I am a lawyer/coder and "legal tech" is the festering ghetto of my profession. The people who peddle technology solutions to lawyers (or worse, to clients) are usually one step below car salespeople. Try popping your head in to a legal tech conference sometime if you doubt me. It's almost all e-discovery shills talking shite about AI. There are a few exceptions, but not many.
Similar thoughts exactly. This company appears to be a subsidiary of a larger law firm which tells me it was created solely for the purpose of doing "production line" legal services. It is a sales/marketing tool for the one-off that comes along and requires additional legal services. Unfortunately for expungements/record sealing/pardon customers they are more often than not the ones that require personalized legal services. Every case and every state are different. How you plead your case today has a direct impact on what, if any, options are available to you down the road. In no way should these types of services be "production line" services in my opinion.
It's a truism in freelancing that lawyers are terrible clients in multiple ways, so it comes as no surprise that the tech industry devoted to their businesses is not filled with the best people and/or solutions for their needs.
So - I have to ask (as a Graduate AI student, but no specific familiarity with the e-discovery domain) why is this the reputation? Like the applications don't work well? The salesmen don't know what they are peddling? I guess basically - could you extrapolate a little more on this group?
Someone else said it: lawyers are the worst clients, especially law firms. Too many know-it-alls who think the world should bend to their will. When I left my big law firm, there was a partner down the hall who made his secretary print his emails every morning and dictated his responses to her. Try dragging him into the 21st century and you'll see what I mean.
