Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

21–30 of 109 posts

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

#21

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…

[deleted]

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

#22

In a world where AI actually replaces or augments white collar professions, how does liability play out? Will the ability to sue for or defend against malfeasance depend upon an opaque box of algorithmic litigation?

This is a really important question. I wonder how insurance companies would price this as well. If the machines have access to all written legal data then are they allowed to pick and choose which information they include in their legal good or legal service? Will machines ultimately be depended on to develop laws which could then benefit the machines over the humans?

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

#23
I like the fee structure!

However, I'm curious how they measure and ensure quality in their work. It seems like the fee structure (fixed bids) will incent them to reduce the time spent on work, which could be good or could be bad, depending on the answer to that question.

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

#24
post #19

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…

Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot more sense than how the story was portrayed in the Post.

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

#25
Talking to the title for a second - (what they are actually doing seems quite different.)

This is funny, I think we might be underestimating the recalcitrance of human beings, and negentropic characteristics of life itself. (to say nothing of lawyers). After all there are still people operating the barriers at parking structures where I park in the morning, and they certainly cost more than a robot...

It seems that behind the recurrent question of automation and the anticipate crisis of salaried employment is a question of entropy and negentropy, not of autonomy and automaticity.

Law is distinctly negentropic and so is not the best candidate. Avoiding legal recourse would be a different matter ...

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

#26
Headline is a little misleading. We started LTS, our legal tech company, with the goal of helping lawyers provide legal services to startups in a more speedy, transparent and price predicable way. To us, that means building tools that lawyers use, and not creating the Uber of lawyers or a master AI that replaces lawyers (I don't think the latter is possible right now).

Atrium, the law firm founded by two of my LTS cofounders, is putting that software to use to help startups now.

We are hiring engineers (http://atriumlts.com). Some reasons to join: learn from experienced founders who have done it before, and you can build on short iterations for a customer that's very thankful and you can just walk over and talk to.

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

#27
I'm wondering what kind of legal tasks they cover for poor startups. Incorporation and whatnot is mostly automated , trivial and inexpensive but if they can help out with lawsuits, patent, trademarks, and general legal inquiries in an innovative way, it'd be awesome, as those cost a fortune.

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

#28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are a lot of ways to structure things that would fall into one of those exemptions.

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

#30
post #26

Headline is a little misleading. We started LTS, our legal tech company, with the goal of helping lawyers provide legal services to startups in a more speedy, transparent and price predicable way. To us, that means building tools that lawyers use, and not creating the Uber of lawyers or a master AI that replaces lawyers (I don't think the latter is possible right now). Atrium, the law firm founded by two of my LTS co…

Headlines are almost guaranteed to be misleading. That's why I click on the comments before the article. Sensationalism should not be rewarded.
Post reply on HN