Atrium shuts down, laying off 100 • Hacker News Board

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#81

Post by kemitchell » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:08 AM UTC

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…

I believed that law was a sluggish, tech-averse industry when I signed up to join it. But I don't see it living up to its tech-resistant reputation. It's very easy to blame the customer that way, when you have something to sell. As a lawyer, a coder, and legal toolmaker, I've been there. But my lived and observed experience of practice is that lawyers adopt what makes them competitive.

As a result, they've often been early, broad adopters of general-purpose office and productivity technology. Sometimes to their eventual detriment overall, by standardizing on an early generation at the expense of later incremental improvements. But at the same time, I think US lawyers as a class are remarkably resistant to whiz-bang pitches of especially law-specific solutions. It's easy to sell a lawyer some technology that their counterparts are using to run circles around them. It's hard to sell a lawyer some technology with a change-the-world, techno-solutionist pep talk.

Anecdotally, I can't say how many times I've attended or watched pitches by tech-focused people, business managers, or technophile lawyers with very little practice experience hocking half-baked solutions held up as replacing or supplanting lawyers in some way. My reliable takeaway from those pitches is that the founders don't know what lawyers do. When I ask about tablet ownership, cloud service adoption, security standards, terms of use for professional ethics requirements, or Lexis terminals in the 60s and 70s, it's usually a big, blank stare.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#82

Post by mrosett » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:11 AM UTC

sbilstein wrote: post #26

dustingetz wrote: post #16

what if a startup charged $300 per month for all you can eat email legal advice backed by a rich library of templates? they would instantly dominate and there are 6M small businesses in the USA alone

Cookie cutter legal advice is a landmine/footgun for a business. Even Stripe Atlas will lead you down a dangerous path if you don't check with a lawyer when incorporating. Don't fuck around with business legalities, it ain't worth it. Unfortunately, if you even think about your attorney, you'll be charged for it but the peace of mind is worth it. Having a lawyer you trust, is timely to questions, and works fast is ju…

It sounds like you have a story here about Stripe Atlas, although I'd understand if you're not eager to share.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#83

Post by wglb » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:15 AM UTC

m0zg wrote: post #32

berberous wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get what you pay for. $300 is 20 minutes of a good lawyer’s time. The economics don’t work.

More like an hour of a good lawyer time. Mine charges $350/hr. But your point stands. I don't see how his work could be done with "templates". Most of the time I pay him for contract reviews.

My (very good) contract attorney is north of $750/hour. Worth every penny.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#84

Post by sbilstein » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:19 AM UTC

mrosett wrote: post #82

sbilstein wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cookie cutter legal advice is a landmine/footgun for a business. Even Stripe Atlas will lead you down a dangerous path if you don't check with a lawyer when incorporating. Don't fuck around with business legalities, it ain't worth it. Unfortunately, if you even think about your attorney, you'll be charged for it but the peace of mind is worth it. Having a lawyer you trust, is timely to questions, and works fast is ju…

It sounds like you have a story here about Stripe Atlas, although I'd understand if you're not eager to share.

It’s not a bad service at all and the staff are lovely and have fantastic events! However, if you incorporate with them have a lawyer review your docs and ensure you hit all timelines around filing correctly: buying your equity, submitting 83bs, state and federal stuff.

The product makes you feel like it’s a one click thing but you need to check in with a lawyer to not forget anything. Most ppl who used Atlas have told me the same. I do recommend Atlas since you will save some money and you get some nice fringe benefits.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#85

Post by gnicholas » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:21 AM UTC

kemitchell wrote: post #81

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…

I believed that law was a sluggish, tech-averse industry when I signed up to join it. But I don't see it living up to its tech-resistant reputation. It's very easy to blame the customer that way, when you have something to sell. As a lawyer, a coder, and legal toolmaker, I've been there. But my lived and observed experience of practice is that lawyers adopt what makes them competitive. As a result, they've often been…

I’m curious to know what firms you’ve practiced at that weren’t tech-sluggish. Were they run by 55+ partners, or younger folks?

