Live data from Hacker News

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

washingtonpost.com

91–100 of 109 posts

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

#91
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the regulators aren't really being sold in the first place. They don't have the resources or willingness to stir up a hornet's nest if they can get away with it. Normally the key battle is in determining if the work in question falls within the definition of the practice of law. The more rote and mindless the work is (say, bates numbering a discovery compilation), the safer it is, but most of the lo…

Can you expand on the document classification etc - one would have thought that a large company would have all its contracts in one place / data room. For things like discovery etc I can see searching a gazillion emails is classification territory, but as you said that is mostly a done market? I am just wondering where this next wave really is going going

> one room

At scale, almost no one has a "room." Think about a mortgage bank or cell phone provider, or a car insurance company. Even if they tried to use 'a form', they have to manage hundreds of little details about millions of clients -- based on whatever version of the form was filled out, where they lived, where the product is used, has a deed or title been properly recorded, did the Supreme Court of State X strike down part of your agreement, has anyone sent a written complaint sufficient to trigger the Fair Credit Reporting Act, etc. We've all criticized big lenders who can't come up with proof at a hearing -- but that's because managing that much data is hard. Compliance/contract management software is still growing rapidly.

Second, another wave of tech for lawyers is taking huge databases of publicly-filed contracts, and suggesting clauses in agreements similar to yours. If 80% of compensation contracts filed by publicly traded companies say X, and your deal says Y, you'd like to know that.

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

#92
post #90
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, the regulators aren't really being sold in the first place. They don't have the resources or willingness to stir up a hornet's nest if they can get away with it. Normally the key battle is in determining if the work in question falls within the definition of the practice of law. The more rote and mindless the work is (say, bates numbering a discovery compilation), the safer it is, but most of the lo…

Agreed that this is happening; laundering is pejorative, but AFAICT, the Bar has said it's all kosher so long a lawyer is ultimately responsible for the advice and making the effort reasonable. So, for our friends at Atrium, whether or not their systems 'practice law,' as long as that product is 'given' by the client's attorney... doesn't that look like it meets the UPL hurdle? (At least at this oversimplified level,…

Depends on how the regulator interprets the bar on sharing billings with non-lawyers. Westlaw and Lexis have massive offerings that do a ton to make work easier, so there's obviously room to work with, but they aren't providing products that practice law. They provide tools to practice law with.

With ML-driven autonomous determinations of relevance, however, you're literally doing associate legal work 101, with a system applying skill and judgement to the facts of the matter to make a determination of a legal nature. That's a difference in kind. This becomes doubly interesting, because most of these platforms are cloud hosted, so they're not 'given' by the attorney in the way that a land registry look-up would be after being vetted by a clerk. They're a stand-alone service that functionally makes choices for you.

I have no clue if Atrium is going down that route, but that's where the million dollar cost savings are. Maybe they're just making snazzier client-focused billing software. I've asked before, but no one will tell me what products they're actually working on.

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

#93
post #32

> As anyone who has racked up legal fees due to lawyers’ mounting billable hours can attest, law firms remain almost surprisingly low-tech operations. That’s like saying programming remains surprisingly low tech because you walk into a tech company and everyone is hunched over an emacs window. Even at the fanciest Wall Street law firms, 10-20% of billed time is written off. The largest clients who get sued a lot are…

I wouldn't conflate fancy with sophisticated. Law firms are structurally insulated from market demands and are highly inefficient. They will often just throw people at problems better solved by technology and then pass those costs on to clients. There are a number of reasons for the lack of adoption:

- Almost all firms are LLPs where revenue is passed through to the partners. Investing in technology would take a direct cut out of that, and so even if it would make things more efficient, the partners would rather just make more money.

- Most lawyers bill by the hour. There is a disincentive to invest in technology at any area in the firm which would reduce the number of hours billed. Sure you can cut a fixed price deal, but that is a rarity. The places where law firms have invested in tech (e.g. search tools for e-discovery) are because it would be totally inexcusable to spend that much time on a problem or the clients demand it. For example, I have heard of law firms refusing to work with Dropbox or other cloud storage services, but that is very slowly starting to change.

