In his article, Paul Caron discusses the future of lawyers in the age of rapidly advancing technologies such as Watson Esq. He remarks on the Legal Innovation Summit hosted by Thomas Reuters, in which Reuters assured that technology like Watson is meant to help, not replace, lawyers. However, Caron continuously emphasizes, “the law does not exist to keep lawyers employed”, but for the time being, it seems as though US lawyers will be fine for the foreseeable future.

The article begins as follows:

The law does not exist for the purpose of keeping lawyers employed. I cribbed that line—and many others—from Richard Susskind back in the days when there was still a question mark punctuating The End of Lawyers?

I think it is fair to say that Susskind has gotten past the interrogative. In his latest book, The Future of the Professions, he and his son, Daniel, write “we foresee that, in the end, the traditional professions will be dismantled, leaving most (but not all) professionals to be replaced by less expert people and high-performing systems.” …

This is the point where I lose my lawyer, technologist, and futurist cards by admitting something: I have no idea what is going to happen or when. Though by no means an expert, I do what I can to keep up on the literature. But there is little consensus in the literature. Many authors—Robert J. Gordon, David A. Mindell, Tyler Cowen, Erik Brynjolfsson, Martin Ford—make divergent, compelling cases without being completely convincing if only because prediction is hard, especially about the future.

Find the article here

Posted by Pooja Shivaprasad, Associate Editor, Wealth Strategies Journal