I think it's simply that the blog author and commentators have an unrealistic threat model when it comes to how the legal profession uses MD5s.
After the first high-profile case where authenticity of evidence gets called into question because a seized electronic document was deliberately doctored to allow for a hash collision (if that ever happens), there will be a will to change to something new.
After the first high-profile case where authenticity of evidence gets called into question because a seized electronic document was deliberately doctored to allow for a hash collision (if that ever happens), there will be a will to change to something new.