Work Remote. Be Happy. (Ten Tips)

Juris is a distributed team. We work remotely. I chose this deliberately after fifteen years of experience as a founder. In that time, I’ve worked at creative agencies, had offices on Hollywood studio lots, in buildings downtown, and in my closet. I’ve bounced around early proto-WeWork spaces and eventually WeWorks, all over the place since 2006.

With Coronavirus, COVID-19, and pandemics in general in the news, there have been a lot of good posts recently on working remotely. I particularly like this one from Red Planet Founder Nathan Marz, “Why fully distributed is by far the best way to run a software team.” This has inspired me to write a bit about our experience as a remote team, and some of the tricks I’ve learned. But first, a bit about the choice:

Choosing remote to solve for happiness.

At Juris, we’re trying to build a “100 year” company. This is a fancy way of saying, “a company that will keep kicking ass if the founders kick the bucket.” This is doable in a number of ways, but at Juris we tend to like the version where we do it by focusing on “the happiness, health, and wellbeing of every member of the Juris Team, Juris Community, and all impacted by our technology.” Which you will find embedded in our mission. Basically, we take happiness very seriously.

In 2017, I chose to make Juris a remote company after 10 years of startup life, 3 years of law school, and a peek inside the corporate version of things. I think that the future of work is remote, and I’ve built Juris to fit. My experience since has only increased my belief in this notion. Like any scenario, it has tradeoffs. We can talk about operational efficiency and things like that to no end, but what it really comes down to is flexibility, and ultimately, happiness.

Life is short. We should solve for happiness when possible. In this equation, work/life balance is key. When I’ve let this balance fall off, I’ve found myself accomplished, but massively unhappy and unhealthy.

Choosing a remote structure for Juris was a deliberate effort to solve for happiness and prosperity. It’s not for everyone, but for me, and for everyone else drawn to the remote work option, it is very real, and we agree with Marz, it is “the best”. We hope a look at how we operate as a team who willingly chose to live the remote work life will provide some insight for those who might have no choice in coming months.

What it looks like.

The first thing to know is that “time” doesn’t matter the same way. You lose the nice clean clock in, clock out, dynamic of showing up in an office. Instead there are tasks. As long as those tasks are done, and on deadline, I don’t care how many hours it took, or where you did it. I am currently writing this in a bathrobe, at 2pm. Before that I went for a run. Who cares, this post will be ready on time.

But, time does still matter. There’s a rhythm to everything and it’s on the team (or manager) to set the tempo. Here’s how we do that:

Juris is currently a team of 4 founders. Our meeting spaces are video chat windows. We coordinate primarily via Slack, and the various departments have their own specific tools. We have stable “standup meetings” where everyone is present. In larger organizations, it’s common to do these every day depending on the team. Our current team stabilized around a couple of longer regularly scheduled meetings every week instead of the daily format.

This is what it actually looks like.

We’re always on Slack and popping in and out of ad hoc video chats and calls to work together on various tasks. As delivery deadlines loom, we spin up more meeting specific “decision” meetings, or work session meetings where we’re all in the same video chat, but working on our own tasks.

So, that’s our version. What else happens the rest of the day for everyone? I don’t know. I don’t care. But, they get their work done, and we launch products. So far, this has all been structural stuff. Let’s get to those tips and tricks!

Some Remote Working Tips:

Again, check out that post I linked to at the top. They’ve got a few tricks I decided to roll into our meetings. Like the “question of the day.” But, here’s a few things we’ve figured out, in no particular order.

1. Have fun.

This is a cheesy one to put up top, but even that makes my point. Who cares? Taking everything too seriously will break you. Incidentally, this is the key to mastering Slack (or any chat platform.) You have to think of chat platforms more like college or corporate campuses, more so than “email replacements.” For a remote team they are the closest thing you’ll have to a campus. Slack is not email gone crazy, Slack is insane spastic Internet community chat cleaned up for work. Animated Gifs and Emoji are always welcome. Stupid random channels and side conversations are important. Encourage them.

But this is about more than Slack. This applies across the board. At Juris we end most group meetings with a cheer. It’s stupid. And that’s the point. You have to try harder, and push your comfort zones to break through the limitations that do exist for remote work. If you are dealing with a transition out of an office (if only for a few months,) and maybe new software like Slack and Zoom, now is a good time to think about the culture of your organization. It will probably need some tweaks to make the leap to virtual. Have fun with it.

