Co-Founder, @Gen_Legal_Inc Fmr: ML Engineer, @Harvard_Law, @CooleyLLP
Washington, D.C.
Joined January 2015
- Tweets304
- Following114
- Followers1K
- Likes274
Pinned Tweet
Will is one of the most prolific voices in legal tech today - and a voice that often dovetails with General Legal's fundamental worldview: you don't need to raise $500M to build great software for legal professionals.
Relatedly, selling billions of dollars of software to overpaid lawyers doesn't necessarily mean you will change anything about the delivery of legal services or the client's experience. You need to actually be incentivized to do that.
Thrilled and honored to be collaborating, @willchen500! More to come soon ;)
@MikeOSSTeam has been sponsored by @gen_legal_inc, a leading AI-native law firm backed by investors such as YC, Audacious Ventures and SV Angel, to develop a new open source project (Mike[???]) that will shake up the legal industry.
Currently in stealth.
More details to come.
Thanks @jaypmo @rwalk_xyz
Flat fees turn “we should automate this” from an innovation committee discussion into a financial necessity.
I started questioning outdated legal workflows well before ChatGPT.
When I arrived at law school, I wondered why lawyers were paid so much for processes that technology could help streamline. This was an obvious issue well before the AI revolution.
Not trying to sound like a dick, but have you ever worked at a law firm? This is obviously what the partners are going to do, esp if it's a great associate the client is willing to pay more for. I imagine partners will be more pro-AI wrt shit associates whose time they write down
This quoted post is unavailable.
JP Mohler retweeted
I know an associate in Biglaw who is a top 5 power user of AI at his firm. He’s not just making AI slop, he checks everything that the AI produces and verifies the all citations with actual sources, even though AI gets it correct most of the time these days.
Recently he’s been told by his partner that, he’s “over confident”, that he’s working too fast and that he needs to check his work more, even though the partner could not pick out substantive issues in his drafts.
I told him it’s likely code for: you’re running up a bunch of tokens and costing the firm while affecting my top line since I could normally bill the client twice for this work.
As such, he is now forced to take longer on his work with little substantive impact on the work product while the client gets his bills multiplied.
That’s probably part of the reason why despite the billions that have been invested in legal AI for Biglaw, there is barely any productivity increase and clients don’t see their bills go down by one cent.
We've been trying to measure something I call the "shame quotient" here at @gen_legal_inc ... it's basically the extent to which our ridiculously slow counterparties speed up when we 25x them on contract turn-around time. So far, no shame detected 😢😢
The four horsemen of the startup legal apocalypse:
“Quick question”
“Standard agreement”
“Handshake deal”
“We already signed”
The goal isn’t to make legal faster for its own sake.
It’s to make sure legal never becomes the reason a deal stalls.
