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

Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 175 posts

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#111

Post by freepor »

eganist wrote: post #59
gnicholas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason law firms are resistant to technological change is that they are paid hourly (for the most part) and therefore do not yearn for efficiencies. If it increases efficiency, they will literally lose money in hourly billings.

Well if you think about it, the original concept behind Atrium was to kill a business model. Kinda difficult to effectively pay lawyers to shoot their own feet.

Well if you can pay 1% of the lawyers 10x the lifetime earnings they would get in BigLaw, they will happily destroy the business model for yo.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#112

Post by gamblor956 »

eganist wrote: post #46
gnicholas wrote: post #41

I swung by the Atrium booth at the Startup Grind conference a few weeks ago. A former lawyer, I was curious to hear their pitch. It was basically: we get you cheap lawyers, and we help them find new clients. I asked if all of their lawyers are based in the US, and they couldn't give me a straight answer. Eventually, when I said "well, of course they must all be US-licensed lawyers, right?" they said "oh, yeah, they m…

Legal is a notoriously sluggish industry, one that's almost infuriatingly incapable of adopting change and technology. Atrium's original pitch was exactly the opposite of what most legal teams are used to interacting with, and I can't think of a single biglaw attorney (sorry for the anecdote) who had faith in the idea or its execution. The original concept, as a reminder: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/10/atrium-lega…

Law firms use cloud software extensively and, unlike FAANG or most tech startups, actually embrace remote work.

I submit that law firms are actually far more progressive about technology than the tech world assumes, but are also a lot better at sniffing out bullshit software that doesn't provide a real-world benefit.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#113

Post by manigandham »

eganist wrote: post #46
gnicholas wrote: post #41

I swung by the Atrium booth at the Startup Grind conference a few weeks ago. A former lawyer, I was curious to hear their pitch. It was basically: we get you cheap lawyers, and we help them find new clients. I asked if all of their lawyers are based in the US, and they couldn't give me a straight answer. Eventually, when I said "well, of course they must all be US-licensed lawyers, right?" they said "oh, yeah, they m…

Legal is a notoriously sluggish industry, one that's almost infuriatingly incapable of adopting change and technology. Atrium's original pitch was exactly the opposite of what most legal teams are used to interacting with, and I can't think of a single biglaw attorney (sorry for the anecdote) who had faith in the idea or its execution. The original concept, as a reminder: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/10/atrium-lega…

It's not sluggish at all. Modern law firms use all kinds of tech including lots of software and even AI/semantic analysis systems. There's definitely a high bar before adoption due to regulations and security but that's for good reason.

The problem is that there's a limit to the automation. Human lawyers can't be replaced. Interpretation, strategy, communication, court dates, etc. all require the human factor. No amount of software is going to make the human go any faster here.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#114

Post by gnicholas »

gamblor956 wrote: post #112
eganist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal is a notoriously sluggish industry, one that's almost infuriatingly incapable of adopting change and technology. Atrium's original pitch was exactly the opposite of what most legal teams are used to interacting with, and I can't think of a single biglaw attorney (sorry for the anecdote) who had faith in the idea or its execution. The original concept, as a reminder: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/10/atrium-lega…

Law firms use cloud software extensively and, unlike FAANG or most tech startups, actually embrace remote work. I submit that law firms are actually far more progressive about technology than the tech world assumes, but are also a lot better at sniffing out bullshit software that doesn't provide a real-world benefit.

I left biglaw in 2014, at which time my firm had barely transitioned from Windows XP. This was because we used certain Word plugins/macros for formatting briefs, and they had not yet been updated to run on newer versions of Windows. As a result, we were all on XP way past its prime.

From talking with lawyer friends, I got the sense my experience was not uncommon.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#116

Post by gumby »

gnicholas wrote: post #108
gumby wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also they could have hired lawyers with US law degrees who passed various US bars but who live in India. Doesn't sound like whoever was at the both had the faintest idea of what was going on. That's how radiologists could analyze x-rays and such remotely: they were actual US-trained radiologists with licenses in US states who preferred to go home to India.

True, and I actually considered possibilities like this. But it would be pretty difficult/expensive/time-consuming for people to come to the US, go to law school, study for and pass the bar, and then go back to a low-cost-of-living place to practice law. In most states, you have to go to an accredited law school in order to even sit for the bar, and all of such law schools are located in the US (and charge commensura…

Guessing they’d be mainly those that attended the lowest tier of accredited law school on an H-1 and then couldn’t find gainful employment here.

