Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 109 posts

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#11

Post by lettergram »

bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. My guess, is that by building software no one is really going to question the ethics... In one sense the legal system should be devoid of anything but facts. So as along as a machine doesn't intentionally falsify information (which idk how it could), then it's not unethical.

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#12

Post by pdabbadabba »

lettergram wrote: post #11
bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. My guess, is that by building software no one is really going to question the ethics... In one sense the legal system should be devoid of anything but facts. So as along as a machine doesn't intentionally falsify information (which idk how it could), then it's not unethical.

> Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal.

In the legal profession it sort of does. Lawyers are regularly fined or disbarred for violating ethics rules, and the ethics rules are typically enforced by the courts.

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#13

Post by bradleyjg »

lettergram wrote: post #11
bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. My guess, is that by building software no one is really going to question the ethics... In one sense the legal system should be devoid of anything but facts. So as along as a machine doesn't intentionally falsify information (which idk how it could), then it's not unethical.

I was using a term of art without being clear that's what I was doing.

"Unethical" as I was using it means in violation of the state bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Such violations aren't just a matter of being discourteous or something, they subject lawyers to professional sanctions up to and including being disbarred. As for non-lawyers, practicing law without a license is a crime in most states.

This is much more an issue of illegal than unethical in the colloquial sense of the word. My apologies for the confusion.

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#14

Post by AndrewKemendo »

bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

Seems like there is enough leeway in ABA rule 5.4 that they are probably covered, but I'll bet some people will contest it.

Augie is a great lawyer so I would be confident that he's thought through all of that.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#15

Post by torstenvl »

lettergram wrote: post #11
bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. My guess, is that by building software no one is really going to question the ethics... In one sense the legal system should be devoid of anything but facts. So as along as a machine doesn't intentionally falsify information (which idk how it could), then it's not unethical.

Please don't assert something as fact when you don't know what you're talking about.

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#16

Post by dsr_ »

bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Tit...

Rules 3.157 (A) A shareholder of a law corporation must be licensed and entitled to practice law.24

(B) The shares of a law corporation must be owned only by that corporation or a shareholder.25

Yeah, California prohibits this.

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#17

Post by bradleyjg »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #14
bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

Seems like there is enough leeway in ABA rule 5.4 that they are probably covered, but I'll bet some people will contest it. Augie is a great lawyer so I would be confident that he's thought through all of that. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

Where do you see any leeway in this?

(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

(1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration;

(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation ; or

(3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.

Re: Startup wants to build tools for lawyers to speed up legal services

#19

Post by justin »

bradleyjg wrote: post #9

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics…

We raised $10.5M for our legal technology company, Legal Technology Services (LTS). My cofounders of LTS who are lawyers, Augie Rakow and BeBe Chueh, started a firm called Atrium LLP. Atrium LLP is LTS' first customer, and allows us to reduce our development cycle on building that software. I am not a partner at Atrium LLP (and am not a lawyer, nor do I give legal advice).

It's a complex story that has been a little misinterpreted and simplified.

Post reply on HN