
Ask HN: Why are there so few law startups? - rsp1984
One could probably find a bunch through a Google search but I couldn&#x27;t name a startup in the law space off the top of my head. I also don&#x27;t remember ever seeing one making headlines on HN.<p>With all the enormous fees and the insane amount of paperwork I&#x27;d think it&#x27;s a space that&#x27;s screaming for new ideas but from an outside perspective it doesn&#x27;t seem like there has been much innovation since MS Word... Has anyone got some insight?
======
bmulholland
I'm the lead developer at Contractually (a Vancouver-based startup):
[http://www.contractual.ly](http://www.contractual.ly). We take contracts out
of Microsoft Word and email and put them in an online format that understands
the business data and process that is involved. We're solving problems form
the low level (version tracking, redlining, commenting) to the high level
(renewal reminders, workflows, tagging, reporting). We're currently focussed
on large businesses and enterprise.

To answer your question, there's not many startups in the legal space because
people and businesses are really worried about their contracts. The
conservative nature is one that needs to slowly be eroded, and that's where
we're at now. E-signature providers have taken away a lot of concerns and
we're starting to see opportunities in areas outside of just signing.

At Contractually, we're seeing more competition (a good thing, of course)
targeting small businesses right up to enterprise. Typically, they solve some
small part of the contracts problem: Assembling documents, or e-signatures, or
workflows, etc. The competition isn't just coming from startups (e.g.
glider.com, acquired last year), it's also coming from large incumbents (e.g.
Merrill DataSite for contract management, launched last month).

It's an exciting time and I think we'll start to see big chunks of the problem
solved over the next few years.

~~~
codingdave
This is off on a tangent, but...

I just took a look at a demo video on your site - I'm just guessing based on
appearances, but are you using CKEditor for your base editor, and then popping
up a new window using the lite plugin to show tracked changes?

If so, we're using the same toolkit... but if not, I'd love to know if you
found a better track changes project via open source, or if you rolled your
own. The lite plugin works OK, but not well enough for some of our more legal-
focused clientele, so I'm scoping out other options.

~~~
bmulholland
We are using CKEditor, but are not currently using lite. Our version compare
is done separately using an HTML diff engine. We have a number of requests for
redlining-as-you-type, which we don't currently do, and will probably
implement that with lite when we get to that.

I have implemented it as a proof of concept twice now, but keep finding bugs
and issues that block us from releasing it as a feature. Seems like you might
be hitting some of those as well?

My recommendation would really come down to what issues your legal-focused
clientele have with the current solution. If it's accuracy, storing each
version in its entirety and comparing those versions is basically what lawyers
do today with Word.

~~~
codingdave
Yes, we likely have some common ground on the problems we are hitting. We are
doing OK on accuracy - we do keep all approved versions in an archive.

The problems relate more to the plethora of ways lite can fail - I don't have
my full list in front of me, but as a minor example, deleting an entire
bulleted item from a list leaves the bullet in place within the editor as
normal text. It sounds nitpicky, but it really makes the documents look funky,
and the formatting is very important to our people, so the content editors
spend extra time reformatting documents, which is not ideal.

Nevertheless, I haven't found a solution that does any better, and we don't
have the resources to reinvent that wheel (yet), so we do have lite in
production... it just is one of our pain points.

And to be fair, lite is improving - our list of complaints is smaller than it
was a year ago, and each new release fixes a few things.

~~~
bmulholland
For what it's worth, we're hitting many of those same problems even without
lite. People are finnicky about how their contracts look, and they tend to
spend a lot of time getting them to look just right. It's especially difficult
with the jump from Word to HTML, even when it's abstracted via e.g. CKEditor.

May I ask where you work?

~~~
codingdave
I want to respect the privacy of my employer, and not connect my public
discussions to them, but I'd be happy to move over to a non-public discussion
if you want to talk more about where I am working and what we are up to... let
me know a good way to reach out to you if you would like to head that
direction.

~~~
bmulholland
I have added my email to my profile

------
dragonwriter
Startups practicing law (rather than providing law-related services other than
legal practice) are difficult given restrictions on the practice of law,
including legal ethics rules (e.g., things like ABA Model Rule 5.4(d) [0].)

