Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I can attest that there are many technology-related things that would make lawyers more efficient.

I think that's true, but I also think that these "technology-related things" are things that do not exist. Take your example: Windows has not improved in any way that is relevant to lawyers since Windows 2000. What is the point of upgrading?

I see many things in my practice where I could see technology making things more efficient. But almost never do I see legal technology that actually addresses that need. For example, the entire legal world runs on PDFs. Court opinions are in PDF form, documents are produced as PDFs, case filings are in PDFs, signed contracts are circulated as PDFs. But for some reason everyone wants to build web-based tools that cannot deal natively with PDFs, or by some miracle manages to be worse than Acrobat at handling them.

In another example, client confidentiality is a big deal in law firms. But everyone wants to build web-based tools that upload unencrypted documents god-only-knows where.

In a final example: web technology is built on getting good answers to questions everyone is asking. That's the premise underlying Google: if a website is popular as a link target, it's probably a good result. Law is often about exactly the opposite: how do I distinguish my case from all the other ones that go in a way that's bad for my client? In other words, what are the parameters that create the exception to the rule? The techniques used everywhere else on the web are awful for that.

I can vouch for the fact that legal technology as a category does not address the needs of lawyers. And which is obvious to most practicing attorneys. As an example:

> "spend less time [billing] on research"

is not, and never will be, an effective value proposition; and which would be obvious to anyone in anything but the most niche putt-putt fields of practice.

Rayiner is of course authority enough on this subject qua the intended market. But I'm here to confirm further that legal technology startups which ignore these central things -- PDFs are essential, confidentiality is maintained on in-house systems with their own vendors, and depth and specificity is critically more important than survey-like breadth -- will probably fail to address any real needs.

Source: I worked at a highly atypical IP litigation boutique (where drafts were written in LaTex and we scripted common ediscovery stuff), and later in relevance ranking at a legal tech startup.

> "spend less time [billing] on research" is not, and never will be, an effective value proposition; and which would be obvious to anyone in anything but the most niche putt-putt fields of practice.

I'll note that for many cases these days, there is an incentive to enhance efficiency. Alternative fee arrangements, e.g. fixed monthly fee irrespective of hours, are getting more and more common, particularly with regard to big corps that get sued regularly over the same sorts of cases. Not even commodity work even--these are complex cases for Fortune 100 companies handled by well-regarded firms.

Really?? The move away from standard billing had always felt like it would "always be in the future"; but I take that back if that's now A Thing in lit heavy on case research. Still assuming that ^ research is better facilitated by pagerank+semantic centrality, as opposed to the boolean features that the attorneys who do the most motion drafting work are already most well-versed in. The most valuable usage I'd heard of this type of product (the adoption of which I'd had reasons to keep asking extensively around about) was from my pal in international arbitration whose colleague wanted to do a search across courts in one screen. So maybe that was it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yes. Even in the context of billable-hour matters, it is typical for firms to write off hours that exceed certain targets per sub-unit of the matter. That is, in effect, a shift towards pricing based on unit of work (e.g. a motion to dismiss) rather than pure hours.

I disagree about pagerank being appropriate for legal research. Pagerank-type algorithms will help you find the seminal, widely-cited cases in an area. But if you want background law, it is easier to just consult a relevant treatise or other reference book that has those pre-digisted and laid out for you. What really takes time when doing legal research is finding cases that have features in common with yours: similar procedural posture, similar factual wrinkles, etc. Usually, you're looking for a way to argue the opposite of the general rule set forth in the seminal cases. Pagerank-type algorithms won't help you find that; boolean searches on specific phrases will.

Law firms are now internally tracking the number of hours spent on units of work (e.g. motion to dismiss, MSJ, etc) so that they can provide much more accurate pitches and estimates of cost.

On the latter point: https://www.judicata.com/ understands legal research and has built a legal research tool in the right way.

I'll own that I could see why you might think that I think a certain way but consider that we do not disagree? I pointed out that - with a premium on billing efficiency - the linchpin the product's actually delivering value in such an environment would still rely on (what I note as) _the assumption that_ a semantic+graph -based product does in fact cut down research hours, compared to the boolean-based approach.

Your explanation about the value of exceptions to rules in research is correct and would occur to, say, pretty much anyone who has drafted a motion (worth clarifying: not a drag on you). Far from a disagreement, the truth of this premise is why - as I pointed out - the most experienced/valued appellate drafters effectively rely on boolean. (Except, I guess, the 'within' operator might count as a semantic operator. Although that's been in lexis and west for as long as I've seen them, and I suspect have found immense use for much longer than that...)

edit: Adding that of course only one of the two following premises need be incorrect (firms should use products which enable them to spend less time on research; the citation graph enables lawyers to spend less time on research while yielding identical quality; firms should use citation graph -based products). Depending on your circumstances, only one may in fact be wrong.

I get the feeling Big Law firms are reaching the point where they can no longer rely on increasing hourly rates as a primary source of growth. And I think for the first time in the the history of Big Law, the incentives are such that efficiency might finally be valuable. It might be the only way these law firms can continue to grow revenue. Rates can only go so much higher and there aren't that many more hours in the day.

Revenue per lawyer among the 100 largest law firms is flat in current dollars over the last decade. Rates have gone up a lot, but realization has gone from over 90% to around 80%. There is a lot of pressure to write off time in excess of budget targets, which creates an incentive for achieving efficiencies.

> > "spend less time [billing] on research"

> is not, and never will be, an effective value proposition

It will be if it means you provide better value for the cost, attracting more and more valuable business.

Or, if you can just deliver the same results at the same cost, with fewer associates and paralegals. Sure, the firm won't make more money, but everyone still in it will. And firms don't have interests, individual partners do; firms interests are just a shorthand for those of the partners.

