In a noisy world, what is the best way to make sure we are making good decisions? There can only be one answer.
Put some skin in the game.
Everything else is a mere opinion or belief, which although often compelling and entertaining -- does not translate into productive contribution to the ultimate aim.
The reason that making the move to put skin (or perhaps chips) in the game is a challenge, whether that be in poker, investing, or any decision with uncertain variables but far reaching consequences, is that we simply do not have enough information to eliminate all doubt that our choice will lead to the desired outcome.
Annie Duke’s recent book “Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts” is an excellent resource for these very uncertain times. We need to move our lives forward, and that requires action stemming from decisions which are made with imperfect information. Tough for most, perhaps harder for lawyers who can identify risk, but not necessarily act in the face of it. We also have a tendency to treat uncertainty as automatically negative rather than favourable -- no matter the probabilities. In fact, we rarely stop to consider the probabilities in quantitative terms which is a necessary step in making good decisions.
A key distinction that Annie makes is between outcome quality and decision quality. “What makes a decision great is not that it has a great outcome. A great decision is the result of a good process and that process must include an attempt to accurately represent our own state of knowledge. That state of knowledge, in turn, is some variation of ˜I'm not sure’.’’
Winning and losing is a rather weak signal on your decision quality. You don't change your strategy when a few hands go poorly in the short run because it is never a good idea to play 7-2 offsuit (the worst starting hand) and expect to win. Yet, you might play it and you might win.
As Annie alludes in her book, the two primary drivers of success whether it be poker or any other decision theater are:
decision process, especially in light of insufficient or hidden information;
The challenge is our view that if we achieve a successful outcome, or if we do not, we think it is correlated to our decision process. It is not.
A pair of aces is the best starting hand, but you can and often do still lose. Your decision quality in either instance needs to be on the lookout for bias -- like somehow it is always better to “ambush’’ opponents with the 7-2 off-suit because they will never see it coming! A horrible long term strategy based on odds, replete with bias and faulting reasoning. Annie tells the hilarious story of an amateur player who never gave up this exact bias and lost lots of money along the way.
That is poor decision process at work. So what is the mechanism that would normally improve the quality of decision making by removing as much bias as possible? Place a bet for an amount that is not trivial.
Annie’s point is that by betting, we reexamine our decision making process and are much more cognizant and critical of our bias and beliefs as we examine the available information. Are you sure about that? Do you mean $100 sure or $10,000 sure? Can you assign a probability? Based on known information, are you 20% or 80% sure of the outcome? Betting makes for calibration against our beliefs.
All decisions are bets and have elements of choice, probability, risk and magnitude of rewards. Increasingly, decisions are made in the most uncertain of environments and circumstances with never enough information. As in poker, investing and life, decisions are ostensibly best made in a rational way without emotion. Our bets are only as good as our beliefs.
Anyone can be a futurist. There is no accountability unless there is skin in the game. Put money on it? Different outlook.
LegalTech startup is a lot like poker. There will be many very bad outcomes no matter how many hands are played. Even among the winners, it will be difficult to discern with a complete absence of doubt, just why things went well. When choosing where to work, what to build or buy or where to invest resources, it’s all risk capital and requires the placing of a bet. It’s best to get comfortable with uncertainty so we can see the world more accurately.
Would you invest your own money in any of the inputs? Would you buy any of the outputs? Would you use any of the outputs if they were not free? Would you forego steady employment to pursue an idea for a venture?
We don't win bets by being in love with our own ideas. That includes the twitterati and blogosphere as a collective as well as those among us that attend conferences with the same repeated faces in the crowd. Echo chambers are essentially a collection of people in love with roughly the same idea. That's not a winning strategy for placing bets. It’s like believing consistent or inconsistent play of 7-2 offsuit is a great strategy.
The more objective we are, the more accurate our beliefs. So let’s examine things as objectively as we can when it comes to legal innovation and startups.
When people talk about the legal market, what exactly are they talking about? It's like saying “China”. Which one? There are many. Some are prosperous. Some are not. Some are advanced. Some are not. But to use one term to describe the entirety of the “market” will clutter the decision process.
It’s helpful to at least have some level of segmentation when discussing the legal market. From the “buyer” perspective, meaning purchasers of legal services, the U.S. number is typically suggested to be $437B At the recent ABA Tech Show, Dan Katz gave a barn burning keynote and gifted a hashtag worth betting on. As conferences and panels are beginning to proliferate - it is making it difficult to pick up the signal through all the noise. Usually, there are a lot of nodding heads in the audience rather than changed perspectives and that is regrettable.