Also, while in other industries if you break the rules of the industry the
corporation pays a fine (which is part of the risk of a startup) and the
principals all move on with their lives and livelihoods.

Lawyers who break the rules of their industry can be disbarred. While this
doesn't completely stop all move-fast-and-break-things in the field, it does
limit the willingness of people in the field to engage in it.

Another factor may be that purchasers of legal services tend to be looking to
mitigate risk by purchasing those services, which may make them reluctant to
consider novel and unproven models.

[0]
[http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibilit...](http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_4_professional_independence_of_a_lawyer.html)

------
declan
Well, it depends on what you mean by "law startup."

There are plenty of document-processing startups that help with what lawyers
call e-discovery. There are also some startups that will help you do some
standard legal tasks, like incorporate in Delaware and issue stock. I think
one of those is Clerky, a YC-funded company. Avvo is a matchmaking/profile
aggregation startup that comes to mind.

I worked with Fenwick and West to incorporate
[https://recent.io/](https://recent.io/), in part because I've had a
relationship with them for a few years. But I see why people today use Clerky
and pay ~15% as much.

A few other thoughts:

* Lawyers are some of the most conservative and risk-averse professionals you'll find. So it will take a while for any newfangled innovations to become adopted.

* Those "enormous fees" are already being whittled down as part of a multi-decade shift away from Big Law in its traditional form, including fixed fees rather than hourly rates.

* Bar associations act as a cartel and try to restrict competition. Nolo, which publishes self-help software and books, was actually sued for daring to compete with lawyers ("Unauthorized Practice of Law"): [http://blog.nolo.com/blog/2011/04/11/the-brief-story-of-texa...](http://blog.nolo.com/blog/2011/04/11/the-brief-story-of-texas-vs-nolo/)

