10 key takeaways from our legal innovation debate

10 key takeaways from our legal innovation debate

Will the legal profession ever see genuine disruption or will it always be evolutionary? This was the question posed to our six panellists: Andrew Cheung, Dana Denis-Smith, Rob Dinning, Matthew Kellett, Kishore Sengupta and Isabel Parker. During the course of the evening, the two teams went head to head in a competitive battle of words and clever arguments, where only one would be victorious.

You can now read our full report here: Evolution v Revolution.

At the end of the debate, the evolution team won over the audience by attaining 55% of the vote. An online social media poll that we ran at the same time gave a similar response of 60% favouring the evolution argument.

Here are some of the highlights (in no particular order).

  1. Dana Denis-Smith urged us to be the radicals of today. Asserting that to be disruptive is to be brave and that right now we have an opportunity of a lifetime to reshape the profession for future generations. Radical change is what the industry needs – new delivery models, inclusivity and greater diversity within the profession.

  1. Rob Dinning put forward the argument that proactive organizations look for, and monitor, their horizons to look for signals of change and adapt accordingly. Reactive organisations,

Related Articles:
Latest Articles:

Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.

Read full article

Already a subscriber? Login

About the author:
Sarah Plaka is Editor of Halsbury’s Law Exchange and Future of Law blog. She is Communications Manager at LexisNexis, specialising in corporate communications, content marketing, digital cultures and legal reform.