Hard to argue with Dan’s hashtag however -- #makelawbetter.
Professor Katz is a master of logic which is in part of why he is convincing - and his twitter handle and general emphasis is on “computational legal”. Programmatic logic is highly defensible -- as are most things that strip away normative tendencies based on anecdata. They help us get to a more accurate reality to inform our bets.
The problem is that we need to convince the unconvinced on best ways to move legal forward so that we can tackle the many challenges with the current landscape. Logic alone will not do it.
Because of his immense credibility beyond mere spectatorship or talking head commentary, here's what I enjoyed most about reviewing Dan's slides. He makes a point that is too often missed in legal including by this author. It is not all doom and gloom.
Waves of funding and exits
LexisNexis has done a great job of acquiring entities and bringing them into the fold of their go to market without necessarily changing a lot of the material foundations. Where founders stay on, and the offering remains argely untouched but for integration into a broader product suite, that's a good exit in legal.
The idea that there would be an IPO of a legal services business while possible, is not probable. Private equity supports a number of the larger players at the moment, but no one is looking for an IPO as a good bet.
The acquisition of Avvo by Internet Brands is interesting because it is a legal business exit that looks like other verticals. It was noticeable however that many people on the journey, including the founder, have left the company. Commenting on this act is not an admonishment as founder fatigue and burnout is a real and serious phenomenon. We need founders to win as much or even more than the investors - at least in terms of seeing vision become reality. For those counting, Avvo had raised $132 million since being founded in 2007. Dilution of founding team equity is part of the calculous of success and the more money raised through successive rounds -- the more urgent the need for a big return.
Founders that ride through antiquated and misguided regulatory opposition on top of regular business pressures deserve every ounce of success they get where they have consistently acted with integrity. Kudos to all the players at Avvo.
In instances like Lex Machina, Ravel and Intelligize coming into the fold at LexisNexis, it appears that the general benefits of the original startup offerings have been extended further with access to more resources.
Similarly, Thomson Reuters has extended the value of the Practical Law Company and the incredible foundation laid by the originating leadership team, employees, technology and business model. Pangea3 is like Elevate Services not an exclusive single point solution but a managed services business operating globally as a platform with many outputs. Pangea was indeed a sizeable and sophisticated operation when it was acquired for an amount that is somewhat unclear, but possibly as much as $100 million.
Elevate Services has advantages of experienced and successful founders who could avoid taking on outside capital and surrendering equity. Recently, Elevate acquired a line of credit from Morgan Stanley which allows the company’s destiny to be shaped through its own leadership rather than unduly influenced by investors seeking both return and liquidity at the time of their choosing. It is not uncommon for there to be disagreements between investors and operators on valuation and therefore strategy which filters into the overall approach of the business.
For any startup -- the longer you can avoid angel, venture or even larger private equity capital -- the better. However, it’s just not possible for everyone to build and scale without outside financing -- so founders lay bets on whether they can steward capital to enough growth for profitability or perhaps a liquidity event that pays back investors and makes the whole journey financially worth the burden for the operator. Naturally, the founding mission of the business needs to be served and the true incentive should be on satisfying customers or cultivating assets. The point of starting up is to fill a gap that is not being adequately filled.
Things are speeding up
A company like ROSS Intelligence is one that always draws attention given the rapidly increasing amount of skin in the game. I originally met the founding team before they had garnered access to IBM Watson on a permanent basis. They were heading to an IBM competition where first prize was $100,000. I remember chiding them that, first prize, would actually be continued access to Watson! As it turned out, they had moved so far so fast with the original iteration of the solution that they were granted permanent access before the competition. No, they did not ultimately win the $100,000 which must have seemed like a lot of money at the time.
This all took place in 2015. Today, I don't even recognize them given their Y Combinator street cred and $13 million in series A and seed round funding. There's a long way to go, but they certainly speak to the art of the possible and are inspiring a number of people in the industry. Over time however, they will need to show return for those investors that have backed them with a form of liquidity event and return. The chips always get raked in eventually -- and if the business does not show itself as a sustaining going concern -- the value will be drawn out from technology asset disposition which might actually decline in value as all technology eventually does on the path of either commoditization or obsolescence.