* When you want tailored advice, a website with a bunch of forms (even forms created by smart lawyers) is likely insufficient. I know one trust attorney in the SF bay area who told me she had to figure out how to handle cryopreservation after some Silicon Valley execs wanted it; that required original research. When you're in a situation where mistakes can cost you millions, hiring an attorney for tailored advice is cheap insurance.

~~~
singhrac
We're a legal startup!
([https://www.justiserv.com](https://www.justiserv.com))

It's hard to innovate in the legal space because of how fluid and complicated
the law tends to be, and how arbitrary lawyer's pricing schemes can be.

In response to thoughts:

* Lawyers are definitely risk-averse, but they're feeling the shift towards online services as much as any other industry. Also, young attorneys are willing to adopt technology, and have more trouble finding jobs, especially since large law firms are breaking up.

* True, but the magnitude we're talking about is still thousands of dollars per case.

* Actually, we've found bar associations eager to help connect their lawyers with new opportunities.

* Definitely - there still isn't an adequate alternative to a good, well trained lawyer.

------
glifchits
We at Beagle Inc ([http://beagle.ai](http://beagle.ai)) are building a product
that uses NLP to make contracts easier to understand, bringing comprehension
from 0 to 80% in seconds. There's also a collaborative piece which allows you
to make critical changes and see redlines. I'd say our analysis focuses on a
relatively different problem than other legal tech startups are addressing.
Its been a substantial technical challenge to bring our analysis quality to a
good level and its constantly improving. Aside from that, law can be a
relatively daunting space, so I believe that having a leader who knows their
way around the law (and tech) is critical. I'd suggest that these
personalities enjoy well-paying jobs at law firms and a special few would
consider the startup route.

------
megamicha
Angellist ranks close to 900 legal startups
([https://angel.co/companies?markets[]=Legal](https://angel.co/companies?markets\[\]=Legal))

but most of them are in fact only partially legal or "meta legal" in the sense
that they do not offer legal advice. There has been going on a lot of
discussion why legal discruption or innovation do have such a hard time. One
of the most important reasons is linked to the matter as such: math, logic and
algorithms are apt to create complex logical structures but remain
semantically simple. legal rules are simple in terms of logic but semantically
complex.

The very few startups actuelly working the automation field (neota logic,
lexalgo) have a hard time finding sufficient real live cases to get their
hands on.

------
brudgers
Lawyers are typically hired to apply their expertise to a particular problem
and to tailor there advice based on a particular set of facts and
circumstances. One of those circumstances is the desired outcome of the
client. People don't hire a lawyer to go before the jury and say "My client is
probably guilty."

Day in and out, much lawyering is piece work of a custom or semi-custom
nature...even with standard contracts getting the execution date and names of
the parties correct and double and triple checking matters: GIGO doesn't make
the grade.

Years ago I worked on a team that designed renovations for a courthouse
parking structure. Documents were done, competitive biding had been announced,
closed and fixed price bids received, a contract awarded, notice to proceed
given, and selective demolition began at 7am or so Monday morning. 10am the
phone call comes in. The job is shut down. The bailiff told the superintendent
that the Judge said he would throw his ass in jail for contempt of court
because the construction activity was disruptive to proceedings in his
courtroom [jackhammers can do that]. Twelve months of daylight construction
became thirteen months of night time construction. I'm not sure if the
contractor started preparing the change order price or started shopping for a
new boat first.

Anyway, moving fast and breaking things in law runs the risk of winding up in
jail. If the judge doesn't like it, the bailiff comes just got a change order
to move toand hauls you away with "Tell it to the judge" the only response to
your protestations of good intent while knowing full well its irony.

------
onion2k
Startups generally solve pains that the founders have experienced. To
experience the pains of the legal profession you need to have worked in it for
a while, but if you've done that then you're probably already quite well paid
and maybe see the paperwork as a necessity. Or at least see it as something
that you can charge a lot for. In short, there aren't many law startups
because the people who suffer what we regard as a pain don't see it as a pain.

------
adebtlawyer
There are some startups that make tools for lawyers. Non-lawyers probably
aren't aware of them. FastCase seems like a fairly new company to me. Others
mentioned Clio.

If the question meant, why aren't there startups replacing lawyers, possible
answers include: 1) In the U.S., non-lawyers can't be owners or investors in
law firms; 2) There isn't a lot of overlap between the tech industry and the
legal industry; 3) Much substantive legal work is custom knowledge work that
would require a human level AI to replace. An approximation won't work.

There is still plenty of money to be made with something that helps lawyers do
their jobs. Suggest document assembly as ripe for disruption. Existing tools
are too costly.

------
engined
I built and run DocketDaily
([http://www.docketdaily.com](http://www.docketdaily.com)). We mine and
process litigation data which is used for a number of law-related purposes. As
others have mentioned, Thomson and LexisNexis have the law firm market nearly
locked down (for the time being, at least, as even this is changing), so we
decided to target a slightly different space. We focus on legal vendors --
those selling into law firms and in-house counsel -- and provide them with
very useful data and information for their sales/marketing efforts.

This strategy -- not targeting the law market head on -- has proved
beneficial, and has allowed us to establish a base from which to expand to
adjacent verticals (law firms, in-house counsel, legal recruiters, etc.)

We have a few competitors (Lex Machina, DocketNavigator, LawProspector,
others) but they each tend to carve out a niche. In the case of Lex Machina
and DocketNavigator, both are entirely focused on 1) law firms, and 2) patent
litigation. It's a big world out there, and data in law is relatively young
and nascent.

In any case, if anyone wants to discuss further, I'd be very happy to share
learnings. I'm gene@ the website I mentioned earlier. If anyone is
Cambridge/Boston based and interested in the law sector, I'd love to get
together!

------
laihiu
I'm an ex-lawyer and co-founder of Dragon Law (www.dragonlaw.com.hk). We're
based in Hong Kong, the legal hub of Asia. We'll be launching in Singapore in
a month or two's time.

Our online contract automation tool allows business owners to create their own
legal documents, have them reviewed by a lawyer, and signed electronically.

Check us out! Happy to hear feedback from you all!

------
wayclever
Here are some law startups:

www.hireanesquire.com www.plainlegal.com www.InCloudCounsel.com
www.casetext.com

There are quite a few law startups with legal practice SASS offerings, b2c
marketplaces, document management. You likely haven't heard of these unless
you're a lawyer, and even then it's not likely. How many dental startups are
you following? None, I'm guessing.

------
gyardley
I've talked with more than one set of specialized lawyers who had the domain
knowledge necessary to identify a lucrative problem and imagine a productized
solution. They all considered creating a start-up, to the point of talking to
me about it, but in the end they just kicked the tires for a while and never
seemed to do anything.

My theory: if you've got the specialized domain knowledge to do something in
the legal space that isn't already being done to death, you're likely very
well paid already, and quitting to focus on a startup would involve a huge
opportunity cost. That dramatically cuts down on the number of startups that
actually get created - it's just too much security to give up.

That said, there's still a good number of legal startups out there.

------
bayonetz
Another interesting one: [https://www.judicata.com](https://www.judicata.com)

I think this is by the guy that posted those great class notes originally for
Peter Thiel's Startup Class (which then became a book I believe).

