As Legal Tech Investments Skyrocket, Startups Combat Tech Adoption Perceptions
Before investors write a check, legal tech startups often find they need to address questions over lawyers' commitment to leveraging technology.
December 03, 2019 at 11:30 AM
4 minute read
It's been a record-setting year for investments in legal tech, with the industry reaching the $1.2 billion threshold this year for the first time, according to LawSites.
As more capital enters the industry, legal tech companies stress the importance of discussing the legal market's needs and championing their solution as universal when speaking to investors. Unlike other industries, however, legal tech startups must combat a lingering concern that lawyers aren't tech adopters when attempting to persuade potential funders.
Litify chief revenue officer Terry Dohrmann, whose law firm management software company raised $2.5 million in 2018 and $50 million last June, noted that there are differences in pitching legal tech to investors.
"The short answer is yes, there is a difference," Dohrmann said. "A lot of that is driven by the universal acceptance that law firms are a little behind in adoption of technology."
Dohrmann said legal tech companies must explain lawyers' challenges and how the company's tech will alleviate that problem or inefficiency. Unlike most consumer-facing products, legal tech investors need assurance that the company's solution addresses real needs in the niche market and tech-averse lawyers will actually use the software.
The concern may stem from a now-outdated perception that the technology available isn't up to par.
"The problem is until now the technology available to them was kind of crappy," said Concord co-founder and CEO Matt Lhoumeau, whose company raised $25 million in October 2018. "The technology was not really solving problems, the technology required more work from them. That's why they weren't buying software."
Easing such tech adoption concerns is easier when pitching to investors with a background in law, but a funder with a law degree isn't necessary. Instead, an investor with experience in the legal tech industry is valuable, legal tech companies said.
"If all you are seeking is quiet money, they don't have to understand legal tech at all," said Rick Merrill, CEO of Gavelytics, which closed a $3.2 million funding round in March 2018. Merrill described "quiet money" as funding from an investor that isn't involved in the company's operations outside of providing money.
However, "most of the time you would want some type of expertise, if that's the type of investor you are looking for," he added. To be sure, investor expertise in the legal tech space is growing, albeit slowly.
Kristina Jones co-founded CourtBuddy, a platform that connects clients with lawyers, which acquired $6 million during a Series A funding round in October 2018. She said additional legal tech acquisitions and initial public offerings would allow more investors to grasp legal tech's true worth. "There isn't much history to go by," she said. "It's hard for investors to understand the value of legal tech."
As legal tech attracts more outside funding, Luminance CEO Emily Foges advised budding startups and investors to carefully understand the market to which they are selling. Specifically, understanding the legal profession's billing model is tied to how many hours a lawyer worked on a matter, which could be slashed by technology's speed and efficiency.
"The fact that most lawyers consider themselves to be measured on the amount of time they work, it's very different from most commercial environments," Foges said. She added, "By embarking on a business venture, which is about pushing technology into law firms, you are challenging that and that underpins their entire business model."
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
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