2. Chill out.

This relates to the above, and it is something that needs to be incorporated at the level of company and team culture: chill out. Like I said, time is different for remote work. While communications have gotten increasingly immediate, with tools like Slack, the need to shut them off and do work is very real as well. It is easy to let the quickness of the technology cause an unhealthy urgency to reply quickly. Talk about this with your team. Establish a baseline.

At Juris, internally, email is the slowest expected turnaround, call or text if there is an emergency. Slack is in between, answer when you can, but I’d rather you focus on your work if you are on deadline. Tag someone to bump the urgency just a bit within Slack.

3. Actually use the “video” in “video chat” for “meetings.”

I go out of the way to call them “meetings.” It’s a meeting, not a call. A call is voice only. Does the distinction matter? Probably not. But, it creates a difference between the time where we’re all in one place on video, and quick voice or text comms throughout the day.

Even if it’s only for a moment at the top of the meeting, everyone should jump on video to say “hello.” If someone is calling in because of their situation that day, not a big deal, but we try to be on video when possible. Screen shares are glorious once it’s time to get to work, but it’s important to us to start our time together by remembering that we’re all people here. So, look at the camera, say hi, then we can get down to business.

Also, video just keeps people accountable. We’re less apt to get distracted by reddit while someone is talking when we know the video is on.

4. Also use headphones.

Ideally ones with a mic. The software built into modern video chat platforms is pretty good at balancing an open mic in your room. (That means a mic that can hear your speakers and needs to react to reduce feedback.) But, they never quite work perfectly, which is why you can sometimes hear yourself on a chat. Headphones will fix the feedback. And a mic closer to your mouth will give you that nice radio voice, instead of picking up all that room echo making it sound like you are in a cathedral. You don’t need anything fancy, whatever came with your phone will do. 

If you want to level up from there, use something wireless. Airpods are great. I use gaming headphones. They’re a bit clunkier, but they’re great for audio quality, minimal lag, and a boom gets the mic close to my face. The tradeoff is that I’ve gotta be a CEO while looking like I came here to play Overwatch. It is what it is. (As a funny aside, I have a true radio quality mic I use for podcasts, but it’s actually too nice. It weirds people out in meetings.)

But, here’s the real kicker on the wireless cans: you can walk around. Which gets me to the next thing… 

5. Step away from the screen.

This might sound counter intuitive, but get away from your screen. Like, take two steps back, scoot the chair back. Be present. And carry on. No, this isn’t about improving your camera angle (we’ll get to that.) This is actually about distraction, and about meeting quality.

The point of the meeting is to bring the minds in the room together, but it’s easy to get distracted when you are sitting at a workstation. I have a couple of screens. I set one to full screen with the meeting feed, and I step back far enough that I can’t use the keyboard, or pay attention to other notifications.

Standing is also helpful for the next thing…

6. Over animate.

All credit for this one goes to Prof G on the podcast below, so I’ll mostly let him take it away in the video below.

If you’re the one speaking you have to over compensate. Video is missing the intensity and intimacy of in-person contact. If you’re the one leading the meeting, do some jumping jacks or something. Don’t bring your “I was just working on a doc and then I opened this window” energy to the screen, it’ll sap the energy from the whole meeting.

7. Get a space.

Home office, some kind of co-work space, a closet, whatever. It’s good to have a place to go that’s away from the rest of your life. For some this needs to be a different building, with a bit of a commute. For some, like me, another room in the house is available. At other times in my life it’s just been the understanding the headphones meant work, and no headphones meant not work. Closets can also be useful. I’m serious.

Okay, now let’s get to camera angles!

8. Set design it up.

Remember, your virtual presence in the meeting essentially includes your backdrop. If you have the space, have some fun. A good goal? Give everyone else in the meeting stuff to ask about as they’re just sitting there waiting for everyone else to show up. There are plenty of easter eggs in the screenshot above.

Also, look into purchasing some lights. My setup is overkill (I have a lot of leftover hardwear from my old life as a video producer.) But, if you hit Amazon you can find all kinds of cool, low cost, LED lighting solutions that can do a lot for your backdrop (and your face.) If that’s out of the question putting a lamp right behind and a bit above your screen is a good start.

If you use background replacement, at least have some fun with it.

