of a universal method of juridical thinking followed by specialization. The model also provides a diagnostic toolkit for analyzing crises of legitimacy and legal pathologies