Tag: Startups

Posted on

Here Be Dragons: Lessons for Startups

The world of entrepreneurship is rife with clichés.

Fake it ’til you make it. Fail Fast. Disrupt.

While there’s a lot early stage startups can learn from established business principles and the personal experience of industry leaders, much of this knowledge has been distilled down into meaningless soundbites. Which makes it all the more challenging to be genuinely helpful when someone asks you for advice on their startup idea.

Over the past two weeks I acted as a “Legal Dragon“, evaluating law students pitching ideas to improve legal services and increase access to justice for all. The student pitches were the culminating event of a new class at TRU Law called Lawyering in the 21st Century (L21C). I was truly impressed by the effort all the students put in and the caliber of their pitches. As I’ve said before, the opportunity to participate was a rewarding experience on a number of levels. I’ve already agreed to do it again next year!

What’s more, it reminded me of the importance of giving back. Over the past two years, Knomos has greatly benefitted from countless individuals and organizations who have dedicated their time, energy, and knowledge to help us grow. Winning the award for “Most Promising Open Data Startup” wasn’t a solo effort, we worked closely with key stakeholders like the BC Dev Exchange and OpenData BC. While it’s important to thank and recognize all those who’ve helped us get this far, it’s not enough. We also need to give back and help others.

So when Professor Sykes asked me to participate as a Legal Dragon, I jumped at the chance. As soon as I did, however, the nagging questions started to creep in:

What makes me an expert? What do I know about evaluating the soundness of their business ideas? What advice could I give that would be genuinely useful rather than just clichéd?

The best way I could think of to help the students was to treat them like I treat everyone I do business with: by being open and candid, not afraid to ask tough questions, but always with a view towards a positive outcome. I also made an open offer to any student interested in making their idea a reality beyond the class to reach out directly. Seriously, don’t be shy.

Reaching out and sharing your startup idea with others can be scary, and we often come up with seemingly rational reasons for not doing so:

It’s not ready yet, I want it to be perfect before I share it. They might steal my idea.   If I share it and it fails, people will think less of me.

But no matter how good the idea is, you can’t build a perfect solution in a vacuum, and trying to do so may result in solving the wrong problem.

The only way a startup has any chance of success is by sharing the business idea with as many potential customers, partners, and investors as possible. Share early. Share often. Be strategic in your approach and tailor your message to your audience, but by all means (soundbite alert): Do things. Tell People. And then listen really closely to their feedback as you continue to improve and iterate on the idea until it becomes a viable business.

So to all the L21C students, my last piece of advice is this: You’ve got the idea, now go make it happen!

Onwards and upwards,

Adam

Posted on

Artificial Intelligence: Shaping the Future of Law

I very much enjoy Sci-Fi movies about artificial intelligence, but I am not particularly keen on being replaced by a machine that can spew out better legal arguments in a milli-second based on an algorithm. The majority of our class discussions have focused primarily on technological innovations in the legal field. Artificial intellegence has been hailed as the future of law. It’s all very exciting, until the foreboding feeling sets in and you’re reminded that not only do you have to compete with 4.0 Bobby for a job, but with a machine as well. According to Michael Cross in his article, Role of Artificial Intelligence in Law, “ a computer is as fresh and alert at 2 am as it was at nine o’ clock the previous morning.” Yeah, well, no arguments there. Computers will always be faster, more efficient and accurate at any given time of the day.

The abstracts from the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law sum up the relationship between law and artificial intelligence eloquently. Both fields are involved in the process of creation. AI systems are built, experiments are designed and paradigms are replaced. In law, legislation is drafted, precedents are set and beliefs are balanced. Both fields struggle with the complexity of modeling human behaviour. AI aims to recreate human behaviour, while the law intends to drive human behaviour. The meeting of law with AI was inevitable. But where does that leave the plethora of graduating law students and lawyers?

Throughout this class, we have all been reminded of the concept of the “legal sherpa” and helping the ordinary lay person navigate the convoluted path of the law. A more refined role for AI in law is to provide strategic legal guidance. Programs such as ROSS a digital legal expert, built on IBM Watson helps attorneys with their legal research based on plain word searches. This serves as a valuable tool to help guide lawyers in their everyday research. In the end this will make legal profesisonals more effective because they will be able to complete their tasks more efficiently therefore charging the client less for services.

London firm Hodge Jones & Allen has pioneered a predictive model of personal injury case outcomes to assess the predictability of their current caseload. The program will assist the firm in determining which cases have a greater chance of success, therefore allowing the firm to direct their client towards either settling or proceeding with a claim. This is an example of a legal technological advancement in action and in the future personal injury firms and perhaps others as well, may greatly benefit from using such programs.

This new technology will not hinder or replace legal professionals at all. In fact, I see it helping to make the jobs of lawyers easier and more enjoyable. It will also help them bring a wider array of services to their clients in a quicker and more streamlined manner. These advancements will thrust lawyers into more advocacy-based roles because those types of positions cannot be fulfilled by AI, at least not for now. In conclusion, I do not believe that lawyers will ever fully be replaced by AI but it can serve as a useful tool that can better the practice of law.