They are definitely mission-based with a core principle of access to justice and providing free use to a number of players. That's certainly admirable, however, not necessarily a sustainable business strategy over a long enough timeline. Their paid clients are actually what matter once the burn rate of investment dollars erodes their ability to give things away for free.
Revenues and profitability will eventually be on the mind of many observers. While those numbers are not likely to be disclosed -- the paying clients will speak volumes by giving testimonials confirming whether their meaningful problems are being solved. Alternatively, and much louder through absence, if there are many known purchasers but few effusive testimonials, the conclusion will be the opposite.
Similarly, LawGeex has raised $22 million to date, and like ROSS, made some very visible strategic hires that show the seriousness of their mission. They are also masters of marketing producing content in the form of a LegalTech Buying Guide which includes contract review. That is what they do! ROSS has employed similar tactics which are hardly empirical. Nonetheless, said guides are outstanding resources for in-house buyers.
Success for these players are needed as a tide to lift all boats. The more players entering the market with technical, marketing and business skills, and a true desire to solve pain points, the better for aggregate value creation and modernization of the industry.
However, where they fail to return investment to those that have backed them, it will make it difficult for others to attract capital which might be needed for true growth and scaling that can not happen quickly from organic revenue alone.
Skin in the game beyond founders
For all the activity around legal startups, as of yet, there is no clearly established and sizeable fund dedicated towards legal innovation which looks and operates like a traditional venture capital fund ”stating a thesis ” and advising to the world at large” capital is available” we are looking for good investments.
Dentons NextLaw Labs, for example, is not a VC fund, does not state the capital it has on offer for startups and in many instances - is not seeking financial return from liquidity events in respect of the companies where it deploys capital.
In relation to a more traditional VC fund, that was certainly the intention of Aron Solomon and I when we launched Law Made, and we worked very hard at it. It's an enormous undertaking requiring all kinds of skills, knowledge and connections, but above all else, frankly, you need to have a track record, gravitas and your own capital. We did not sufficiently check each of those boxes and they are all necessary at the same time.
Players are now entering the space who can (and I say will) succeed at bringing along significant capital in addition to high net worth individuals, family offices and smart money angels who were previously acting in loose organizational fashion. A LegalTech VC fund is an eventuality.
There are also a plethora of new hubs, incubators, accelerators, laboratories and “centers”- all dedicated towards legal service delivery innovation. This may seem to have happened overnight, especially those communities of multi-disciplinary makers melding with lawyers.
Law firms are good at taking lots of actions and putting forward enormous effort. Perhaps not always efficiently, but typically, they never really struggled with throwing bodies at something. With a “more for less challenge” still prevailing, throwing bodies at problems is becoming less of an option and appropriate workflow, talent mix and technology (always the last consideration) are the required path to sustainability.
The biggest move from law firms in the last few years? A dedicated allocation of funds as a budget item for research, development and innovation. Not something you would traditionally expect from a partnership which pays the retained earnings back to the owners almost every year.
Curiously, in other instances - we are starting to see retreat from innovation with dissolution or diminishment of laudable programs that were were both visible and market moving. There has been some restructuring and removal of key executives who were hired with the specific mandate to drive change. In more than one instance, it has not been a mutually agreed upon decision. These movements are not cause for permanent disillusionment, nor are they a declaration that no further bets will be made. If the incentives are aligned and client driven -- there will be many more hands dealt with chip stacks renewed and deployed.
LegalTech and innovation are labels of convenience. As my colleague and friend Mark Cohen has written:
‘LegalTech, a common term used to describe the adoption of technology to legal delivery, is much more than platforms, SaaS applications, and software. It describes the more holistic digitization process that the industry is undergoing. And while legal practice is still driven by precedent, delivery of legal services is propelled by innovation, process, technology, utilization of “the right resource for the task,” a legal supply chain, a growing use of metrics and best practices, data in lieu of conjecture, and output- results instead of input - billed hours.’
Personally, I get tagged with various labels -- but above all else -- I am most interested in improvement - not moonshot disruption, innovation, or for that matter -- technology. Improvement always starts with people, process and then perhaps technology which might be as simple as a checklist. Shiny object syndrome is distracting on the mission to simply #makelawbetter. Trite. Cliche. Truth.
In respect of legal services startups, there are a few taxonomies -- but the utility is mixed -- especially if you are looking to place a bet in the form of procurement, investment, or deciding where there is a gap you would like to fill with your own company.
