Chapter 7 is the final concluding chapter of the book, which draws together the various theoretical, empirical and normative arguments to make a case for why the CoP needs to be reimagined to better secure access to justice for those affected by its decisions. In short, the concluding chapter argues for a reimagined CoP in which the subject of proceedings is at the centre of its processes and institutional practices at every stage. Such a reimagining ought to be viewed as a mechanism through which to better secure access to the knowledge, expertise and forum in which to secure justice for the embodied subject of CoP proceedings. The chapter concludes by urging those who work in the CoP to think about how their own practices might be more attentive to the issues raised and to facilitate the subject of proceedings to give voice, participate in and shape the proceedings.

Chapter 6 is the final empirical chapter, exploring the role of the courtroom space and design in access to justice in the CoP. The chapter starts with a critical understanding and analysis of the materiality of the court space before exploring the differences from my observations of the physical and virtual CoP. The chapter concludes with a look to the future of the CoP’s design, suggesting ways that relevant stakeholders might continue this imaginative and practical analysis process to reimagine the CoP in ways that better secure access to justice for the Person.

The Innovation Pyramid is an inverted triangular pyramid. The methodology for creating impactful solutions to real problems separates the innovation's design from its execution. It further bifurcates design into identifying the real problem before crafting a solution to it. Execution is similarly bifurcated into execution planning and implementation. The four stacked levels of The Innovation Pyramid, from top to bottom, represent Problem Identification, Solution Formulation, Planning and Implementation; two design stages followed by two execution stages. The Pyramid has three faces. These three pyramid sections address three different aspects of designing and executing impactful solutions:

What: What is the desired outcome at that level?

How: How will this be accomplished or enabled?

Who: Who will lead the activities and/or is impacted by the outcome of this level?

This structure streamlines innovation creation as well as providing a structural means for diagnosing the cause of the variance between the actual and forecasted impact of the innovation. This diagnostic aspect is especially important when we may be traversing The Innovation Pyramid structure multiple times, once for say, prototype development, and a second time for the final product launch.

The lawyer of the future will exist as a ‘polytechnic’ or ‘many-skilled’ professional, applying their legal expertise to a client’s changing world in an increasingly agile way and within a range of organisational settings. For legal educators, there is a need to consider how education can best prepare future lawyers for this reality. The long view suggests that we should be looking to build core skills in legal, design and logic principles rather than learning specific technologies that may be rapidly superseded. But how can we develop these skills, and how we can balance the need to understand core academic principles of law against the need for applied, workplace experience? This chapter looks at the balancing process, focusing on the impact of changing roles in law firms and the demands of the in-house legal and law-advisory-organisation dynamic. It examines how legal education can instil within lawyers, both an understanding of the principles of law alongside an appreciation of the application of those principles in the workplace. It presents a vision of the roles and specialisations that are likely to emerge within the profession, and considers how the future work of lawyers will sit alongside alternative paths into the legal industry.