9. At first, meetings might need a co-pilot.

Hopefully organizations can facilitate this, but your kid could probably do it as well. You know what, just listen to this:

10. Finally, walk around. (But further than last time.)

Take breaks, go for walks, play some video games, make some tea, call a friend. Take the time to shoot the shit with a teammate about something unrelated to work. These are the things you lose in an office. You need to find your version, and build them in. And this basically gets us back to happiness.

Working in an office is easy. You show up every day and a lot of things are handled for you. When you work remotely you have to own a lot more of your schedule to get work done. If you can manage this, you will have time for all of the above in any given day. It’s hard work, in a different way than the grind of showing up at an office, but in fifteen years I have consistently found that the people who can handle it seem to be much happier. 

Okay. Now it’s 3:45. I’m gonna go take a nap, then do a little more work before dinner. ✌️

Also this:

Further reading: Finding comfort in the chaos: How Cory Doctorow learned to write from literally anywhere.

Hear Adam and his co-host Brian talk remote work a year ago on their podcast Zengineering: https://anchor.fm/zengineering-podcast/episodes/073—On-Working-Remotely-e35cp7

And finally, if you want to help us test a product that might help out with some of your remote mailing needs, check out https://getjuris.com/mailroom – and ping me on Twitter (@thekerp) if you want to beta test.

5 Ways Medical-Legal Partnerships Can Help the Mission to #LegalHealth

Last month, Juris started a movement, the legal health movement. There are many factors that go into improving access to justice, including making the law more accessible through legal apps, but the involvement of people other than lawyers is crucial.

Legal health is a new way of looking at how people interact with the law in order to gain access to justice. It’s about understanding the rights you have under the law and being able to exercise them to protect yourself before you even need them. And it empowers people to access justice and understand that the law exists to protect them.  

Medical-legal partnerships (MLPs) are a crucial piece of the legal health puzzle. When physicians and lawyers work together, they’re able to better identify patients’ needs and determine how the law can help meet them, often leading to overriding policy solutions that advance legal health for communities at large.

Studies have shown the efficacy of MLPs. In a 2016 survey of MLP programs nationwide, 86% of health care organizations reported that MLPs improved patients’ health outcomes, 64% said MLPs improved patients’ compliance with medical treatment, and 38% found that MLPs improved clinicians’ ability to provide the best possible service.

Medicine and law intersect in a wide range of areas that impact people’s lives and rights on a daily basis. MLPs have important implications in areas such as landlord-tenant disputes, utilities and housing matters, immigration cases, tax matters, public aid cases, health insurance issues, and family law matters, just to name a few. Given the prevalence of these legal issues, more MLPs are needed to ensure that people are able to access the justice they need and deserve.

Building a Better System to Help MLPs Promote Legal Health

MLPs have great potential to help the mission of legal health, but they can only do it if they have the tools they need to spot legal problems early and handle them efficiently.  With the right tools on hand, here are five ways MPLs have the ability to promote legal health.

  1. Diagnose Substandard Housing. Substandard housing is a problem across the United States and, in addition to impacting quality of life, can have significant health implications. For example, lead paint can lead to lead poisoning and open the door to potential legal remedies, as can conditions that cause asthma. Physicians can proactively screen for these issues and, in cooperation with lawyers, alert patients to potential exposure and the accompanying legal rights they have to remedy the conditions before they develop severe health problems.
  1. Food Security and Access to Care. Many Americans cannot afford to feed themselves or their families without the help of benefit programs. Unfortunately, though, not everyone knows what benefits are available. MLPs can help direct patients to the right resources to identify which benefits, such as food stamps or other programs, apply to their individual situations. They can further help to ensure that patients continue to get access to the medical care they need through their insurance companies.
  1. Student Truancies. Every year, children across the country miss school due to medical issues. As these absences add up, they can lead to legal action for truancy, even though the absences are due to circumstances beyond the student’s control. Take, for example, the student with chronic asthma who lives in housing plagued by cockroaches and mold. Without help, the student’s family must deal with a truancy action on top of unacceptable living conditions. With the help of an MLP, however, the family is able to have their cockroach and mold conditions fixed, make sure their insurance benefits are in place to get their child proper asthma care, and get the school to understand that the absences are medically excused and drop the legal action for truancy.
  1. Unlawful Evictions. It’s not uncommon for tenants to face unlawful evictions for issues that are medically necessitated. For example, families who have children with asthma are often advised by pediatricians to use air conditioners to help manage the asthma. Certain landlords, however, oppose the use of air conditioners and threaten to unlawfully convict tenants for using them. MLPs can help these tenants to find legal remedies for the unlawful evictions and can even find additional leverage to force landlords to make other improvements in living conditions, resulting in overall health improvements for the children involved.
  1. Advocacy Work. After addressing enough issues, MLPs start to uncover patterns in patients’ needs that present opportunities to advocate for widespread policy solutions. In the past, MLPs have significantly improved patients’ lives by successfully advocating for continued access to care for chronically ill patients, the elimination of barriers to enrolling newborns in benefits, removing requirements that life-saving medications be filled by mail, requiring state Medicaid directors to reimburse for in-home ventilators for children, and working on bills that require lead inspections of federally assisted housing units.

