It’s fair to say that most law firms have not warmly welcomed the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s plans to overhaul the route to qualification. Many feared that the new Solicitors Qualifying Exam (SQE) was an unnecessary alternative to the gold-plated standard of the legal practice course and a ‘dumbed down’ alternative at that. They worried that the changes would restrict the pool of talented graduates entering the legal profession and enormously complicate recruitment. Despite these fears, however, there are some grounds for optimism.

Back in November, a survey showed that more than half of claimant personal injury (PI) law firms would be forced to shut down or look for other work if the government’s proposed reforms go through. Since then, the reforms were dropped, before being put back on the agenda after the election as part of the new Civil Liability Bill. The uncertainty surrounding this contentious issue has meant that, understandably, many firms operating within the PI sector are nervous about the future. The natural reaction from many has been to reduce spending across all areas of the firm to ensure reserves are significant enough to ride out the storm when it hits. But is this simply accepting defeat?

Once upon a time it was enough to know how to use a computer, then it was enough to know how to use a computer and the internet. But now, according to the vision of HM Courts and Tribunals Service and the Ministry of Justice, we also have to know how to use technology in order to solve our own legal problems and to go to court. What distinguishes current endeavors to digitize the courts and justice, from previous modernisation attempts during the Tony Blair years, is the adoption of a digital by default strategy. This is the same strategy that led to a mandatory telephone gateway for legal aid – an initiative that has resulted in fewer calls to the service.

Our aim is to start a discussion in the legal profession on the legal impact of algorithms on firms, software developers, insurers, and lawyers. In a longer paper, we consider whether algorithms should have a legal personality, an issue which will likely provoke an intense debate between those who believe in regulation and those who believe that ‘code is law’. In law, companies have the rights and obligations of a person. Algorithms are rapidly emerging as artificial persons: a legal entity that is not a human being but for certain purposes is legally considered to be a natural person. Intelligent algorithms will increasingly require formal training, testing, verification, certification, regulation, insurance, and status in law.

A recent Legal Futures article reported that the number complaints involving use of social media by barristers is increasing. The BSB have warned that “as social media and the internet become more prominent in our daily lives, there is an increasing need for barristers to be very careful about what they post whether in their professional or personal lives”. While inappropriate use of social media isn’t anything new, what struck me when reading that paragraph is that, for barristers, I would argue, there shouldn’t be a defining line between the personal and professional. As a barrister, you are your own USP, your personal brand is everything.