Report comment

Prof Susskind makes a good argument. What my old Jurisprudence professor would have called 'internally consistent'. His polite way of saying not particularly sound in the real world. Is his crystal ball any better than mine (standard Law Society issue - never worked from Day 1) - somehow I doubt it.
YET as a profession we ignore what he says at our peril. If the practice of the law teaches us anything it is that the one thing you don't prepare for is precisely what happens. That is not an argument for failing to prepare against anything. Its a risk, flag it, deal with it.
Whilst (as usual) his language is stark and headline-grabbing, what he is actually saying is " I think you really ought to think about this people" Don't get too literal about the technological examples. As anyone out there reading the runes or divining the legal entrails will tell you our old comfortable familiar delivery mechanisms for legal services are slipping quietly into a peaceful pleasant backwater where I am sure many will happily trade out their days.
We all have a choice - maximise such opportunity as this presents, or let it pass by. The latter may be a product of simply not having the funds to afford to keep up with the technology; but like it or lump it, we ain't seen nothing yet!
Me? I have enough scars from the cutting edge. I shall happily pass the baton to the next generation, and try not to be like the 'Oldest Member', sitting in the corner with the occasional sharp intake of breath and such useful comments as "Tried that in 1983 and it didn't work."
Times change - exponentially.