By working together, physicians and lawyers can wield an incredible amount of power in improving patients’ quality of life. MLPs help patients to understand the legal rights that impact their health issues and how to exercise them to prevent the worst form happening. With the right automation tools that simplify intake and expand the reach of their services, MLPs can make an even greater impact on advancing #legalhealth for everyone.

At Documate, we’re a no-code document automation software company that lets lawyers build no-code apps to automate legal documents. We offer our software to legal aid organizations to build the expert systems they need to discover legal problems earlier and expand their work. Learn more about Documate by watching our videos here or reading our client case studies. Talk to us about what legal health means to you by tweeting @documatelaw or emailing hello@documate.org.

Droids Not Robots – How most legal market automation numbers miss the point.

Like all the best posts, this also starts with a chat on Twitter:

Scary Headlines

There, I was tweeting about a CNBC piece talking about how technology is changing legal work, and how law schools are responding. The crux of the piece is a statistic from a McKinsey report predicting that 23% of “legal” occupations could be automated. The rest is about how law schools are shifting what they teach in order to compensate. 

The point of the CNBC piece is right on. Automation is coming, and professional schools are adapting to the changing professional landscape, as they always have. But, they’re missing the point on that 23%. Which is too bad for them, because 23% feels way too low. (They could have had a much higher number in that headline. Yay clicks!)

What they’re missing starts a step further back from the number a the question, “why do we care?” No one cares that automation replaced my hand saw. We care because these are jobs numbers, and that is important to acknowledge. Viscerally, these are numbers about how people feed their families. But broadly they matter because people want to understand the business landscape so they know where to look (or train) for jobs. Because of this, scary headlines work really well, as does my saying that number should be higher. 

Well, I’m happy to say that the lawyers reading don’t have to worry, because that “23% of lawyer jobs getting automated” idea doesn’t really say much about the business landscape that the schools are adapting to. That landscape is about law firms, and ultimately about the people they help, not just “lawyers.” And while that automation number should be way higher if they meant to portray the whole picture, the volume of work is only going to increase because of this type of automation.

The Business Landscape

It’s clear from the McKinsey study that when they say “legal occupation” they only mean lawyers, so right off the bat this isn’t any sort of representation of the actual legal market. This is literally just people who get paid to be a lawyer, and 23% of what they do can (arguably) be replaced. Anyone who has visited a law firm, even a fairly small one, can see that there are many more people in that building than just the lawyers. That same McKinsey study has office and admin staff sitting somewhere around 85% automate-able. How much of the firm is that

When we look at the firm structure, and the gap between that 85% and 23% we realize that the whole mental model here is kind of broken. It’s a fair model. Sometimes technology works like this. It comes and takes jobs from people, and in many fields those people have nowhere else to go. But, more often, technology creates more jobs than it takes. And in a legal market where ~200 Million US Citizens aren’t getting the legal help they need, we at Juris believe that legal will play out like this: technology will take some jobs, but it will grow the pie so much that even at 85% automation the legal services sector will create more jobs and earn more money than it ever has.

But this isn’t about The Terminator, it’s about R2D2. Because of the nature of the law the human element simply isn’t going anywhere. Which is why we get to talk about centaurs before we get to droids!

This game has centaurs. (How D&D is that?)

Law is complicated, which means what lawyers do all day is complicated. Within the law there are rules, but there are also a lot of moving pieces. You know what else is complicated? Games like Go and Chess. (Sorry Starcraft, don’t have time to explain that one to them now.)

