header-logo header-logo

09 June 2021
Issue: 7936 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Technology , Legal services , Climate change litigation
printer mail-detail

Law Society's predictions for 2030

By 2030, developing countries will provide 97% of global growth, four-fifths of the global population will have a digital identity, artificial intelligence will become so trusted that it gets a vote on the board, and 85% of jobs don’t currently exist. 

That’s according to the first wave of results from the Law Society’s Future Worlds 2050 project, which looked at future client expectations and legal business models in the decade up to 2030.

Other predictions included that green energy will create opportunities, legal advice will be needed on green investment, and there may be climate litigation against corporations and governments.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Jordan Wallace

Thomson Hayton Winkley strengthens family law team

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Ward Hadaway—Barnaby Rosenthall

Construction lawyer returns to Ward Hadaway in Teesside role

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird & Bird—Shahin Baghaei

Bird Bird hires leading legal transformation expert

NEWS
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

How forcefully can a litigant criticise a public authority before robust advocacy crosses the line into unreasonable conduct? 
back-to-top-scroll