Posted on

The Future Of The Legal Education: Specialization Or Degradation Of The J.D.

As the legal field continues to expand, general practitioners are expected to know more in their respective fields to better assist their clients. A lawyer is expected to enhance their knowledge by keeping up with the evolution of the legal sector. Harry Arthurs recognizes the dangers that future lawyers may face in The Future of Legal Education: Three Visions and a Prediction.

He suggests a possible option where “The bar may one day recognize not just one class of members, but many. Members of each class would have different educational credentials…that general practitioners will one day be licensed to appear as advocates in certain tribunals and the lower courts, and to do routine real estate transactions, simple incorporations and uncontested divorces—but not undertake appellate litigation, patent applications or tax planning”.

He further elaborates “They might offer a skills-based one-year degree for paralegals, a stripped-down tow-year ‘basic’ degree for general practitioners, an enhanced four year degree for specialist practitioners, and conversion courses for those who want to upgrade their credentials”.

On the one hand, I can see this as a form of specialization in a specific area for law students. Those that know what area of law they want to practice can choose to study that, right from the beginning while avoiding all the unnecessary courses that they will never use for their chosen area of practice.

However, on the other hand I see this as undermining the value of legal education and hence a J.D. By creating this separation in the legal education, many of the basic competencies will be omitted from one’s legal education. On a basic level many of the different fields of law interact with each other, and competencies in all these areas are crucial for a practitioner to come up with the best solution for their clients.

There is obviously a wealth of knowledge available in studying law. In my opinion, due to the enhanced level of education required to sufficiently practice in each specific area of law, I think in the future, a LLM in the chosen area of practice will be mandatory after a JD, in order to obtain an articling position in the desired field.

With each area of law expanding everyday, I think it would be ridiculous to cut down on the legal education. The only way to keep up with the evolving nature of the legal sector is to increase the education required, and thus satisfying the necessary requirements of becoming a competent practitioner. Of course, this is just my view.  What do you think are some ways our legal education will evolve to better accommodate us in being competent in our areas of practice for the future?

 

 

Posted on

Access to Justice in Canada: Students with high hopes to help the low-income

“[Canada is] increasingly failing in our responsibility to provide a justice system that [is] accessible, responsive and citizenship focused.”

The above was a statement by our Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court of Canada, about the inability for Canada’s families to obtain affordable legal counsel. The Chief Justice has also stated that “legal-aid funding and coverage is not available for most people and problems, and the cost of legal services and length of proceedings is steadily increasing”, and that “statistics show that people who get legal assistance in dealing with their legal problems are much more likely to achieve better results than those who do not.”

As Canadians, the majority of us believe access to justice is a fundamental right. Contrary to this belief, Canada is witnessing a gap between the fundamental right and the stark reality that the wealthy the are the ones that can afford a lawyer’s legal services. With specific reference to British Columbia, cuts to BC Legal Aid have taken a toll on access to justice, especially for those with low-incomes. A list of cuts from 2005-2010 can be found here.

In 2013 the Canadian Bar Association released the ‘Reaching Equal Justice Report’. The report states that there is a need for more federal funding for civil legal aid. It says that the Canadian Bar Association will reach its goal for Canadians living at and below the poverty line to be eligible for full coverage of essential public legal services by 2020. Additionally, the report puts forth that all law schools in Canada will have a student legal clinic to help low-income people by 2020. The Canadian Bar Association advises that all 31 targets mentioned in the report are expected to be completed by 2030. A video about the proposed legal aid system can be watched here.

It is important to note that change does not fall solely on governments or the bar association. As the report says, law schools and other stakeholders must be involved. It is obvious that “tinkering” or making a few changes here and there will not be enough. The report states that “the civil justice system is too badly broken for a quick fix. People fall between the cracks at an unacceptable cost. Injustice is too deeply woven into the system’s very structure for piecemeal reforms to make much of a dent.”

It is obvious that now is the time to use the resources we have, like our Canadian law students, to help improve Canada’s access to justice for low-income people. With 18 law schools in Canada teaching common law, these numbers have the potential to create a significant positive difference. If that is not motivation enough, pro bono work by law students helps not only those who find themselves facing a legal conundrum, but also the law students involved. The students typically receive training to be more understanding, companionate, and patient, and in turn become more competent lawyers to enter the work force.

From what I could find, only one Canadian law school (Osgoode Hall Law School at York University) has what they call a public interest graduation requirement. If pro bono work by law students is part of the answer, why are we not making full use of this potential resource? Is it lack of resources, lack of incentive, or lack of an enforced requirement?

