A new study claims legal secretaries are one of the most at-risk professions from automation… International firm appoints new employment head in Hong Kong… Publicly-listed law firm sees 32 per cent surge in profit… Is this the new ‘magic’ circle?
Legal secretaries among most at risk from automation
Legal secretaries are one of the most at-risk professions from automation according to a study by Oxford University and Deloitte. The analysis of a wide range of jobs from entertainer to nurse ranks legal secretary as the third most likely job to be replaced with automation behind telephone sales person and typist/keyboard operator. Legal secretary roles face a 97.6 per cent risk of being automated.
Elsewhere in the ‘legal associate professional’ ranks 137th out of 366 occupations with a 66 per cent chance of being replaced by automation while ‘legal professional other’ is deemed quite unlikely of being replaced; ranking 320th with a 3 per cent risk of being automated.
Overall, roles which involve creativity and empathy are less likely to be automated, while those which involve repetitive processes or those that are tightly structured are more at risk.
International firm appoints new employment head in Hong Kong
Eversheds has appointed a new head of its employment practice in Hong Kong. Jennifer van Dale joins the firm as partner from Gall’s where she held a similar role. She was previously head of the employment practice for Baker & McKenzie.
Publicly-listed law firm sees 32 per cent surge in profit
The UK’s first publicly-listed law firm has seen a rise in pre-tax profit of 32 per cent in its first accounts since its floatation. Gateley’s results do not reflect the PLC status though as they are for the year to April 2015 and the firm did not list on the stock exchange until June. However the growth in revenue, up 11.5 per cent to the equivalent of AU$122 million, bodes well for the firm’s growth plans which include international expansion.
Is this the new ‘magic’ circle?
Defence lawyers have been asked to consider some of the most famous cases in history, with a twist. Readers of Reddit.com have asked lawyers to opine on the villains featured in the magical Disney movies and how they would defend them if they were to stand trial. Among the most popular answer was the case of Captain Hook, who despite being a pirate and certainly guilty of some illegal and reprehensible behaviour, would seem to have mitigating evidence in his favour as detailed in this response:
"Captain Hook was provoked by Mr. Pan. His hand being fed to a crocodile and forever haunted by the ticking of said crocodile who proceeded to stalk him for years caused an understandable hole in my clients reasoning. Peter Pan and his "lost boys" victimized my clients for years before he finally lashed out in self defense."
Clearly some defence lawyers have plenty of free time!