The legal services industry is not a free market. There, I said it. First, the value (i.e. "provide better value") is opaque. That's why the legal industry relies so much on the proxy of prestige, because it's really hard to know if you are getting good representation, and then it's even harder to know if the cost is "fair" or whatever. The pricing structure is obfuscated and hidden, comparison shopping is hindered by ethical conflicts, and the billing practices (the dreaded billable hour) are asinine. The industry relies much more on personal relationships and perceived prestige than "value for the cost." And the demand in many areas of law is inelastic, and supply is...well, it's complicated by the whole obsession with 'prestige' and student loan debt.

Basically, no, the normal rules DO NOT APPLY to the legal market. And being 'cheaper' is usually not a good thing for a lawyer when dealing with big corporate clients. Less expense translates to lower perceived prestige, something this industry is obsessed with.

And to your last suggestion, here's the problem. There leverage in the law firm model is billing more hours by more associates and staff. The way that a partner makes more money is to have more people working under him, classic pyramid structure. If you eliminate the associates, the partner makes less money. Now, you might say, why not then charge more for the partners time? Because it's way easier to charge 3x associates at a going rate than a single partner at a 2x rate. Because clients see that big scary hourly number at balk, say that some other law firm doesn't charge that much, and why are you worth that much an hour. It doesn't work, even if the same amount of work gets done at the same price. And, the only measure of "amount of work" that lawyers have is billable hours! So a client would see a higher rate for less work. They don't take kindly to it.

I'm not defending any of the above, I hope you realize. I am frustrated with the industry because there are soooo many gains to be had here. It's absolutely silly how backwards and inefficient most law firms are.

The legal industry is tremendously competitive. Even if you limit yourself to the most "prestigious" firms, there's dozens of potential choices. Even the largest firms have only a couple of percent market share. How many other industries can you say that about? The information asymmetry issues you mention may be true to the extent you're a small company that needs counsel for one matter. But the vast majority of corporate work is done for big corps who are repeat players. They have extremely detailed data at their fingertips about how much their dozens of previous representations cost, outcomes, etc.

> The legal industry is tremendously competitive.

That's got to be one of the funniest things on HN ever.

The hell it is. The fact that dozens of potential choices exist does not mean a market is competitive, you are missing the possibility of price fixing on an industry wide scale.

The existence of dozens of competitors is the #1 marker of a highly competitive market. I'm not sure what basis you have for raising "the possibility of price fixing on an industry wide scale" (other than that is theoretically possible in any market). In my experience pitching big companies for legal matters, the process is quite formalized. When presented with a new matter, a company will interview several firms to give presentations on how they would handle the matter and how they would price the engagement. That is just how the process works even at the largest, most reputable corporate firms. (A partner I used to work for at one of the big New York firms told me that when he started at the firm, "business development" meant a partner checking his voice mails when he got back from lunch. That's not how the industry works anymore.)

Even the worst lawyers still charge 100's of $/E per hour and to get certain services performed you have to go through a lawyer.

Now, I've met some - very few - lawyers that were worth their rates (one of which is commenting in this thread) but for the most part it is simply a title that in and of itself seems to make a mediocre performer suddenly worth a very large amount of money on an hourly basis.

The funny thing is that I suspect the rest of the world probably looks at IT people in much the same way (only we don't have the equivalent of a bar association, and if we did I suspect the minimum rate for a programmer would shoot up).

In the U.S. at least, Department of Justice antitrust litigation has prevented law schools from artificially limiting the supply of lawyers. There are about twice as many law graduates each year as job openings. If you just need someone with a law license, you can hire them for $20/hour on craigslist.

The 'inelastic' fees aren't the result of overt price fixing, but the professional rules imposed by the bars. At some point, lawyers don't take on the duties for less than $x00.

Lawyers on the internet will tell you a lot for free, and look at all the documents you want for $20/hr, as long as you don't hold them responsible for putting it in front of a judge. And no matter how many excess lawyers come out of law schools, fees don't go below $x00 for most lawyers.

In litigation, those rules are probably necessary for the benefit of the system. In transactions, there should be fewer.

> but the professional rules imposed by the bars.

Which are made of lawyers. So price fixing.

Yes. More like a minimum wage, but that's a government intervention into price, too.

Ah just saw this! So

You might be assuming something about what counts as valuable business from the perspective of the firm or practitioner (or partner) -- consider that 'we have an army of associates poring over every detail with a fine-toothed comb' was instituted by those very same people in pursuit of value, defined however -- but my assumptions from 3 years ago may have since been obsoleted as well.

Btw, a clarification about the nature of the research that's being purported to be being cut down on: it's not the type which is like "hey paralegal, go on lexis and get me all the cases in this motion" Which, yes, makes sense: it frees up more and higher-value hours for more time spent on the memo, etc. It's rather purported to automate the time otherwise spent finding, say, available expertise, seemingly contrary decisions, analogous circumstances, distinguishing principles articulated (or ideally by asking the first of ^, you can locate the second, match the third, and cite the fourth) etc.

And all of which, yea the more it were to occur, would deliver more value for all involved.

Lots of these comments ended up focusing on research, which applies heavily in litigation but hardly at all in transactional work. Justin confirmed in response to my other comment that their initial market is transactional, so perhaps what they have in mind is somewhat different (related to managing various transactional flows, like fundraising, M/A, etc.)

> Windows has not improved in any way that is relevant to lawyers since Windows 2000. What is the point of upgrading?

Security, for one thing.

I agree that others have missed the mark (lacking encryption, not compatible with heavily-used formats like PDF). My point is that this article does not demonstrate why lawyers will actually adopt use this startup's new technology.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com