61–70 of 109 posts
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…
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…
[2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-struggling-consumers-a-chea...
> 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…
Rayiner, Whenever someone on HN talks about bringing tech to law firms I inevitably hear they are opposed to improving their process. It would lead to less billable hours for the firm. Is this true? Not specifically talking about the top firms but firms in general.
Smaller law firms will handle some things on flat fee now, bankruptcy, DUI, and other transactional issues. It is going to continue to increase when appropriate.
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…
I don't think that makes me an engineer but I am handy at applying existing technologies to the legal field to improve efficency.
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's not that I don't believe you guys have a fighting chance at having an impact in the legal technology space, the problem is that the legal industries is one of the slowest moving around, and silicon valley funding culture requires fast results.
> 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…
Rayiner, Whenever someone on HN talks about bringing tech to law firms I inevitably hear they are opposed to improving their process. It would lead to less billable hours for the firm. Is this true? Not specifically talking about the top firms but firms in general.
Within this framework, lawyers have an incentive to be efficient. If you cut your hours so you write off 10% instead of 20%, you’ve freed up hours you could spend on new billable work. If you enter into a flat fee arrangement (which in various permutations are very common), the only way you come out ahead if by harnessing efficiencies. I think most law firm managers are numerate enough to realize these things by now.
The challenges to adoption are risk. Law firms can’t push back the release date because the software isn’t ready. That makes them very conservative about changing their processes. Cost-benefit is also an issue. Even the largest law firms are relatively small companies. All major business decisions are made by lawyers, and not even the managing partner works more than part time on administration. They don’t have the bandwidth to implement software X that majorly improves some specific process Y. For the effort to be worth it technology has to deliver cross-cutting improvements.
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…
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…
Thanks for clarifying -- the headline was very clickbait and disingenuous -- so much so that I had a strong reaction to it.
I think your plan is a good one because you have a small group of clients with similar needs to focus on and they have certain expectations about the tech they interact with. Good luck!