Legal Tech Is a Tough Crowd: Why Market Readiness Isn't Enough for Startups
Developing and selling a product that solves lawyers' pain points is only half the battle to gaining exposure in the legal tech community and securing outside investments, legal tech providers say.
July 22, 2020 at 11:30 AM
5 minute read
Lawyers don't want to be anyone's tech guinea pig. Still, legal tech startups looking to break into the industry aren't out of luck. It's not impossible to overcome attorneys' skepticism and garner initial investment, though the path is far from easy.
A cold email to then-Fenwick & West venture partner Ted Wang about the intersection of technology and law got then-Notre Dame Law School student and future Ironclad Inc. co-founder Jason Boehmig out of Indiana to Silicon Valley.
The email requesting a 15-minute chat with Wang led to a position in 2012 at Fenwick & West's Series Seed, a service that streamlines the production of legal documents for startups' fundraising and product development.
Boehmig was able to meet his network through Fenwick & West, which included one of Ironclad's eventual first investors, Jesse Beyroutey of JA Ventures.
To be sure, while some startups are lucky to have investors in their network, many still have to seek out funding after launch. And Luminance Technologies CEO Jason Brennan noted lawyers' skepticism places a lot of pressure on a first impression. "The legal industry isn't one that's very forgiving," Brennan noted. "You get one shot—if you go in with a vision or dream and if you fail, that might be it." Innovative success, however, leads to a positive perception in the market that spurs investor interest, he added.
However, Richard Mabey, CEO and co-founder of contract collaboration platform Juro, noted blog postings and other thought leadership was a powerful tool in gaining a name in the industry. Still, startups also need to rely on their already established networks and work to create new ones.
"To some extent, I think some networks you just have from working in the industry and some you earn, outreaching to people cold and asking for 15 minutes of their time to learn about the pain points and challenges," Mabey said.
To be sure, legal tech providers noted the steepest challenge in building a startup is developing a product lawyers will buy. Once a startup develops a solution, it pitches the service to prospective clients and they grow their clientele if the tech solves a challenge. A growing consumer base attracts investors.
Still, while revenue drives investors' interest, it's still difficult to get noticed by investors in the first place, said Evisort Inc. co-founder and CEO Jerry Ting.
Ting and his fellow Evisort co-founders initially emailed and sent LinkedIn messages to venture capitalists who invested in software as a service enterprise technology systems like Evisort. But they gained little traction with that approach, Ting said.
"At the end of the day the firms that invested in us were done through referrals from mentors because there's a credibility through referrals," he said. "If you have someone that has run a company before or sold a company and has a lot of trust in your company, [the recommendation] is valuable."
But while the road to initial outside funding is paved with hesitancy and rejection, legal tech funding isn't immune from discrimination that plagues the broader tech funding market.
In June, LawSites Blog spoke to Court Buddy co-founder James Jones Jr. about being a Black legal tech entrepreneur in an industry that only has 2.3% Black founders, according to a 2018 report.
In 2019, Jones and his wife and Court Buddy co-founder Kristina Jones gave up their company to an initial investor to pursue other goals. But the investor pitches leading up to Court Buddy's $1 million fundraising in 2017 was still fresh in James Jones' mind, according to the podcast. Jones described the common startup stories of constant pitching and rejection that was served with an undertone of racism that Court Buddy couldn't avoid.
Court Buddy was faced with venture capitalists moving the criteria for investment, a VC washing his hands in the middle of a pitch because he couldn't believe he'd shaken the hands of a Black person and not fitting a preconceived image of a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Jones said.
"If you look at the makeup of San Francisco and Silicon Valley they're looking for a certain type of entrepreneur but if you don't fit that mold you'll have an uphill battle," Jones told LawSites Blog. Still, by 2018, Court Buddy raised an additional $6 million, which Jones noted was somewhat easier because of their previous funding.
"When you raise a round, it's a signal to the market that you've somewhat derisked the market."
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending 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