~~~
kyrre
this looks to be dead (?)

[https://www.linkedin.com/in/blakemasters](https://www.linkedin.com/in/blakemasters)

"May 2012 – April 2014 (2 years)San Francisco Bay Area"

~~~
igurari
Nope, alive and doing well.

------
zedpm
I was employee #1 of a law startup that was acquired in 2014 (I'll leave it up
to you to guess if it was LexisNexis or Westlaw that bought us). We did indeed
find that there was a lot of opportunity in the space, but also a great deal
of inertia preventing adoption of new technology.

We also occasionally encountered strong opposition, including having more than
one law school prohibit the use of our software by students.

I'd say that there are a lot of law-oriented startups that you never hear
about, especially if you're not part of a school or firm that's directly
targeted by them.

------
mhuffman
I suspect that it is because law service advocates (and most professional
groups) fiercely protect themselves through licensing and watch-groups
(normally "boards").

If you would like to prove this to yourself pull up your state (not CA, CA is
weird) statutes concerning attorney licensure and read the entry and
maintenance requirements to "join the club". You will find them draconian and
easily withdrawn for minor offenses.

You will see this in all groups that have advocates from lawyers to
hairdressers. It is self-preservation.

------
erikdykema
Hello HN! I'm the CEO of CaseRails (
[https://caserails.com](https://caserails.com) ), a legal-tech startup based
in New York. We just launched an online document automation platform for
lawyers that makes it really quick-and-easy for a lawyer to take a generic
document (like an NDA) and personalize it for the client. Though, we do have
non-lawyer customers too.

I see that my colleague from Contractually (bmulholland) gave a good answer
and I agree with his sentiments.

I would add that, in a broad sense, there are probably three hypothetical
markets for a law startup (defined as, something to do with legal services):

1 - you could provide legal services to consumers of legal services,

2 - you could displace legal services with something else, or

3 - you could sell something, or provide another service to, the people
providing legal services.

CaseRails is an example of #3, our product is intended for lawyers themselves
to use.

There aren't any examples of #1 (that I know of) because, at least in the USA,
ethical regulations prohibit fee splitting with non lawyers. This means you
can't have non-lawyer shareholders / investors; which means you can't raise
capital in the traditional markets.

LegalZoom and RocketLawyer are good examples of #2, they try to displace your
need to call a lawyer with an online service where you can get document
templates. (I don't want to speak for Contractually but they might also be in
this category)

------
zeruch
Part of it is the inherently risk averse/conservative orientation of the legal
field (much of it arguably justified in the sense that in a field where
extreme precision of language is a minimum, and strict auditing common, the
"fast and loose" approach of agile-centric startup culture runs contra to a
lot of legal instincts. Another commenter laid it out well:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9528423](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9528423)
"Startups practicing law (rather than providing law-related services other
than legal practice) are difficult given restrictions on the practice of law,
including legal ethics rules (e.g., things like ABA Model Rule 5.4(d) [0].)

Also, while in other industries if you break the rules of the industry the
corporation pays a fine (which is part of the risk of a startup) and the
principals all move on with their lives and livelihoods.

Lawyers who break the rules of their industry can be disbarred. While this
doesn't completely stop all move-fast-and-break-things in the field, it does
limit the willingness of people in the field to engage in it."

That said, I think there are areas where some innovation could occur,
particularly around e-discovery and in lexical search/dbs.

------
currandye
You’re certainly right in saying that the law and law firms have been slow to
adapt. There are many areas that are ripe for innovation; document management
systems, e-signing documents etc.

And as you say, it’s hard to know where to look for startups in the legal
sphere. I’ve found a really good site called
[http://www.lawhackers.co](http://www.lawhackers.co) which lists all the
legal-tech startups and what they do. Also, their newsletter is great for
keeping up to date with the field.

I myself work for a legal-tech startup called
[https://www.lexoo.co.uk/](https://www.lexoo.co.uk/) We focus on solving three
problems that businesses face when trying to hire a lawyer:

1) there is no price transparency 2) it's hard to judge the quality of lawyers
3) It’s time consuming to get multiple quotes

We help businesses find great lawyers by getting them multiple quotes for
their legal matter from specialist lawyers, so they can compare them side by
side.

I hope that’s helpful!

------
pshenoy
I am the tech lead at UniCourt [https://unicourt.com](https://unicourt.com)
and we are a legal tech startup.

UniCourt solves a few of the problems below

1\. Track hundreds/thousands of on-going cases in Federal (PACER) and State
Courts and only get notified on relevant updates

2\. Download documents for Federal cases from within UniCourt and save money
from repeatedly getting charged from PACER.

3\. Upload documents to UniCourt and attach to cases.

4\. Free access to documents already downloaded in UniCourt archive

5\. Access to the entire RECAP documents archive, so avoid incurring PACER
fees

6\. Manage cases and collaborate on case research by inviting users of your
organization to UniCourt

7\. Get notified on all activities happening to a case of interest - a user
commenting on a case, a document being downloaded, a case being updated

Take a look at [http://www.lawhackers.co/](http://www.lawhackers.co/) you will
find most of the legal technology startups here.

------
techhackblob
there are many excellent points made on this question but the standout one
explaining the problem is >>When you're in a situation where mistakes can cost
you millions, hiring an attorney for tailored advice is cheap insurance.

when you hire a corporate law firm you're paying for their liability
insurance. Only products and services that can remove the fear if something
goes wrong (i.e insurance) or what is the outcome does not stand up in law
will really disrupt things. For the latter the government needs to be involved
and this proposal in the UK will really shake things up for access to justice,
costs etc if it goes ahead [http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/16/online-
court-prop...](http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/16/online-court-
proposed-to-resolve-claims-of-up-to-25000)

------
kyrre
lexisnexis and westlaw got this space locked down.

some interesting attempts:

[https://www.ravellaw.com/](https://www.ravellaw.com/) (active)
[https://www.judicata.com/](https://www.judicata.com/) (stillborn/dead)
www.tabulaw.com (dead)

