I mean, a few decades ago people would've said the same thing about the idea that gargantuan auto companies are not eternal.
Yes, because GM has been replaced by mom and pop auto manufacturers. My point is that the nature of certain practice areas is that they require the resources a large firm can provide. Individual auto companies are certainly not eternal, but the nature of manufacturing cars is that it requires a very large company to do economically.
I'm not saying the Cravath model will exist for evermore. All I'm saying is that as long as there are fortune 500 companies and billion dollar mergers there will be biglaw in some shape or form.
(admittedly limited) auto industry analogies aside, the point I found myself objecting to was the implication that predictions of the death of biglaw are as "absurd" as predictions of the death of capitalism. There are plenty of capitalistic economies that do not have legal firms operating on the scale of US biglaw. In fact, there is no other capitalistic economy (including that of GB) where law firms operate on that scale. Toyota and VW were both mentioned in a different context, but it's worth noting that neither Japan nor Germany has law firms operating on anything approaching the scale of US big law. These are the world's second and third largest economies, respectively.
The concept of "biglaw" as it existed in bush and Clinton eras is not eternal, nor is it any more inherent in a capitalistic economy as are large automotive companies or enormous investment banks. The fact is that the US economy has operated, at various times, without any of these institutions and would likely be able to do so again in the future.
I think the suggestion that this would be impossible is pretty wrong-headed.