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#86

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:22 AM UTC

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.

[deleted]

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#87

Post by spamcast » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:24 AM UTC

kemitchell wrote: post #81

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…

I believed that law was a sluggish, tech-averse industry when I signed up to join it. But I don't see it living up to its tech-resistant reputation. It's very easy to blame the customer that way, when you have something to sell. As a lawyer, a coder, and legal toolmaker, I've been there. But my lived and observed experience of practice is that lawyers adopt what makes them competitive. As a result, they've often been…

Thank you for this detailed write up, it mirrors my experiences.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#88

Post by duxup » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:34 AM UTC

It didn't really seem like they were doing anything an existing firm couldn't do efficiencies wise. And maybe already has /has found where it works or doesn't.

And the customers who want legal help for cheap(er)...just don't seem like the people who you make money off of.

Any customer concerned enough to know about this service probably wants more from it.

Anyone that would be a good customer, might never find them / isn't doing much in that area anyway...

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#89

Post by msword4ever » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:35 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #85

kemitchell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believed that law was a sluggish, tech-averse industry when I signed up to join it. But I don't see it living up to its tech-resistant reputation. It's very easy to blame the customer that way, when you have something to sell. As a lawyer, a coder, and legal toolmaker, I've been there. But my lived and observed experience of practice is that lawyers adopt what makes them competitive. As a result, they've often been…

I’m curious to know what firms you’ve practiced at that weren’t tech-sluggish. Were they run by 55+ partners, or younger folks?

Perkins Coie.

Well known clients include msft/uber. Bitcoin/cryptocurrency practice is well regarded.

I think being close to a lot of tech clients helps. We get some flack for shunning slack/teams/gchat4business/stride/chime or wtf amazon uses/workplace by fb/etc and relying on “antiquated” email. We definitely prefer to work more in thoughtfully composed emails compared to a fluid team chat. It’s also easier to organize and manage.

However, I’ve been pleased with my colleagues ability to ask relatively smart questions about ML. For example, people are pretty good at responding to ML hand wavey bullshit with specific questions about training data, labeling, features, model architecture, etc.

IMO, we have some younger, eg 40-50, people in leadership positions in my practice group.

Re: Atrium shuts down, laying off 100

#90

Post by kemitchell » Wed, Mar 04, 2020, 3:40 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #85

kemitchell wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believed that law was a sluggish, tech-averse industry when I signed up to join it. But I don't see it living up to its tech-resistant reputation. It's very easy to blame the customer that way, when you have something to sell. As a lawyer, a coder, and legal toolmaker, I've been there. But my lived and observed experience of practice is that lawyers adopt what makes them competitive. As a result, they've often been…

I’m curious to know what firms you’ve practiced at that weren’t tech-sluggish. Were they run by 55+ partners, or younger folks?

I'm a "transactional lawyer" who negotiates contracts, forms companies, handles regulatory issues, and advises on strategy. That's as opposed to a "litigator" who handles court cases. But I've actually seen practitioners outside my own specialty who've integrated newer technology much more deeply. Automated case assessment in some immigration practices, for example.

In my experience, there is some correlation between technology and age. But keep in mind that 55 year old lawyers were born in 1965, started coming out of law schools in the late 1980s, and became established in the early Internet era, before the bubble burst.

Part of what you're getting at might be down to how the role of older lawyers tends to change, especially in firms. I would say most older lawyers in transactional fields do far more advisory and strategic work, akin to consulting or even lobbying, than issue research, contract review, or routine drafting. If the senior partner's working pretty old school, but all the junior partners, associates, secretaries, and paralegals under them use their own tools, that's still a pretty newfangled picture, overall.

Part of it may also be certain specialties that deal routinely with government bodies, like court systems and regulators, with their own adoption curves. But don't jump to conclusions there based on standards for consumer technology. The websites may look clunky, and the interfaces may be pretty retro. But the databases involved are often functionally complete, resilient, and workable for the severely outnumbered public servants that use them most.