Let’s start with Go. It’s a strategic game that is 1 million trillion trillion trillion trillion times more complicated than Chess. We can run those numbers because the game boards are finite. We know how many “possible moves” there are. This many moves makes Go more “strategic”, whereas Chess is more “tactical”. Across games, as the number of possible moves increases the balance between strategy (what you should do) and tactics (what you can do) shifts toward strategy. But they’re both there. Always. Where there are rules there will be tactics. Computers are really good at tactics.

Within the last few years computers have surpassed the human ability to play Go. A couple decades ago a computer beat Garry Kasparov, the world Chess champion. We haven’t beaten them at Chess since. Not sure where we are on Go, but if you followed the link above, you’d know that the world champion retired, proclaiming AlphaGo unbeatable. 🤷‍♂️

(Not in a rush? watch this:)

Humans still play chess, But, they play what’s called “hybrid” chess. (Or sometimes called Centaur Chess, which is way cooler.) They play with a computer by their side offering tactical suggestions all along the way, and the human makes strategic decisions as to the application of those tactics. You’d think that this would collapse into boring and repetitive games, but it doesn’t. Even chess is complex enough that as long as there are humans, there’s strategic variation.

So, lets ramp up to max complexity. Real life conflicts.

The gameboard for the legal professional is human life. We have rules. We’ve written them down. We call them laws. So, we have a gameboard, with rules, which generates a number of possible moves in any given scenario. Lawyers call those “fact patterns” and we study the shit out of them in school to understand how to decode them and respond.

Because there are so many moves, it’s easy to say “this isn’t Chess.” But, it might be Go. There really are only a finite number of moves under the law a lot of the time. Either way, it does boil down to the same dynamics: tactics and strategy. Games like Chess and Go teach us these things, and in turn we’ve used them to teach computers. And computers have gotten really good. Call it an iPhone, an app, a robot, or a droid, it sure seems like this ends with a computer sitting next to us.

If the future is hybrid lawyers, what does the legal market look like? 

The New Legal Market, and Pie for Everyone

Let’s get to the real questions you’re here for: who is going to lose jobs? Who is going to need to shift skillset? How do we teach the next generation? Let’s look back to the numbers from the study, it’s only 23% of lawyers, but it’s 85% of “office and admin” staff. This means somewhere in-between is a look at what actually happens to the average law firm.

At Juris, we don’t think this plays out like robots replacing jobs, we think it plays out as droids for everyone. Droids for normal people for the easy tactical stuff. Droids for professionals for the increasingly complex strategy that comes with escalation. And there are many cool projects working on various prongs of this problem. But, let’s talk about how this isn’t “coming for your jobs.”

Thus far, we’ve really only talked about what this looks like for lawyers, with their little droids following them around in the courtroom. But the reality is that the job of lawyers is to help people with their disputes. This is the real product of the complexity of real life. Normal people need other people to help them, eventually. There is no version of this system without humans helping humans, we just don’t need them all the time. It’s stupid to pretend we do, which is sort of the current charade, and it’s even more stupid to fight as if there isn’t enough work to go around.

In a business where 78% of demand is left unmet in the United States (nevermind global volume) we see a legal system that has not been able to scale. As such, it is manifestly unfair, and unequal. At Juris, our obsession is leveling the legal playing field for the average person, in order to unlock this scale. And the key to unlocking this scale isn’t droids for lawyers, it’s droids for people, and they won’t replace lawyers or law firms.

The people we aim to help with Juris weren’t going to get a lawyer anyway. Your average person is not bringing in a lawyer to help get their security deposit back. By building tools to allow people to defend their rights we are drawing new people into the legal system. They’re not using a lawyer (yet,) but they were never going to anyway. This case wasn’t complex enough. So, no jobs stolen here. But, there will be escalation of some of these cases, because that’s how the rules of the legal system work. Some percent of these cases will move to needing help from other humans. So, there it is, tech just created more work for lawyers. Out of thin air, I guess? 

The main point: see how the pie grows for everyone if we focus on people first and build tools that scale? This isn’t the industrial revolution version of robots coming for our jobs. This is the version where scale unlocks more jobs than ever.

Want to see a legal service droid in action already? Use our DepositLetter to get your security deposit back and think of it as a cheerful little blue droid chirping at you pleasantly to help you with your legal problems.

Clio, Atrium, UpCounsel and why legaltech needs to spend more time looking at their shoes.

This started here, if you want the TLDR:

This started here, but there’s more to say.