- Law has been an industry that has been historically slow to adopt any technology, whether it be word processing in 80s, email in the 90s, or now automation. There are a number of reasons for this, from lawyers being in a very hierarchial practice where the partner determines the process and may not be tech saavy to lawyers in general being quite risk averse in order to avoid ethical issues. That industry regulation warps competitive forces just makes this more of a problem. Many law firms are silo'd under partners where the process and the tools used can vary widely.

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

#94

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…

I think the organization disclosed above fits into that exception so long as there is sufficient separation between the tech company and the law firm. Structuring the law firm as a customer of the tech company probably qualifies.

That said, I wouldn’t want to be putting my law license on the line for uncharted territory. Ethics enforcement can be really arbitrary.

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

#95
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick question: for jury selection, do trial lawyers used a statistically tested line of inquiry for prospective jurors, or is it just seat-of-the-pants, intuition based selection?

Somewhere in between. In many federal cases, there is little "picking" allowed. And where picking is allowed, it's mostly intuition. In large cases, jury consultants have typically been hired to use their intuition, with a scientific-sounding gloss, so the lawyers and corporate managers have someone to blame if something goes wrong. They were famous for proposing questions that were supposed to tip you off to somethi…

The crossword puzzle question as quoted could be a logical/grammatical trick-question, because most people who know they don't don't know though if any one of all of them does.

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

#96
While a lawyer-replacing AI may not be possible yet, it has to be possible to use some ML techniques to aid in the search of relevant legal records, laws, regulations, and so on. I think the world may not be ready for "Uber for Lawyers" but it certainly needs "Google for Lawyers".

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

#97

I hope this leads to a reduction in legal costs, especially for start ups that have been sued for frivolous patent law suits, by patent trolls.

I hope it goes beyond just reduced costs. Increase supply enough so that it outweighs the demand. Until that happens, the legal system will remain mostly a place where the deeper pockets win.

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

#98
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…

It'd probably be worthwhile to mention what your Errors & Omissions coverage limits are / will be / can be / etc to the buying public. It'd probably be worthwhile to ask what your D&O coverage might be by comparison. I mean, just apples to different colored apples being offered for sale.

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

#99
post #32

> As anyone who has racked up legal fees due to lawyers’ mounting billable hours can attest, law firms remain almost surprisingly low-tech operations. That’s like saying programming remains surprisingly low tech because you walk into a tech company and everyone is hunched over an emacs window. Even at the fanciest Wall Street law firms, 10-20% of billed time is written off. The largest clients who get sued a lot are…

I wouldn't conflate fancy with sophisticated. Law firms are structurally insulated from market demands and are highly inefficient. They will often just throw people at problems better solved by technology and then pass those costs on to clients. There are a number of reasons for the lack of adoption: - Almost all firms are LLPs where revenue is passed through to the partners. Investing in technology would take a dire…

That sounds to me like a description of what being a lawyer was like in the 1980s. Today, you don’t get cases by calling up a golfing buddy. You go pitch cases to sophisticated clients who compare your proposal with 4-5 other firms’. Alternative fee arrangements account for almost 20% of revenue and growing, and that doesn’t include soft-caps and write-offs that lead to realization being around 85%.

I don’t buy that there is all this great technology out there that law firms aren’t using. There are differences driven by practical requirements for sure. For example, I don’t approve of the cloud, because who owns the hard drive your data sits on is a fact with legal significance. Most people can afford to ignore the difference; lawyers cannot. But it’s not like they eschew remote access to data. Things like RDS and VPN let you access data remotely while controlling ownership of the hard drive where it resides.

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

#100
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…

Uber for lawyers reminds me of the street walking lawyer skit on Seattle's old Almost Live TV show (with a pre-famous Bill Nye not being a science guy): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B7QtRCGQmrc .

[deleted]
Post reply on HN