These roadmaps, taxonomies, magic quadrants, logo strewn industry landscapes are good for creating familiarity with names but are almost always overwhelming. While we have a tendency in human nature to chunk things into buckets for easier understanding, the proliferation of these types of charts may do more harm than good.
Who says that those are the correct product categories of those players in those spaces?
Only the authors of the taxonomies. What's important to investors? More importantly, what’s important to client users of the services? Those are the players with skin in the game -- not the taxonomists. Those are measures that matter because the reality is that resources and clients are required to build anything meaningful and lasting. Alas, the former does not guarantee the latter.
But is there really a start-up explosion?
It's not particularly helpful that the various taxonomies are so poorly maintained. They may give you some outstanding information on individual companies when you drill down and review the details, but on the whole, they are not at all representative of the true landscape.
For example, the number of startups listed on AngelList is grossly exaggerated upon even a light examination. There are a number of law firms, especially personal injury related, that appear on the listing which are neither startup, innovative, technology driven, or for that matter early stage entity.
Now I've got a bit of a mea culpa as I'm one of the curators of the Stanford CodeX LegalTech Index which is maintained by a few others on a voluntary basis.
While we review the incoming applicants and make decisions at a glance as to whether something is truly LegalTech and a startup deserving to be on the list, that front gate function doesn't account for downstream when the startup regrettably ceases to operate.
In startup-land that's the norm, not the outlier. Accordingly, the number of startups listed is not a true snapshot because it does not take into account and subtract the numerous failures.
I found similar issues when reviewing Bob Ambrogi’s list -- which to be fair - is also a voluntary effort. If the upkeep slides down on his priority list -- I certainly understand. He does enough for the “movement” as it is - and can always be counted on for an otherwise insightful and informed perspective.
So, while we all want to celebrate the proliferation of startups in legal finally being a force to be reckoned with, let's at least keep a little perspective and get to the truth, lest our judgment become clouded with delusionary belief which biases our path of decision quality.
Even if accepted at face value, we would find that that as a pool of new products, services, offerings and companies which are either investible and/or will be viable entities creating economic value for owners, employees and clients - LegalTech is still a tiny ecosystem.
Legal is the 5/10 blinds table at the casino off the strip. If you visit there, say hi to my parents near the nickel slot machines.
The “Big Game” for high rollers is played elsewhere. The annual investments into Healthtech and Fintech and other ecosystems are measured in billions. Whereas Eric Chin suggests that $2.5 billion has been invested globally across 436 LegalTech companies, that is not on an annual basis. Similarly, CB Insights indicates that between 2011 and 2016, global companies raised $739 million in aggregate funding related to the legal services industry. That is quite small and perhaps because the Total Addressable Market is not significant in comparison to other potential investment opportunities..
A number of other taxonomies are surfacing in different regions including Germany, France, the U.K., Australia and elsewhere.
While this is encouraging for entrepreneurship in those regions, to have sustained businesses that go beyond mere lifestyle, there needs to be a market much bigger than the founder’s place of origin.
Even in Canada, I often give the advice, that dominating this market is selling yourself short if your technology or offering is readily transferable to other markets. It is somewhat puzzling to start anywhere other than the biggest potential market. To date, that is still the U.S., even if the buyers are not active, they still represent the biggest pot to play for.
Just as real estate is all about location, location, location, one of the key determinants of success for any startup is the Total Addressable Market and its more probable subset, Specific Addressable Market.
I would not bet on a company that is going after a small country market with a niche offering.
A common narrative however is that while the U.S. is the biggest potential market of buyers of services, U.K. law firms are ahead as far as adoption of innovation is concerned. This could be due to the protected nature of the legal profession in the U.S. which is less a factor in the U.K. where the Legal Services Act has provided an entirely different set of conditions.
Single point solutions vs platforms
Another key question I often ask when dealing with startups is as follows: ‘Are you building a platform or a point solution? Is there a managed service to go along with this piece of technology?’ With platforms or suites of bolt-on technologies more readily available in SaaS, there is a hedge against complete obsolescence and more pull to the client to utilize “multi-tenant” architecture allowing configuration of tools and features on an as needed basis. It is frustrating to buy two things when one would have served. A Swiss Army Knife is a simpler buy for an organization than the individual spoon, fork, scissors, clippers and corkscrew.
