CEO @MinuteBox | AI for corporate and transactional legal teams #legaltech
Toronto, Canada
Joined April 2008
- Tweets292
- Following218
- Followers983
- Likes4.7K
Very common experience across many domains but particularly painful in law due to the billable hour making it hurt twice. Once when you get the conflicting advice and again when you get billed for both.
I had a lawyer say he was traveling and his associate would meet with me.
The associate met with me and very confidently gave me advice for half an hour.
Later, I got an email from the partner and the associate giving me complete opposite advice.
I got billed for the associate call, the associate partner call, and the email exchange where I asked them “WTF is going on? Which advice is true?”
The greatest minds in AI are busy debating the ethics of this scene from Office Space.
gifdb.com/images/branded/hig…
There has always been great open source software.
People actually prefer using opinionated and well-crafted software.
That’s why “shareware” always won with end-users.
The euphemism here is calling this “de facto open source,” which is another way of saying all software will be quickly copied and ripped off by swarms of agents like we saw this week with Adobe.
The difference is that the swarms of agents and those using them don’t have the craft or opinions that make the software they are copying great in the first place and so they will always be following and not leading.
The leaders with great craft will still win.
AI maximalism is rooted in the unprecedented rate of improvement, not the current state.*
*though I disagree about the current state. Astounds me every day.
the thing i don't get about the AI maximalist story is I continually find that LLMs are just not very creative at all in any domain
every time I give Astra some task to hill climb over night, I come back the next morning and it is basically stuck in a local minimum
then i'm like "try this obvious thing" and it improves by 50% in 15 minutes
Who is working on this for the legal vertical?
Your next meeting comes with a note-taker who can help with the follow-up.
The Meetings plugin takes notes for you and saves a personalized summary and next steps in ChatGPT Space, based on what ChatGPT knows about you and the work you’ve done together.
Keep notes private or share them with your team, then ask ChatGPT to update a project plan or draft a follow-up.
Available in beta for Pro and Business users in the ChatGPT desktop app on macOS. Enterprise is coming soon.
Download the desktop app, then search for “Meetings” in the plugin directory.
chatgpt.com/download/
AI-generated release notes are convenient, but will sometimes bite you.
Still worth having them as part of CI, but never hurts to review before posting live.
Many people, myself included, are schooled by this product launch.
This is a sincere question.
What exactly is Legora and why do law firms buy the product?
Did they really not have skills until now? But they did have “aOS” or whatever they were calling it?
How is it possible a law firm could have productively used a “harness” like this without the concept of skills? What other basic features of a harness does it not have?
Is this just a marketing re-launch?
Does Harvey also not have this?
Are law firms unaware that Claude exists?
How can you achieve 100M+ ARR without features that have been table stakes in AI for two years?
These are sincere questions.
What exactly does the Legora product do why have law firms chosen to adopt it at a significant price above eg Claude or OpenAI if the product is running so far behind the frontier apps.
For a product to grow this quickly it must do something phenomenally well beyond what is clearly brilliant GTM.
What does it do exactly?
Today were launching Skills.
Ask a lawyer why they rewrote an AI draft and you'll hear the same thing: It's not wrong. It's just not how we do it here.
That's fair feedback. Every team and professional has their own way of working. How a review is structured. Which positions you'll give up, and in what order. How an email to a client should sound. Until now, the Agent didn't know any of that.
A Skill teaches the @WeareLegora Agent how your team wants something done. You write it in plain language, the way you'd brief a new team member on their first day. After that, the Agent applies it whenever the work calls for it, dynamically. No more time wasted looking for the right workflow.
Every firm and in-house team will leverage AI. The ones that pull ahead will be the ones whose AI works to their standards and can be used immediately. Legora's Skill system scales with versioning, permissions and the auditability required for the scale of the largest legal organizations globally.
We're also launching the Skills Library with 250+ Skills built and tested by our legal engineers from leading law firms and organizations all over the world. They cover commercial contracts, privacy, M&A, litigation, employment, bank and finance, IP and more.
Live today for every Legora customer: legora.com/skills
One of the most important strategic defences app layer companies have over frontier models building in the app layer is the ability to be multi-model and to support open source/weight models.
It’s possible this changes at some point, but for now it’s an important strategy for those building on top of the frontier.
A differentiated app with great distribution won’t be enough. You have to be building multi-model.
Who will be the first large Canadian law firm to try and brand themselves “AI Native”?
Moritz is now the largest global AI-native law firm.
4 months ago we were a small law firm in San Francisco. Today we work in 44 countries, serve 200+ in-house teams and closed $3.5 billion for our clients.
We represent publicly traded companies in the US to Japan, fasting growing AI-companies in the world and everything in between.
Hearing clients like René (CEO, Casco) and Christopher (COO, Sixtyfour) describe what it means for them makes the incredible long days worth it.
Grateful to work with a world-class team of attorneys, engineers and legal ops that has made this possible.
Now we are building the next leg and hiring across legal, legal operations, engineering and go-to-market in NY, SF and London.
If that sounds like your kind of rocket ship, I would love to hear from you
You roll out ChatGPT for Law to your entire firm. It’s $200/month. Inference is cheap and subsidized by Sequoia. Negative gross margins.
It’s like ChatGPT but for Law because it connects to all your legal tools and workflows.
You roll out Harvey to your entire firm. It’s $1200/month.
It’s like ChatGPT for Law because it connects to all your legal tools and workflows.
They resell OpenAI’s inference, it’s cheap and subsidized by Sequoia, but not as cheap because they need some margin. Still negative gross margins.
$1400/month for ChatGPT for Law that connects to "ChatGPT for law."
You finish your work on a term sheet for an LP of Sequoia. You use ChatGPT for Law which connects to Harvey which is like ChatGPT for Law.
The LP is happy because you “increased efficiency” on their legal work. The bill is still $50,000 but the law firm is now more profitable, plus they didn’t really pay for the inference, the LP did, twice.
So Harvey and Legora are like ChatGPT for law. But now there’s ChatGPT for Law except it also connects to Harvey and Legora.
So you can have ChatGPT for Law for law.
Do I have that right?
Oh no, not a big bad $25,000 fine. Whatever will they do?
We promised to crack down on ticket scalpers and we’re keeping our word.
news.ontario.ca/en/bulletin/…
Sure, but who’s gonna tell you “it depends”?
Every time I do legal work for Eno PDF I debate hiring an external lawyer and every time I conclude I'd spend more time telling the lawyer what needs to be done than if I just do it myself.
I'd basically pay money and spend same number of hours doing work just with another person involved.
Obviously these are fairly small items.
Aligns with what I've heard anecdotally and is remarkable.
The @SpellbookLegal team should be very proud of themselves.
