5 ms·

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised

There's a big unanswered question in the article. It says that the company is a law firm, that only two of the four co-founders are lawyers, and that it raised $10.5 million dollars, presumably on an equity basis. However, law firms are not permitted to have non-lawyers as owners. It is considered unethical as it would mean decisions would be made by people that aren't obligated to follow the cannons of legal ethics or subject to bar discipline. The only U.S. jurisdiction I'm aware of that doesn't follow this rule is the District of Columbia, but Atrium is based in California.

lettergram 9y ago
Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. My guess, is that by building software no one is really going to question the ethics... In one sense the legal system should be devoid of anything but facts. So as along as a machine doesn't intentionally falsify information (which idk how it could), then it's not unethical.
- pdabbadabba 9y ago
  > Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. In the legal profession it sort of does. Lawyers are regularly fined or disbarred for violating ethics rules, and the ethics rules are typically enforced by the courts.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  I was using a term of art without being clear that's what I was doing. "Unethical" as I was using it means in violation of the state bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Such violations aren't just a matter of being discourteous or something, they subject lawyers to professional sanctions up to and including being disbarred. As for non-lawyers, practicing law without a license is a crime in most states. This is much more an issue of illegal than unethical in the colloquial sense of the word. My apologies for the confusion.
- torstenvl 9y ago
  Please don't assert something as fact when you don't know what you're talking about.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Seems like there is enough leeway in ABA rule 5.4 that they are probably covered, but I'll bet some people will contest it. Augie is a great lawyer so I would be confident that he's thought through all of that. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_4_professional_independence_of_a_lawyer.html https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  Where do you see any leeway in this? (d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation ; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    There are a lot of ways to structure things that would fall into one of those exemptions.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    I think the organization disclosed above fits into that exception so long as there is sufficient separation between the tech company and the law firm. Structuring the law firm as a customer of the tech company probably qualifies. That said, I wouldn’t want to be putting my law license on the line for uncharted territory. Ethics enforcement can be really arbitrary.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  The ABA rules are model rules - they provide a framework for state bars to build upon, but they aren't directly enforceable unless a state bar decides the ABA model code is their code. The state bar of california has their own set of rules. See: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/...
dsr_ 9y ago
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Title3_Div2-Ch3-LawCorps.pdf http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Tit... Rules 3.157 (A) A shareholder of a law corporation must be licensed and entitled to practice law.24 (B) The shares of a law corporation must be owned only by that corporation or a shareholder.25 Yeah, California prohibits this.
justin 9y ago
We raised $10.5M for our legal technology company, Legal Technology Services (LTS). My cofounders of LTS who are lawyers, Augie Rakow and BeBe Chueh, started a firm called Atrium LLP. Atrium LLP is LTS' first customer, and allows us to reduce our development cycle on building that software. I am not a partner at Atrium LLP (and am not a lawyer, nor do I give legal advice). It's a complex story that has been a little misinterpreted and simplified.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot more sense than how the story was portrayed in the Post.
- aswanson 9y ago
  Quick question: for jury selection, do trial lawyers used a statistically tested line of inquiry for prospective jurors, or is it just seat-of-the-pants, intuition based selection?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    They hire jury consultants, who do those things.
    - gargarplex 9y ago
      And the jury consultants, in turn, consult statistical tables. For example, one dimension they look at is authoritarianism. A person is deemed "authoritarian" if they are likely to side with the State in a criminal trial. I helped my buddy, who is an owner of a jury consulting firm, port one of the statistical tables to a ruby model. Here's the code, if you're curious. https://gist.github.com/zackster/ac3bca42c441f16cbf2b4895fdbb2abb https://gist.github.com/zackster/ac3bca42c441f16cbf2b4895fdb... We wanted to build software to democratize the jury selection process (and bring justice to all, not just those who could afford expensive jury consultants) but the marketing process was kind of challenging and the lawyers we reached out to were unresponsive. Also, jury consultants want to keep this knowledge a trade secret in order to justify their expensive fees despite these statistical tables being available for purchase by anyone who knows where to look.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
speby 9y ago
A law firm is typically an LLP structure. LLPs are common even outside law firms and there is nothing I'm aware of that says only accredited/bar member lawyers can be the owners of these LLPs. Where are you getting that info from?
- matthewmcg 9y ago
  The restriction referenced is the bar association rule adopted in nearly all U.S. Jurisdictions that prohibits lawyers from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers. Some non-U.S. Jurisdictions have similar rules but many don't. For example, there are publicly traded law firms in the UK.