It’s been a crazy month for legaltech, with a number of big and well funded players, like Atrium and UpCounsel bowing out or pivoting to a new narrative, with rumblings of more to come. Right now everyone is focused on the efforts that didn’t work, but also recall that before this wave, Clio raised a $250 Million Series D after 11 years of operation. Naturally, all of these headlines come with a rush of hot takes, “legaltech is dead” and “legaltech is saturated” among them. They’re all right, and they’re all wrong, because technology is weird and paradigm shifts are hard.

First, some context: Clio started in 2008, UpCounsel in 2012, Atrium in 2017. We started Juris in 2018, but I’ve been watching from other sectors of tech since 2004. I went to law school in 2013 solely to have the time and academic space to look at what’s happening here, and I started Juris to get building. We’re talking about it because we believe the only way to solve the real problems is collaboration, so everyone should understand the playing field we’re seeing.

Next, I’m not here to talk about the market size, that’s stupid, the market is insanely huge. It’s even bigger than the “$250 Million Opportunity” about which I believe Jack Newton is right on. Clio is still just selling software to lawyers, who in turn help people. Clio is successful because of their focus on this fact of life as a lawyer: you are supposed to be there to help people. But Clio’s customers are still essentially, businesses: lawyers and law firms.

Juris is here to ask: “What happens if we go directly to the people?”

But that demand tho?

Okay, fine, we’ll talk about market size a little, but only because the market is made up of people. The opportunity Clio talks about exists because there is demand for help from lawyers. Lawyers want to build businesses by providing that help, and there is a $250 Million opportunity in giving them the tools to thrive. But, right now, in the United States, 78% of people are unable to access these services, that’s ~200 Million Americans. You don’t need a degree in statistics to see that a gap this wide isn’t simply the result of inefficient lawyers.

Of course, this is what each of these companies, Juris included, talks about up and down as we try to raise money to keep plugging. “This is not a saturated market.” But of course I would say that. So, why is Clio cruising while others are shut down? Because the “technology for lawyers” market is pretty packed. But the “helping people” market is wide open. Clio has kept their eye on that ball, and used it to capture the market for tools for lawyers.

Meeting the demand that is left in the “helping people” market is going to take a drastically new solution. The answer is not going to look much like “lawyering up.” It’s going to look weird. This is why paradigm shifts are hard.

Build products not services.

The market we’re talking about here is literally called “legal services.” It’s a “service” market model. You provide a service, I pay you for your time. Sometimes this is a flat fee, sometimes this is per hour. Supply and demand determine pricing. Lawyers tend to charge per hour, and they tend to be expensive. This is fair. It takes a lot of time and money just to become a lawyer.

When we think “product” we tend to think more of consumables. Stuff you can get off the shelf in a store somewhere. Because of digital tools these worlds are merging. You can product-ify weird things. And the arc of technology merged with capitalism seems to bend toward making more and more things into products, and toward making those products as cheap as possible.

Understanding this distinction is key to navigating the shift that is afoot, especially if we care at all about filling the “access to justice” gap. There are a lot of things that used to be services, and they are being turned into products. This is happening because people want and need them, and because that’s how you make them cheap enough that everyone can get them. Turn them into commodities. Not everyone in the US can get access to a lawyer in the current system, but most people can get access to shoes.

If we ever want to fill that ~200 Million person gap, we have to think about products, not services. The good news is this: the product that lawyers provide is knowledge. And if there’s one thing tech has proven, from cave paintings to books to Wikipedia, it is the fact that it is really good at turning knowledge into products.

And Wikipedia is a really good place to start if we want to look at this even deeper, because it will help us see why billable hours can’t come along for this ride.

Billable hours don’t scale.

Wikipedia is free, and it is the greatest reference library ever created, serving up 18 billion page views a month. Wikipedia doesn’t sell ads. They collect $91 Million a year in contributions to support the project. So, that’s it, the race to the bottom is already lost when it comes to charging for knowledge. Free to the people, supported by the few. But, Wikipedia is pretty broad knowledge, and so what we end up with is a spectrum of products, and price points when it comes to digitally provided knowledge. Wikipedia is just details about stuff, but there are tools like WikiHow. It’s a different thing, to be sure, but it is a knowledge repository about how to do stuff. They do sell ads, and so they make money, but on some level this also means that the race to the bottom on knowing how to do stuff is also already lost.

It’s totally fair if you’re just sorta confused at this point. The things we are talking about are new tools that live between “product” and “service”. We call them “knowledge products.” AI people call them “expert layers.” Knowledge products behave differently, so you get things like Wikipedia. But they are products nonetheless. They will trend toward commodity pricing, and sometimes that means $0.