~~~
igurari
Judicata is very much alive. We're tackling a hard problem, with little margin
for error, and focused on doing it right. It's a very different model than
most startups, but then again, law is a very different beast.

------
SK1
The "law startup" space is pretty active, but I think it helps to break things
down a bit. Most probably would fit into one of these categories:

(1) Startups that aim for the consumer market by replacing lawyers in some way
(e.g., LegalZoom, Shake, or other document automation software companies) (2)
Startups that aim for the consumer market by connecting people with lawyers
(e.g., Priori Legal) (3) Startups that aim for the legal support/services
market by offering cheaper/better alternatives to existing software offerings
(e.g., Ravel Law for legal research or Clio for practice management) (4)
Startups that aim for the legal support/services market by innovating in areas
that traditionally have been inefficient and/or paper-intensive (e.g., Lex
Machina for IP analytics or eDepoze for depositions)

------
sfalbo
I think law startups is a vague term that can account for many points of view.
Startups for people 'using' the law or startups for those 'practicing' the
law.

For the past few years I've been making apps such as iJuror
([http://www.ijurorapp.com](http://www.ijurorapp.com)) specifically for
attorneys and law firms. Adoption has been pretty significant but the industry
is a bit more conservative when it comes to technology. Other apps such as
TrialPad and TranscriptPad have been successful as well.

ClearView Social ([http://clearviewsocial.com](http://clearviewsocial.com)) is
another startup in the legal space that helps attorneys and law firms grow
their presence on social media.

I think we'll see more startups in the space in the coming years too.

------
ajdlinux
[https://tkbt.com/](https://tkbt.com/), based out of Canberra, Australia, is
developing the "Intelligent Composition Environment" for legal document
drafting.

