The ubiquity of IT and societal change: I don't think it will change much. Some people, just as before, will be cautious about what they put in writing, be it emails, memoranda, or letters, or say on the phone or in public and others will be cavalier, reckless, or unconcerned with what gets out. Loose talk in a bar can be just as dangerous as a phone tap under the right circumstances.
What I've learned about the earliest discernable roots of history and culture: Not much in any academic or systematic way. I remain amazed at archeological remains I've had a chance to see such as the palace at Knossos and Greek antiquities which I just got another look at on a cruise in the Adriatic. Then there are the Native American ruins, some right here in Illinois, or the prehistoric structure outside of Dublin, and the like. I mentioned Fraser's, "The Golden Bough" and there are other studies of religious practice and mythology that suggest a remarkable degree of societal organization within our species from very early times as well as some themes of belief or speculation among distinct cultures that show a sort of commonality of thought, instinctive or otherwise, that seem to arise from simply being human. Like I said, no doctoral thesis is likely to be forthcoming.
Law firm anthropology: Not much different than the anthropology of other groups. There are some with rigid cultures similar to those of corporations and others that are quite flexible. The underlying reality, as in most economic organizations, is that you eat what you kill. Obviously I'm talking about compensation here. However, money isn't everything. Many lawyers are motivated by a commitment to the law itself and to particular interests for which they prefer to advocate. They can make a respectable living but will never likely be on the top of the heap financially. The big firm phenomenon really represents a small portion of the profession.
As to relationships among lawyers, staff, court officials, judges, etc., there are as many variations as there are personalities. Having been a civil trial lawyer my entire career, I have formed definite impressions about what works and what doesn't. Others may well disagree. My view is that arrogance is counter productive and that juries and judges respect candor and respectful interaction among lawyers and witnesses. I have a great deal of respect for the intelligence and common sense of juries (unlike many in our society.) My personal experience is that while I've had juries with whom I've disagreed, I've never had one that I thought was unfair. As an interesting side note on that point, in my jurisdiction it is common for plaintiff's lawyers to file cases without jury demands because they know that the defense lawyers will file a jury demand. It saves the plaintiff's attorney the fee for filing. The point, however, is that the defense lawyers want a jury. The same point pertains to relationships within firms. My experience is that people respond to respect be they secretaries, paralegals, associate attorneys or partners.
Scrap books of ancestors: Not scrap books per se but old photographs, some collected writings and the like. Noting similarities in features is always interesting. On one side of my family, there are some notable facial features that suggest a Native American in there somewhere and that was the family mythology as well. My grandmother refused to discuss it. It's probably true.
Like me thinking about my ancestors, I suspect my descendants will have enough information about me to have a picture of what I was sort of like but will wonder about how I felt about my life experiences as I was having them and what the sensations attendant those experiences might have been. I doubt that the electronic gadgetry of our age will change that experience for them inasmuch as we don't do a lot of recording of our lives (videotapes, etc.) as some do so they'll have to figure it out from old photgraphs and random writings just as I have.