In correspondence with TRU Law’s Professor Dhand (who is currently the Project Leader on a Law Foundation Large Project Grant for a poverty law clinic), she informed me that the school is implementing the Community Legal Advice Clinic in 2016. The Community Legal Advice Clinic will assist low-income earners in the Kamloops and Interior region with legal problems – initially in the area of residential tenancy law and housing issues – with direct client services. The clinic will run approximately two to three days a week and can be found at the Centre for Seniors Information in Kamloops, BC. Additionally, Professor Dhand advises that TRU Law has the Legal Information Service, located on campus, where she supervises and mentors 60 student volunteers each year, who provide legal information, resources, and public legal education workshops in all areas of law. Lastly, Professor Dhand also teaches TRU Law’s Community Lawyering course where students receive instruction about the substantive and procedural aspects of community lawyering such as client interviewing, strategic litigation, legal research, and ethical issues.

It is clear that TRU Law is taking steps towards improving the ability for low-income British Colombians to access justice, well before the Canadian Bar Association’s goal of 2020. Are there additional steps that TRU Law and other law schools can take to facilitate access to justice for the low-income? Should TRU Law’s Community Lawyering class be a required course for students?

Posted on

Stock for fees?

Since the option of taking an equity investment in a client as a form of payment of fees came up in class today, I wanted to follow up with some information on this practice.

Here are a couple of interesting links.  The first is a Wall Street Journal story from 2012, which notes that the practice has changed: in the “dot com” boom in the 1990s, firms like Wilson Sonsini would take stock instead of fees, but after experiencing some big losses when that tech bubble burst the firms, it seems, have switched to a practice of deferring or reducing fees (deferring fees would be more like a debt investment) coupled with taking the opportunity to invest (with the firm’s own cash) in the same manner as founders or venture capital investors.  The second is a more technical article on some of the legal and regulatory considerations.  Lawyers’ equity investments in clients raise a number of tax, securities, insurance and other issues.  But taking on a bunch of complex issues and turning them into an opportunity is a favourite pastime of clever lawyers.

I’m not aware of any Canadian law firms that have done this, and – while obviously the specifics of tax, securities law and so on are different here – I don’t know whether there are any clear bars to doing this in Canada, for example under professional ethics rules.  It might be an interesting question to look into.

 

Posted on

The long and winding road back to law school

Last Wednesday, I embarked on the long and winding road back to law school. Literally. Leaving Vancouver in the early hours of the morning, I hopped on the highway and took the scenic drive through the mountains heading northeast to Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, BC.

A couple of months prior, I’d been invited by Katie Sykes to speak to her new class “Lawyering in the 21st Century” (L21C). This is not your typical “black letter law” class.  Instead, students sign up as partners in a fictional law firm, L21C, work in teams to develop new ideas and practice models, and then defend their business pitches to a legal “Dragons’ Den” panel. As Katie explains, “The ultimate goal of the course is to equip them with some tools and spark them to think about some ideas that will enable them to adapt. I can’t tell them how to do it; I don’t know it myself.”

I’d been asked to participate in the class for two reasons: 1) to share my story of building Knomos with the students as an example of a non-traditional legal career path (“Hey, this is possible!”); and 2) at the end of the term, to be one of the “legal dragons” evaluating student pitches & proposals.

Speaking with the class was an awesome experience, albeit a little surreal at times. It’s a honour to be included among guest speakers who are thought leaders and key influencers in the legal industry including Mitch Kowalski, Sarah Sutherland, Hersh Perlis, and Fred Headon to name a few. Being on the “legal dragons” panel later this fall is equally rewarding, as Knomos itself started as a student submission to the McGill Dobson Cup startup competition back in 2014.  While I don’t yet consider myself a legal industry expert, given that the more I learn the more I realize I still have a lot to learn, I’m happy to offer students insights & advice based on my experience thus far.

On the platform development front, it was great to give the students a sneak peek at some of the core features we’re implementing right now, and get that direct feedback that lets us know we’re on the right track. In “customer validation” terms, there’s nothing quite like having people come up to you after a demo saying “Can we have it now?” (The answer is not yet, but very soon, so stay tuned!)

The experience was also validating on a personal level. One thing about law school that often goes unmentioned is that it’s not just a education, it’s an indoctrination. Throughout 3-4 years of classes, extracurricular activities, and firm-sponsored events, there’s a subtle but ever-present undercurrent reinforcing a belief that the career path towards becoming a senior partner in a big law firm is the holy grail to which all students should aspire. The flip-side of that mindset is that doing something different is doing something less.

Like millennials in many other professional industries, it’s a narrative I’ve personally struggled with over the past couple of years since leaving school. I transitioned from practising in BigLaw, to being a sole practitioner, and then co-founding a legal tech startup. Much like the drive to Kamloops, my journey has not always been a straightforward one. There have been some unexpected twists and turns, and more than a few bumps along the way. But I am better for it, and that much better prepared for the road that lies ahead. It meant a lot to share my story with the students and I hope it will help some of them too as they prepare for life after law school.

I’m excited to hear the student pitches later this fall and their innovative ideas for improving legal practice. Just as important as the idea, however, is the execution. So my best advice to the students is this: Do things. Tell people. Listen & learn from their feedback. And then keep going.

While the destination may not always be the one you set out for, the journey is worth the while.

– Adam

Co-founder & CEO, Knomos

Follow me on Twitter: @EhLaFrance

Proudly powered by WordPress