> 60 year old partner who still makes hand edits and has the Secretary scan the pages and send them out of order to the associate We've designed our product to

> 60 year old partner who still makes hand edits and has the Secretary scan the pages and send them out of order to the associate We've designed our product to be backwards compatible with existing workflows. It does not require every team member to use the product to add value. Partners who prefer their way of doing things can continue to do so allowing associates to add their drafts to Version Story to create redlines and consolidate changes. >specialists edits get rejected because they don’t know the deal points and are just swooping in The possibility of incorrectly rejecting specialists edits exists with or without Version Story. Our product makes it easier to understand what's changed so lawyers can exercise their judgement about these decisions. > Third big flaw in the product: big law firms are the least innovative organizations on earth I think this assumption is worth challenging. Millennials are becoming partners at law firms and are spearheading initiatives to update their tech stacks. This is reflected in legal tech budget growth trends (https://www.legalcurrent.com/tech-spending-remains-especially-hot-reactions-to-the-thomson-reuters-q1-2024-law-firm-financial-index/ https://www.legalcurrent.com/tech-spending-remains-especiall...). > Fourth big flaw in the product: having junior associates do menial tasks at $800-950/hr is a feature, not a bug, of law firm business model. So you are solving for something that the target customer doesn’t necessarily want solved. Making mistakes is not a feature (https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/40489 https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/40489). In the example I outline in the essay, the lawyer made three separate mistakes when manually merging documents.