But don’t fret, the scale builds from $0, and you start to have knowledge products that actually make money that isn’t from donations. Tools like Stack Overflow, where programmers go when they need help with code, hosts the answers to 18 million questions. And they’re good answers, ask any programmer. There, knowledgeable professionals are helping other people with very technical answers, providing explanations that might take hours to type. This volume of output wasn’t reached by billing by the hour. That just doesn’t scale.

So we think legal knowledge products are not going to look like billable hours. To start to think about what they might look like, I want to talk about shoes.

Direct to consumer, or “how shoes are kinda like lawyers.” 

In the business world we call stuff being sold directly to people “direct to consumer.” It’s not a new thing, but the Internet is allowing it to take hold at massive scale. Before the web, we had to go to stores to get stuff, or we had to order it from a catalogue. Stores still exist, but anything we’d rather not shop for, we get online, probably from Amazon. 

Shoes being sold at “direct to consumer” scale is revolutionary, both for upstarts like Allbirds, and incumbents like Nike. And I like to start from shoes because it’s easy to imagine how a mechanical manufacturing process works, and how it ramps up to millions of shoes flying all around the planet all day. The US footwear market is a ~$15 Billion industry. Even when they were just using stores they were doing great, and with DTC sales the market only grows. It’s big money to scale manufacturing and delivery.

I also like to start with shoes because that’s probably about what a lawyer should cost. By which I mean, that’s probably about what legal help should cost. First, the demand is visceral. Shoes are a big deal if you want to exist in the modern world, and, you know, go in a 7-Eleven. You probably have some pairs you like, you use them regularly until you discard them, occasionally you have to replace a pair. You’d rather they didn’t wear out, but they do. That’s probably the cycle.

Let’s look at how legal help lines up. The demand is pretty visceral. We’re literally fighting with another party, and the law is involved. We’d rather not need it, but we do. And ideally the solutions last forever. Dispute resolved. Decision made. Contract prepared. Whatever. But, they don’t last forever, new disputes arise, because that’s how the world works. And those disputes pop up, what, a few times a year for a non-business owner?

So, maybe we’re shoes. The average price of a pair of sneakers in the US is $58. The average expenditure on shoes in the US is ~$375 per person, per year. We think this is kind of a reasonable average price point for a whole swath of stuff currently handled by lawyers, from which you could get, on average, no more than 1.5 hours of work from for that same ~$375.

If the plan to commoditize and scale legal services is going to work, we think it is going to take direct to consumer knowledge products, that probably cost about the same as shoes. Some will be nice and expensive, some will be cheap and reliable, some will be clown shoes. They are going to look weird to lawyers. Things like chatbots, and A.I. facilitated negotiation. But, they are going to scale, and they are going to unlock an insanely large market, and help hundreds of millions of people.

Want to see what I’m talking about? Check out Juris DepositLetter. It’s like shoes, but built to get security deposits back from landlords who are wrongfully withholding them from former tenants. It’s affordable, it works, and you’ll probably only need it every couple of years.

Adam Kerpelman featured on Law360

Check out Juris CEO and Co-Founder, Adam Kerpelman, featured on Law360, writing about the idea of a “legal gig economy” and how it might increase access to justice.

From the post:

“However, there is opportunity here. The tools exist. We used them to build the internet. And then we used the internet to build new ways of doing business — specifically, new ways of providing what we in the legal world would call ‘client work.'”

“We have demand, and as it so happens we have a lot of lawyers looking for work, and law firms looking to grow. Closing this gap is an opportunity to bring a flood of not just legal work to be done and money to be made, but a flood of people receiving much-needed help and the protections promised by our legal system.”

Read more on Law360.

There’s a Gold Rush of Legal Work Coming. Be Ready.

Where’s the Rush?

The law is notoriously slow. Sometimes that’s okay–no one wants a hasty murder trial. Because its business is the law, the legal profession is also notoriously slow, both in operation and adaptation. But, software is eating the world and this means that the law and lawyers must adapt. Not because “disruption” is popular, but because law and order are critical to society.

There is a reason that we have “the right to speak to an attorney” upon arrest in the United States: laws are complicated. We, quite literally, do not expect the average citizen to understand them fully. And so we have lawyers, “officers of the court,” meant to counsel anyone dealing with that system which maintains order. And for cases important enough to life and liberty, you have a right to a lawyer.

