Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Ask HN: Why are there so few law startups?
68 points by rsp1984 on May 12, 2015 | hide | past | web | favorite | 67 comments
One could probably find a bunch through a Google search but I couldn't name a startup in the law space off the top of my head. I also don't remember ever seeing one making headlines on HN.

With all the enormous fees and the insane amount of paperwork I'd think it's a space that's screaming for new ideas but from an outside perspective it doesn't seem like there has been much innovation since MS Word... Has anyone got some insight?

I'm the lead developer at Contractually (a Vancouver-based startup): 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I have added my email to my profile

Have you checked out Ice? I'm not sure if it will fit your needs, but if you haven't taken a look, perhaps you should.


lite is a plugin for CKEditor that is built on top of ICE: https://github.com/loopindex/ckeditor-track-changes/#track-c...

Nice! Thanks for mentioning it. I had no idea about it.

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...

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/, 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...

* 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.

We're a legal startup! (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.

We at Beagle Inc (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.

Angellist ranks close to 900 legal startups (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.

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.

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.

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.

I built and run DocketDaily (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!

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!

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.

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.

Another interesting one: 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).

this looks to be dead (?)


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

Nope, alive and doing well.

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.

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.

Hello HN! I'm the CEO of CaseRails ( 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)

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 "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.

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 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/ 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!

I am the tech lead at UniCourt 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/ you will find most of the legal technology startups here.

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...

lexisnexis and westlaw got this space locked down.

some interesting attempts:

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

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.

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)

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) 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) 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.

https://tkbt.com/, based out of Canberra, Australia, is developing the "Intelligent Composition Environment" for legal document drafting.

I'm a bit late to the game, but I'm the CEO of Casetext (YC S13), 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...

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?"

Erik from https://caserails.com here . . .

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


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?


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

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.

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.

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

Swiftcourt (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.

One that I remember coming across is 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

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

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.

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.

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 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 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 ;)

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 ;)

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

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.

I know of one in Australia https://lawpath.com.au/

The other area to disrupt IMO is accounting services.

Clio is the only one I know of off the top of my head. https://www.goclio.com/

Another one that was posted on HN recently was https://www.lawgeex.com/

I thought https://www.docracy.com was disrupting that space. Isn't it?

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.

Here is a law startup: https://lexmachina.com/

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

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.


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.

Market saturation, with lawyers saddled in unbelievable debt.

What about something like LegalZoom?


Applications are open for YC Summer 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact