So, after all the back-pedalling when the legal profession didn't mutate into a commoditised, computer-controlled sausage machine in just ten years, the eminent Prof. now plays the Nostradamus card and says his prognostications will all come to pass long after he's dead. Big deal. The trouble is he doesn't explain how to create the intelligent systems that will replace the lawyers. I remember all to well how academia latched on to the concept of expert systems, explaining in hushed tones how they would replace doctors in the very near future. Spool forward 20 years and we've got the NHS Direct web site. Great if you've got a bit of a headache and want fuel your hypochondriac tendencies, but you still can't ask it to sew your leg back on. I'm happy to concede that intelligent systems of the type proposed might be around in 100 years time, but if so we'll have a much bigger set of social and economic challenges than a few out of work lawyers. (I'm thinking that maybe a cyborg Arnold Schwarzenegger will beam himself back in time to kill my mother before I can be born, for example). Confusing the argument by citing how the Internet has shaken up other business sectors doesn't really help either. Whilst selling fake Viagra online is far more profitable, efficient and less risky than selling snake oil from the back of a covered wagon, you can hardly call it a transformational business model. The Internet (and global communication in general) is turning the legal profession from a non-tradable job into a tradable one, but that's simply a matter of where and how cheaply the work can be done, not a fundamental shift in the nature of the profession. Still, it's nice to see academia displaying its green credentials by recycling unprovable theories into yet another lucrative book and lecture tour. Clearly this guy is in no danger of being thrown out on to the streets to live in penury, unlike all those dinosaur partners who will soon be kissing goodbye to their recently acquired million pound PEP status.