------
jacobheller
I'm a bit late to the game, but I'm the CEO of Casetext (YC S13),
[https://casetext.com](https://casetext.com), which is a startup taking on the
legal research space.

I wrote a post on Medium that addresses why you don't see many lawyer-founders
that you might find interesting or relevant:
[https://medium.com/@jacob_heller/from-think-like-a-lawyer-
to...](https://medium.com/@jacob_heller/from-think-like-a-lawyer-to-think-
different-dc3e570b4a5e)

------
kakowjo
Several legal startups exist but maybe they are not sexy enough to be
profiled. Much of the law is local, down to the municipal level. What works in
Amsterdam won't in NYC. What works in LA won't in San Francisco. Tough to
scale. I think because so much of the legal profession is based on
relationships and creative arguments we'd see much of the legal landscape off
limits to what HN would call a startup. Would Watson come up with, "if the
glove don't fit you must aquit?"

------
erikdykema
Erik from [https://caserails.com](https://caserails.com) here . . .

Ars Technica has a story now about a trademark attorney claiming he owns "case
formative" marks ( including CaseRails )

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/trademark-
lawyer-...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/trademark-lawyer-
to-3-man-startup-hand-over-your-domain-or-else/)

------
smt88
There are companies that provide legals docs to startups as a service. These
are generally a bad idea to use. For example, I used a popular one a few years
ago and got a general, 2-page document. I went to a real lawyer and got a
50-page document that served me well later, when my company needed to
liquidate.

One of the problems is that the cost of having a bad legal team (or no legal
team) is astronomical. It's far higher than just paying the "high fees".

What kinds of areas would you want to innovate specifically?

------
psycr
[http://www.rossintelligence.com](http://www.rossintelligence.com)

I can put anyone in touch with the founders, if you'd like.

------
bornbarrister
Hi, I am a lawyer and founder of FeedLEX (feedlex.com ). The idea behind it is
to provide curated legal news at one place for Indian citizen. We are trying
to build certain tools apart from FeedLEX but Lack of funding and being
technologically naive, I am facing lots of problem in developing a proper web
portal to shape my true idea. We are looking for funding and people from
technology background to join us.

------
markoblad
valcu.co (I'm the founder) is automating corporate transactions, with startups
currently using the Delaware incorporation and setup tools. We are working on
some heavier stuff (e.g., equity financing transactions integrated with a cap
table). It's not surprising to me how difficult it is to innovate here as
there are so many moving pieces. Scripting up the NVCA forms runs about 250
variables per document and requires conditionals and loops, which most merge
tools can't handle. Control provisions, amendment provisions, board rights,
protective provisions and many other provisions have to be modeled separately.
Share numbers and capitalization reps have to either be entered individually
(meaning you have to build a separate model), or the tools have to build in a
cap table. It's been build, build, build-we're over 100k lines of code.

------
siculars
I've worked with the founder of caserails.com. Great guy. If you're a lawyer,
check them out.

------
oliwary
Swiftcourt ([http://www.swiftcourt.se/](http://www.swiftcourt.se/)) is doing
really cool work and just got a big round of funding to expand to the US. They
offer a quicker and cheaper way to solve small disputes.

------
theaccordance
One that I remember coming across is
[https://www.shakelaw.com/](https://www.shakelaw.com/)