OTOH, after sept 11 my cousin (or, I think, his wife) decided they didn’t want to raise kids in NY so he moved back to Mumbai, but kept his job with a major ibank and salary, just working mostly remotely. I suspect though he’s an exception.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#117

Post by Barrin92 »

gnicholas wrote: post #56
eganist wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal is a notoriously sluggish industry, one that's almost infuriatingly incapable of adopting change and technology. Atrium's original pitch was exactly the opposite of what most legal teams are used to interacting with, and I can't think of a single biglaw attorney (sorry for the anecdote) who had faith in the idea or its execution. The original concept, as a reminder: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/10/atrium-lega…

Part of the reason law firms are resistant to technological change is that they are paid hourly (for the most part) and therefore do not yearn for efficiencies. If it increases efficiency, they will literally lose money in hourly billings.

this doesn't seem like a strong argument because this is just basic market competition. Even though a law firm being more efficient would lose hourly billing they would quickly grow more clients by providing a cheaper service. The lawfirm itself has no particular incentive to operate inefficiently.

I think the much more plausible explanation is that a lot of these alleged 'productivity tools' don't add that much productivity.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#118

Post by speedplane »

Barrin92 wrote: post #117
gnicholas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason law firms are resistant to technological change is that they are paid hourly (for the most part) and therefore do not yearn for efficiencies. If it increases efficiency, they will literally lose money in hourly billings.

this doesn't seem like a strong argument because this is just basic market competition. Even though a law firm being more efficient would lose hourly billing they would quickly grow more clients by providing a cheaper service. The lawfirm itself has no particular incentive to operate inefficiently. I think the much more plausible explanation is that a lot of these alleged 'productivity tools' don't add that much prod…

> this doesn't seem like a strong argument because this is just basic market competition. Even though a law firm being more efficient would lose hourly billing they would quickly grow more clients by providing a cheaper service. The lawfirm itself has no particular incentive to operate inefficiently.

As a factual matter, you are quite wrong. Law firms rarely get reprimanded for over-billing, and in fact, the opposite can be true.

When a lawyer bills 2X more than a competitor, they can say that they just did a 2X better job, were more thorough, etc. Lawsuits are rarely repetitive, as the facts and legal principles applied vary widely, so it's very difficult to determine what's the correct amount of time to spend on something. Worse, firms that develop reputations for big bills, can even attract big bet-the-company cases where clients can justify paying top-dollar.

The economic principal behind this is that legal services are not a typical "commodity", so standard market principles are not as effective. If you can turn a legal service into a commodity (such as LegalZoom has some parts of the law), you can be much more effective.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#119

Post by gnicholas »

Barrin92 wrote: post #117
gnicholas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason law firms are resistant to technological change is that they are paid hourly (for the most part) and therefore do not yearn for efficiencies. If it increases efficiency, they will literally lose money in hourly billings.

this doesn't seem like a strong argument because this is just basic market competition. Even though a law firm being more efficient would lose hourly billing they would quickly grow more clients by providing a cheaper service. The lawfirm itself has no particular incentive to operate inefficiently. I think the much more plausible explanation is that a lot of these alleged 'productivity tools' don't add that much prod…

> they would quickly grow more clients by providing a cheaper service

Law firm prestige is measured in part by billing rates, which firms almost never (except 2008) lower. If a firm lowered rates for any reason, associates would start getting worried/jumping ship. I'm not saying it's rational, just that the field is prestige-based, and associates would freak if they saw their billing rate drop. It would be seen as a harbinger of lower salaries or lousy bonuses on the horizon, no matter how the firm spun it.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#120

Post by lmeyerov »

manigandham wrote: post #73
lmeyerov wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100 people x 150k yr = $15M. Add insurance, office, heaaavy marketing, sales commission, non-frugal everything.. I'm guessing $20-30M over their 2+yrs. Maybe even more on people bc hiring lawyers. Weirdly, the investors are happier with that than 5 smaller series A's of money-making / real-IP companies with existing growth engines. Easier to bet on nothing vs improving. I do find the flameout odd, and not isolated to…

The end of the first paragraph says: " The separate Atrium law firm will continue to operate. " The legal talent already did spin-off with the last pivot.

That sounds like... not most of the software people building IP.
Post reply on HN