Yet, as software keeps on eating, lawyers are falling further behind. This is a problem, because people aren’t getting help, and because lawyers don’t have the time to help if they wanted to. And this is not the kind of problem that can be solved by “going paperless.” Incremental improvements won’t do. We need a full perspective shift, because this isn’t a problem of old dogs and new tricks. This is a problem of scale.

To meet the scale of the coming need for legal help, we need to think about legal work more like the prospectors of old thought of mining. An apt analogy if we consider that the coming gold rush of legal work is born at the frontier of technology. But lawyers are here to help clients, not dig for gold. So, let’s help more people.

But first, let’s talk about “scale,” because we’ll need it to understand “where’s the rush?”

Will it Scale?

There is a reason that people in tech circles are obsessed with the notion of “scale.” The question “will it scale?” is asking this: will a way of doing things hold together as numbers increase? Can an idea, a service, tool, whatever, still function when a thousand people are using it every day? What about a million? What about a billion? Facebook and Amazon deal with problems in the Billions. (And governments deal in trillions!) You don’t have to do things to that scale, but scale does exist. Especially in digital.

The reason for this obsession with scale goes beyond the fact that more users = money. The obsession has to do with what it means to be eaten by software. When a service is digitized it is suddenly, at least technologically, possible to deliver that service to billions. Think about how many people you used to know personally who worked as taxi drivers. Now think if you’ve ever wondered to yourself “should I sign up for Uber to make an extra buck?”

Digital tools are built to let people do more stuff. Doing more stuff means more interaction, and collaboration, and buying, and selling. The power to do all of this stuff is instantly available to anyone with a smartphone, and doing it is still guided by laws. You have rights. But they are not always easy to enforce. There are also things you’re not supposed to do. Sometimes the things you are not supposed to do are outlined by a government, sometimes they are outlined in a “terms of service” contract. Which is actually a contract whether anyone in their right mind reads the whole thing before signing up, or not.

Regardless of how this makes you feel, more people are doing more stuff, and human stuff results in conflicts, and confusion. In court, this is why you get a lawyer. This is why people worry about “access to justice.” Talking to lawyers matters, and there are already millions of people who don’t get to do this because the system is broken.

And thus the need for full blown perspective shift. The problem is not that the legal profession needs to “go paperless” or get on Slack. The problem is the growing explosion of people who need their help, and the fact that there are only so many “billable hours” in a day and only so many lawyers. Current models simply cannot scale up to meet the need. Where there is such a mismatch, there is gold. When there is a coming explosion, there is a rush.

Mining for Good

The term “mining” has taken on a slightly different meaning in tech circles in the last few years thanks largely to Bitcoin, but that’s not what I mean here. I’m talking about pulling gold out of the ground kind of mining. The thing that drew so many dreamers west in the early days of the United States. And here’s where it lines up with the needed perspective shift for lawyers… none of the prospectors staking claim to a patch of land, hoping to strike gold, were thinking of the world in terms of billable hours. These prospectors, breaking ground in the frontier, were thinking of the world in terms of how much gold can we get out of the ground in any given hour. Not how many hours will it take to get “the usual” amount of gold out of the ground. No one even knew what the usual amount of gold was. But they knew that when they found it they held value in their hand.

The value in our hand is now abstracted into the notion of money, filtered through layers of paychecks and banks. In this system: we do work, we get paid. Lawyers get paid, a lot. Because the service they provide is important. But, a vast majority of the time, that service boils down to this: giving advice. In giving advice, there is gold.

As it happens, the same tools that let us build the Internet are really useful for allowing people to give other people advice. In some cases it looks like Twitter, in some cases it looks like Stack Overflow, or GitHub, which are both examples of places where programmers have found ways to work together and help one another with remarkable effectiveness.

At Juris, we’re learning from the tools programmers use, and building tools for lawyers to help more people, and help one another. (Picks and shovels anyone?) And we want lawyers to feel more like miners. These tools do not require that we charge by the hour. They do not require that we double bill. They do not require that we rent an office with a fancy conference room. And by breaking this dynamic we are able to incentivize a system to solve for the most help provided, and not the most time spent on a problem. And this is where we hold gold in our hands. This is mining. But we’re digging for the amount of help we can provide, not gold.

Make sense? Join us. Get digging.

~ Adam