Global legal hackaton
It is impossible to deny as fact that a wellspring was tapped when the Global Legal Hackathon recently launched and managed to garner participation in 22 countries, 40 cities through 600 teams and a total of 5000 participants.
Clearly something is afoot when it comes to legal innovation and there is a desire well beyond the traditional players. The experts from other disciplines are starting to, thankfully, contribute in large measure. Many of the technical participants in the Global Legal Hackathon had not previously been active in the legal industry.
Do you shout down the utility of hackathons in the “Real World”? Are you open to another possibility?
A few years ago some friends of mine entered a NASA sanctioned hackathon and were paired with some folks they had never met. Pizza, beer and fun. They won the event. They have gone on to raise millions of dollars and hired dozens of employees. Check out SkyWatch. They have lots of skin in the game.
Yes, it can happen that a hackathon produces a viable operation that garners clients, capital and dedicated employees empowered by an inspiring mission. However, that is outcome quality, not decision process quality. Winners from a hackathon who try to build a company are playing the 7-2 off-suit.
Let’s talk about the power purchares
Perhaps there is no story as compelling in relation to legal innovation than that of Justin Kan and Atrium. For those that don't know, Justin Kan, thankfully, did not go to law school. In fact, I'm pretty sure he has little love for lawyers. He is an outrageously successful entrepreneur that has exited multiple times at a very young age driven by savvy, guts and perseverance.
As a startup - what makes Atrium so unique is it’s a technology lead company on one side, operating in conjunction with a properly approved law firm. The aggregate is an assault on the very model of legal services delivery. Driven by regulatory requirements which are otherwise prohibitive, the technology business is standalone and in the service of the law firm. For the technology business, Justin raised $10.5 million dollars which pulled in pretty much every significant venture capitalist or angel in Silicon Valley. This is a statement from a number of power users (purchasers) of legal services. It’s not the size of the investment that is significant - it’s the incredible number of participants in the fundraising round that clearly understand the pain point in dealing with lawyers and have probably had enough of business as usual.
Even among those that utilize lawyers often, the value is a mystery. Legal services do not offer enhancement to the core business, make a product better, assist customer acquisition or retention, or make a process more efficient. In short, entrepreneurs like Justin simply see an unavoidable expense to professional service providers. From an entrepreneur perspective, making the most efficient and effective use of available resources, it must be bewildering to observe the grossly inefficient rendering of services by lawyers, the very opposite of any technology or engineering based product. A technology founder was bound to notice the lack of software innovation used by lawyers.
Just because they have significant wealth does not mean that people and organizations like to pay for things where they don't understand the value of their purchase.
Atrium is starting with a pretty niche set of clients related to corporate services on behalf of startups, but they are adding transparency and pricing models that are lacking elsewhere. If the model is successful, no doubt they will climb the value chain in terms of the customers that they serve beyond early stage corporate work. At time of writing, they claim to have completed 850 deals for clients that have raised $5B.
Their impact on the overall legal industry will be shown if they successfully move into other legal practice areas and where other providers start to replicate or iterate on their model. Those that watch closely are asking if they will make the dent in the universe and be a sustainable operation or be another Clearspire.
Thus far however, they have skin in the game and laudable decision quality. In poker parlance, they are starting with a pair of Aces (the bullets). However, outcome quality will take some time to realize.
Technology: where to place bets?
The legal industry will move forward - there is no escape. Fax machines faced opposition. Email faced opposition. Digital signatures faced opposition. Over a long enough time line, dismiss technology at your peril.
I am not a legal entrepreneur managing a team, investors, developers or clients. I have not lived that path, but I work with and support those that do. It is not pretty. Passion and mission as driver is not a cliche - it’s a necessity. The rapid ascension of ROSS or Elevate are complete exceptions to the general trail left behind. One out of ten (conservatively speaking) fail. It sucks to fail. With that part, I do have some (read: much) experience.
I am sure you have heard of Artificial Intelligence. I know you have heard of Bitcoin. You might know that Bitcoin is built on the Blockchain.
Congratulations, you are now an expert.
How do I know?
Because I am called upon to comment on these topics notwithstanding my protestations that not only am I not an expert, I actually don’t believe those that they say they are. For Blockchain in particular, there are only students. For A.I. - perhaps there are some experts, but in terms of its application to legal processes, systems and other artefacts - there aren’t many that can say they have successfully applied those concepts inside a legal business - which then made them money in excess of their investment. The sum total of what you need to know about A.I. is neatly summarized by Rob Saccone. Certainly Michael Mills does an admirable and more detailed job, but for those of us that like to write with crayons - Rob's is much more palatable.