lettergram 9y ago

Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. My guess, is that by building software no one is really going to question the ethics... In one sense the legal system should be devoid of anything but facts. So as along as a machine doesn't intentionally falsify information (which idk how it could), then it's not unethical.

pdabbadabba 9y ago
> Just because something is considered "unethical" doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. In the legal profession it sort of does. Lawyers are regularly fined or disbarred for violating ethics rules, and the ethics rules are typically enforced by the courts.
bradleyjg 9y ago
I was using a term of art without being clear that's what I was doing. "Unethical" as I was using it means in violation of the state bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Such violations aren't just a matter of being discourteous or something, they subject lawyers to professional sanctions up to and including being disbarred. As for non-lawyers, practicing law without a license is a crime in most states. This is much more an issue of illegal than unethical in the colloquial sense of the word. My apologies for the confusion.
torstenvl 9y ago
Please don't assert something as fact when you don't know what you're talking about.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Seems like there is enough leeway in ABA rule 5.4 that they are probably covered, but I'll bet some people will contest it. Augie is a great lawyer so I would be confident that he's thought through all of that. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_4_professional_independence_of_a_lawyer.html https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...

bradleyjg 9y ago
Where do you see any leeway in this? (d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if: (1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration; (2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation ; or (3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a lawyer.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  There are a lot of ways to structure things that would fall into one of those exemptions.
- rayiner 9y ago
  I think the organization disclosed above fits into that exception so long as there is sufficient separation between the tech company and the law firm. Structuring the law firm as a customer of the tech company probably qualifies. That said, I wouldn’t want to be putting my law license on the line for uncharted territory. Ethics enforcement can be really arbitrary.
ABCLAW 9y ago
The ABA rules are model rules - they provide a framework for state bars to build upon, but they aren't directly enforceable unless a state bar decides the ABA model code is their code. The state bar of california has their own set of rules. See: http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/Rules-of-Professional-Conduct/Current-Rules http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Attorneys/Conduct-Discipline/Rules/...

dsr_ 9y ago

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Title3_Div2-Ch3-LawCorps.pdf http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Tit... Rules 3.157 (A) A shareholder of a law corporation must be licensed and entitled to practice law.24 (B) The shares of a law corporation must be owned only by that corporation or a shareholder.25 Yeah, California prohibits this.

justin 9y ago

We raised $10.5M for our legal technology company, Legal Technology Services (LTS). My cofounders of LTS who are lawyers, Augie Rakow and BeBe Chueh, started a firm called Atrium LLP. Atrium LLP is LTS' first customer, and allows us to reduce our development cycle on building that software. I am not a partner at Atrium LLP (and am not a lawyer, nor do I give legal advice). It's a complex story that has been a little misinterpreted and simplified.

bradleyjg 9y ago
Thanks for the reply, that makes a lot more sense than how the story was portrayed in the Post.
aswanson 9y ago
Quick question: for jury selection, do trial lawyers used a statistically tested line of inquiry for prospective jurors, or is it just seat-of-the-pants, intuition based selection?
- rayiner 9y ago
  They hire jury consultants, who do those things.
  - gargarplex 9y ago
    And the jury consultants, in turn, consult statistical tables. For example, one dimension they look at is authoritarianism. A person is deemed "authoritarian" if they are likely to side with the State in a criminal trial. I helped my buddy, who is an owner of a jury consulting firm, port one of the statistical tables to a ruby model. Here's the code, if you're curious. https://gist.github.com/zackster/ac3bca42c441f16cbf2b4895fdbb2abb https://gist.github.com/zackster/ac3bca42c441f16cbf2b4895fdb... We wanted to build software to democratize the jury selection process (and bring justice to all, not just those who could afford expensive jury consultants) but the marketing process was kind of challenging and the lawyers we reached out to were unresponsive. Also, jury consultants want to keep this knowledge a trade secret in order to justify their expensive fees despite these statistical tables being available for purchase by anyone who knows where to look.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

speby 9y ago

A law firm is typically an LLP structure. LLPs are common even outside law firms and there is nothing I'm aware of that says only accredited/bar member lawyers can be the owners of these LLPs. Where are you getting that info from?

matthewmcg 9y ago
The restriction referenced is the bar association rule adopted in nearly all U.S. Jurisdictions that prohibits lawyers from sharing legal fees with non-lawyers. Some non-U.S. Jurisdictions have similar rules but many don't. For example, there are publicly traded law firms in the UK.