So how did you come to acquire this particular airframe?

Well, I didn't go looking for an Anson, but it had been advertised, um, you know, for quite a while, and it looked pretty terrible in the, in the advertising photos.

It had been painted up for a movie about the MacRobertson Air Race, the 1934 air race from Melbourne all to, um, Australia.

So, and it was representing Roscoe Turner's Boeing 247, so it had Bo- you know, it had Boeing sort of badges all over it.

And all Roscoe Turner's sort of, I think you call it the, the, the Comet.

So it had a big sort of lightning flash on the side and, and the, um, Nip 'n' Tuck painted on the cowlings, which put the, the names he'd given to the engines on the thing, on the Boeing.

Anyway, it had languished in this museum at a place called Wangaratta in, which is about three hours drive north of Melbourne.

What was the hardest part, component or, or indeed any other problem to actually overcome?

Bill, you want to kick us off?

Sure.

So we have a lot of incredible content this year, crammed into the two days of the summit.

Part of the design of the summit is that we have a series of four workshops that are intended for the teams to come to the summit with their challenges, work on those challenges throughout the summit, and then leave with solutions and solution directions.

We're really looking at those tangible challenges.

actionable items that you can leave summit with and be able to go back and address your challenges in innovation and product development.

There's also value obviously for individuals to attend because during these workshops we'll have teams that come but individuals that come and you'll be able to gain key insights from peers and experts to help solve your challenges and Then we have a couple of examples.

Bill, can you give us some more insights about how PDMA came about, how it got started?

Where do you think, then, law schools are failing students most when it comes to showing them what real trial career can look like before they're path effectively set?

I think law schools in the, and again, in the US, and I know the, the system in the UK does involve the apprenticeship component, and I, and I honestly think an apprenticeship component to US legal education would be a huge step forward.

So in some respects, I think that the UK system, as I understand it, is a little less subject to the conveyor belt as described in my book.

But in the US, you have a bunch of law professors who've never lived in the real world running these law schools that are purely academic, doctrinal, um, paths to learning law, which undeniably lawyers need to know the law.

I'm not disputing [laughs] the concept.

Um, but when it comes time to figuring out career paths, the law schools seem to defer in large part to Big Law and allow them to dictate the timing of on-campus interviews, um, the structure of the offers made, and we now have this concept of the, I think it's called the jumbo offer or whatever it is.

So Big Law has now moved on-campus interviews to mid first year of a law student's three-year post-graduate career in the US, and then they offer these jumbo offers that essentially require a given student to commit solely and exclusively to a single law firm, which deprives them of the ability to do what I think the English apprenticeship, uh, system allows, which is the ability to sample a number of different career paths to decide which one is right for you.

So I just want you to sort of think back to three skills that you believe you have that have made you the successful lawyer you are today, and in light of the AI revolution that we live in, which of those three skills, if any, you think is going to be absolutely still needed of high value? And are there any additional ones you would drop or replace to have three s- key skills of the future?