header-logo header-logo

23 June 2023
Issue: 8030 / Categories: Legal News , Technology , Profession , Legal aid focus
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Future law tech, access to justice & the need for humans

127514
NLJ columnist Roger Smith reviews legal technology specialist Professor Richard Susskind’s latest book through an access to justice lens, in this week’s issue.

Professor Susskind (pictured), who predicted the rise of lawtech, recently published the third edition of Tomorrow’s Lawyers: An Introduction to your Future (Oxford University Press, 2023). In his review, Smith praises his ‘engaging, polemical and interesting’ work, but notes that, on the issue of widening access to justice, ‘his analysis proceeds at such speed that some problems are overlooked or oversimplified’.

Smith draws conclusions on the question of whether the advice sector and civil legal aid will need fewer lawyers in future—read more here.

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