Lawyers are paid to predict things. That is one of their most valuable outputs. So while research becoming incredibly efficient is useful - it is still a mere input of a traditional service. Novel value creation comes from predicting things that inform a decision that could not otherwise have been made.
Jules Miller presented an outstanding talk on the subject at Legal Geek in 2017 and emphasized that the U.S. is a dominant market and most certainly, the best source of investment capital. Kudos to Jules who adroitly made her point in the heart of an amazing European conference orchestrated by Jimmy Vestbirk. This conference has become a movement and it is very easy to get caught up in the genuine fun and excitement. Jimmy has done an incredible job at adding levity, joy and storytelling to what is otherwise people talking about technology, process and workflow (in legal).
However, even with the global explosion of interest driving innovation in legal, the best prospects for success are at the main tables and for investment dollars -- that is still the U.S.
I had occasion to spend some time with Jeroen Plink who represents the “smart money” in LegalTech investing as a formidable operator, including the Practical Law Company which was sold to Thomson Reuters. Getting investment from someone with this experience results in way more than mere cash. Connections, experience, operational know-how, and access to clients, talent and leadership are pillars provided by quality investors with knowledge of the space.
While we might like to evaluate technology, products, services and offerings writ large -nothing rings more true than these words from Jeroen:
“The one thing I will not compromise on is the team. There are enough examples of mediocre product and great team that have succeeded but there are few successful examples of great product, mediocre team.”
In Jeroen’ s mind, the probability of success is higher based on this variable. It is weighted more heavily than others, including the product itself. I’d listen to Jeroen because he makes good bets with his own resources.
Uncertainty and ambiguity reign supreme and while we do not know the specific winners, we do have a sense the of broad themes that are likely to prevail.
Blockchain and A.I. matter because even if there is very little adoption at the moment -- they're here to stay. At least that is a good bet with the information on hand -- and by analogy -- it is very much like the early days of the world wide web and broader internet.
As one startup founder recently said to me -- it is absolutely inevitable and people that think otherwise are foolish. I’d bet on that.
Do you believe that these technologies, while almost all hype today, will never enter the legal services business in meaningful fashion? Hold your chips then, but you will eventually need to play a hand if you expect to grow your stack.
Let’s not forget the nugget where Richard Susskind was accused of bringing the profession into disrepute with his mid-1990’s prognostication of email becoming the dominant communication modality between clients and their lawyers. Hersey!
The challenge is in choosing the specific use cases and the exact names of the new ventures that will provide the offerings that get adopted in legal. There is also a good chance that the best prospect surviving startups in the legal space are not yet launched. However, at least from an investment perspective, the driving technological underpinnings are unfolding in real time.
You do not need to save the world or disrupt the industry to be successful. Solve a mundane problem that matters to enough people that they would pay for its solution -- and ideally cobble a few of those together in a platform rather than a single-point solution. Play many hands, all at once if possible.
Overall, there is just enough uncertainty to keep many people out -- but those that can find their way given a long enough time horizon on stakes big enough to matter will always have fuel. As in professional poker, the winners in LegalTech will be those with skin in the game and survivor skills over the longer term to take infrequent big wins with normalized crushing lows absorbed in stride. Rebuilding your chip stack after losing your bankroll ? That’ s skin in the game. The exciting part is that all anyone needs is a chip and chair to get a place at the table. Ante up?
About the Author:
Jason Moyse has served on global teams implementing major customer experience initiatives as a connector/doer/spark and key trusted advisor to the C-Suite, Senior Leadership and Governance Teams for legal and business matters.
Jason’s broad background includes private legal practice in high volume commercial litigation as well as serving as in-house counsel.
A lawyer and Lean Six Sigma Black Belt, Jason is Manager of Legal Business Solutions on behalf of Elevate Services – a next generation legal service provider helping law firms and corporate legal departments improve efficiency, quality and outcomes through consulting, managed services, technology and talent.
He is also the co-founder of Law Made – an agency serving LegalTech startups and Corporates and Law Firms to help the Digital Davids and Enterprise Goliaths dance together through access to capital, clients and markets. Previously, he co-created and executed on the vision of LegalX through the MaRS Discovery District.