Cant give insight as to why that industry seems particularly more quiet than
others in terms of disruptive business models however

~~~
lawnuke
Shake was recently (April 2015) purchased by LegalShield.
[http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/shake-joins-forces-
legalshield/](http://www.shakelaw.com/blog/shake-joins-forces-legalshield/)

------
scrrr
Perhaps pay and lifestyle are already very good, why bother risking that for a
startup that might fail or will, at the very least, cost a lot of time.

That and the probably rather conservative nature of people in this profession
are probably some of the reasons.

------
ansible
Do any law firms have a client site like for software project management?

I want something like redmine, where I can log in, and get a complete timeline
and list of documents for a particular case. I should be able to upload
anything the lawyers want.

------
berzemus
I'm jurist cum developer in Belgium, I spent a decade in this niche:

* Jurists are used to face extraordinary difficulties when researching things. Throw them a monstrous contractor-built Adobe Flex application as a search engine, and they'll be all the happier: still better than hundreds of paper volumes. The erudite knowledge of where and how to search is part of their expertise.

* In their mind, it's the content that matters. The form may be prettier and easier to use, they will hardly notice. As a law student, we had to read and print things presented like this (and this is a extremely gentle example): [http://goo.gl/6Uz48Q](http://goo.gl/6Uz48Q) Years later, I built my own app, where the same content is presented like this (see print preview to see what a little interest in the subject can produce) : [http://www.etaamb.be/fr/2015201838.html](http://www.etaamb.be/fr/2015201838.html) It doesn't get noticed a lot, although it attracts a lot of visits.

* The sector is cornered with not too innovative academics and conservative publisher companies with vested interests, even more conservative public institutions and associations (lawyers, notaries,... ) and extremely conservative laws. Kickstarting something like an internet app for last wills and testaments without the support of most of them is impossible (been there, done that): there is no place for disruption without institutional support.

* Speaking of institutional support: I only managed to implement an electronic proceedings platform in Belgium (still the only one) because I happen to work at a federal institution. It's been instituted by way of Royal Decree: not really the same as the apple store. It was a fortuitous meeting of ambition and competence: in other settings contractors have to be engaged, of which only the cheapest get selected, resulting in utter crap and millions of wasted taxpayer's money.

* It's very country-specific. Laws and customs stop at national borders, not even speaking of fragmented federal states and small legal districts. You could write a successful app in your country, but other countries have their own hurdles, not event speaking of the not-invented-here bias (As far as I know, technological exchanges are virtually non-existent, even between countries who share a common judicial structure).

Plenty of other stuff in my mind, but still, the sector is ripe for
improvement; the internet revolution has just started reaching the outskirts
of the legal world. The ways laws are voted, how proceedings and courts work,
how doctrinal knowledge is made available and legal professionals joinable,
there's plenty of low-hanging fruit. Fruit regulated by state law and pretty
tenacious customs ;)

~~~
louithethrid
I think, that last sentence hit it pretty home. Who regulates the regulators?
Noone.

You dont get to disrupt law, cause its against the law ;)

------
Bashafrost
I'm the founder of Priori Legal -- we're a b2b marketplace connecting
businesses and entrepreneurs with a network of vetted lawyers at their most
competitive rates. Check us out! BFR

------
wayclever
Here are some law startups:

www.hireanesquire.com www.plainlegal.com www.InCloudCounsel.com
www.casetext.com

There are quite a few law startups with legal practice SASS offerings, b2c
marketplaces, document management.

------
carrotleads
I know of one in Australia [https://lawpath.com.au/](https://lawpath.com.au/)

The other area to disrupt IMO is accounting services.

------
Tiktaalik
Clio is the only one I know of off the top of my head.
[https://www.goclio.com/](https://www.goclio.com/)

------
bladecatcher
Another one that was posted on HN recently was
[https://www.lawgeex.com/](https://www.lawgeex.com/)

------
lewisjoe
I thought [https://www.docracy.com](https://www.docracy.com) was disrupting
that space. Isn't it?

------
_pmf_
People are not too keen on betting the future of their company on a startup
that may or may not be still around in 3 months to save a few bucks.

------
g42gregory
Here is a law startup: [https://lexmachina.com/](https://lexmachina.com/)

------
bchociej
[https://juristat.com/](https://juristat.com/)

------
agounaris
Why a "startup" is only related to a technology? Why can't I make a kebab
startup?

~~~
randall
A startup is a company designed to grow quickly in this context, not simply a
new company. No matter how awesome your kebabs, it's unlikely the company
could grow at the rate of Airbnb or Uber.

[http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/growth.html)

~~~
christyweisner
Although it's not tech in the traditional sense of a start up you all are
discussing here, legal process outsourcing was a CRAZY idea back in 2004, when
my company (Pangea3) was founded. Law + process + India = startup just the
same. It's just now a $1 billion industry.

------
Simulacra
Market saturation, with lawyers saddled in unbelievable debt.

------
basseq
What about something like LegalZoom?

------
shayannafisi
regulations

