After Startup Setback, Atrium Law Managing Partners See a Path Forward
Matthew Melville and Michel Narganes didn't expect the software side of the business to shutter when they joined Atrium two months ago. They still believe there's a place in the market for a new model that serves startup clients.
March 04, 2020 at 06:45 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Atrium Legal Technology Services Inc., the legal software company backed by $75.5 million in venture capital, may be kaput. But the two lawyers that came on board in January to run Atrium LLP, the law firm side of the hybrid project, in its short-lived pivot to a new business model believe there's still an opportunity for them to provide legal services to startups in a novel way.
Matthew Melville, a corporate lawyer formerly with Goodwin Procter and Lowenstein Sandler, and Michel Narganes, who previously worked as senior corporate counsel at Sitecore, joined Atrium as it moved away from in-house attorneys and towards a network of "preferred" outside attorneys.
But they did not expect founder Justin Kan, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur who previously sold the livestreaming platform Twitch to Amazon for $970 million in 2014, was going to pull the plug on the company just two months later.
"I wasn't aware that the law firm was going to be dissolved when it was," Melville said. "I thought we had a fighting chance to build out a little more of a profitable Atrium."
Melville and Narganes arrived at Atrium as Kan announced that the company, founded in 2017, was expanding outside of legal services to focus on a "professional services network" supporting startup founders. In doing so, a number of in-house attorneys lost their jobs.
"It was not feasible paying Cravath-scale salaries to junior or mid-level associates and only representing early-stage companies," Melville said. "That only works well if you're a firm like Cooley and doing IPOs."
Instead, as the new managing partners, they started building a platform of providers: roughly 40 to 50 lawyers that included several Atrium in-house veterans, attorneys from Bay Area firms CGL and SPZ Legal, and specialists that assisted Atrium under its prior model.
"We were trying to right the ship. Atrium had negative margins. In a post-WeWork world, that was not acceptable any more," Melville said. "We had to figure out a way to make money on every legal service that we sold."
According to Melville, he and Narganes worked to shore up the firm's existing client base and pitched them on a new subscription model with consumption-based pricing.
"We got to a point where we expected to hit a 45% margin on every hour of legal services we provided," Melville said. "We could see a path to create a valuable tech-focused law firm."
When word emerged last Friday about the prospect of a dissolution, the two managing partners met with Kan and built a pitch aimed at keeping the operation running.
"We felt mildly confident that we could show the new numbers and convince the board that we could move forward," Melville said. "We presented everything. But at the end of the day, the board believed that this wasn't a venture-backable model."
In short, even if the firm could be profitable, it was never going to achieve the scale and deliver the big growth necessary to make it appealing for another round of funding.
But Melville and Narganes still believe the business can be successful as a law firm. Since the announcement of Atrium's dissolution, they say they've had former Atrium lawyers commit to remaining on the platform and clients likewise commit to staying in the fold.
One key step will be putting in capital. Although the pair held the title of managing partners in Atrium LLP, they treated the partnership as a corporation upon their arrival and did not have to put any of their own resources in.
"Now we're going to switch that up," Melville added. "We have all the systems in place to have revenue coming in each month."
There are also plans to create a stand-alone version of Atrium's technology to serve the law firm. But Melville said that Atrium never reached its end goal of building an "all-in-one" technology platform aiding lawyers in serving startup clients. In the absence of a holistic solution, there's plenty of stand-alone options in the marketplace.
"I want to use as much of the technology as possible, but at least initially, we'll leverage all the good stuff that's already out there," he said.
In the end, the pair believe there is a path forward.
"Atrium was not a successful venture-backed business, but the lawyers are very good," Melville said. "There's still something in the legal market that is missing for startups, and with our knowledge and what we've learned, we've got a lot of great insights."
|Read More
Atrium Retreats From Legal Services in Sudden 'Restructuring'
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250