Bobby Logue, co-owner of a coffee store in Philadelphia, created “a company that aims to help ex-cons, one cup of coffee at a time.” Logue co-owns the company with Christian Dennis, who had been charged with homicide, but found not guilty in 2006.

http://wesa.fm/post/philly-coffee-company-owners-ex-cons-are-entrepreneurs-who-were-wrong-side-law#stream

The two plan to employ more ex-cons. “The way they see it, drug dealers basically are ‘entrepreneurs, just on the wrong side of the law,’ Logue said. ‘They have a tremendous amount of experience with sales and business management. It’s just that their ‘previous experience’ landed them in jail.’”

As we’ve talked about in class, and as we saw in Poverty Inc., a new job can be just the beginning of a new life. The article states: “We’re not just giving you an $8-an hour job . . . We want to try to create a lifestyle change, show guys something different than what they’re used to. We don’t just want to say: ‘Hey, we can get you a job here at McDonald’s. You got a job now – take care!’ No. We want to help you change your life, the way you think, the way you live, the way your family lives.

With this in mind, “they plan to offer employees profit-sharing, better-than-minimum-wage paychecks, and skills training.”

A very interesting read!! I’d love to know if other businesses share a similar mindset and model.

On Friday, there will be a talk in South Bend led by speakers from the Purple Porch Co-op and sponsored by Notre Dame’s Center for Social Concerns.

https://socialconcerns.nd.edu/events/food-thought-cooperatives-and-community-development

It’s notable that the Purple Porch Co-op is a “community-owned café, grocery store, and farmers market.” As the webpage states: “As a cooperative business, they rely on people of the community to purchase equity shares and shop the store and eat at the Cafe Max.”

It would be interesting to hear from these entrepreneurs about how the co-op was formed and how it has grown since. Their innovative business model also aligns with our class discussions about the overlap between traditional entrepreneurs and social entrepreneurs.

This article discusses the idea of “Social Entrepreneurship” and how businesses are combining non-profit ideology with the structure and organization of private-run companies.  There is some good commentary on the effectiveness of social entrepreneurs as well as a brief discussion of some of the skills they look to employ.

“Social entrepreneurs achieve high social and economic impact by using innovative business methods to create jobs in low-income or fragile and conflict-affected markets. Because of their strong understanding of the communities they serve, social entrepreneurs will often innovate and iterate to develop a business model that is cost-effective, but also provides value for money in low-income markets. Their products must be validated by their customers for the enterprise to stay in business.”

Early in the class, we talked about different ways that lawyers could be subject to regulation. We brought up Alternative Business Structures, which are ways in which non lawyers can own part of a law firm or law partnership. These are typically not permitted under U.S. states’ ethics rules. This article recaps parts of the discussion we had in class, and provides a helpful overview and analysis of how other countries handle Alternative Business Structures. I think the increasing prevalence of articles such as these means that perhaps the legal industry is getting ready for a star bar to ease their rules and allow for Alternative Business Structures in the United States. This will be an interesting space to watch for potential disruptive innovation.

Here is an interesting article that provides some anecdotal stories about Australian lawyers who later became entrepreneurs, creating (not-legal-related) small businesses. For example, one man started a DVD rental kiosk business. (See website). The former lawyer appears to value his law degree when it comes to running a new small business, and notes that he particularly appreciates his knowledge of “intellectual property, defamation laws, company structures, fiduciary duties and reporting statutory requirements.” Id. I thought this article was interesting because it pointed out the advantages of having a law degree when trying to start a small business. The article did, however, point out that a law degree could lead to a “false sense of security.” Id. I think this is important to remember–being a lawyer does not inherently make one a good businessman. If starting a new business, we must make sure to also acquire the appropriate business skills or consult with an outside professional.

Here is an interesting example of a neighborhood legal clinic that assists entrepreneurs within New York City. The program is called Neighborhood Entrepreneur Law Project, or NELP. The program “provides low- to moderate-income micro-entrepreneurs with the legal services necessary to start their businesses on sound legal footing,” including assistance with “such matters as incorporation and tax issues, contracts and agreements, commercial lease negotiations, copyrights, trademarks, and patents.” (See website). The program does not use the traditional clinic model of law students, but instead partners with law firms and other legal departments, id., presumably allowing these attorneys to earn pro bono hours. This is an interesting program and a great example of how lawyers can use their talents to assist entrepreneurs, even if it is on a smaller scale.

Here is an interesting article discussing how entrepreneurship has helped shape the modern legal industry. The article also makes some predictions about the ways in which entrepreneurship will continue to lead to change in the legal industry. I thought this was an interesting read because it raises a perspective that we sometimes do not think about in this class: entrepreneurship within the legal profession, versus lawyers advising entrepreneurs in other industries. By being mindful of this and other perspectives, we can be better prepared for the future–perhaps some of us will become legal-tech entrepreneurs one day!

In keeping with our discussion of whether the law provides roadblocks, or a safety net, for entrepreneurs, this article adds an additional layer of interest: whether licensure requirements specifically are helpful or harmful to entrepreneurs. Wisconsin has found that licensure requirements may be negatively affecting entrepreneurship and growth.

The article states: “Wisconsin’s below-average startup numbers may be dragged down by a number of factors, and excessive licensing is one of them. The state should seize on the opportunity to begin tearing down unnecessary fences to entrepreneurism.”

Notably, as well, the article states that “these barriers often go unnoticed until the entrepreneur runs up against them.”

Ultimately, the article notes that a reduction in licensure “encourages the free flow of talent and [] lowers barriers to entry into the startup economy.” This may be an area to continue to watch in the future, to determine whether “a proposal by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to create commissions to scrutinize proposed and existing occupational licenses” gains traction, and whether other states follow suit.

This is a very fascinating article about Target’s recent decision to hire social entrepreneurs to lead its “Entrepreneur in Residence” Program (EIR).

The article writes of the EIR Program: “Launched in March of 2015, the program serves as an in-house incubator for disruptive business ideas. The goal: To help Target, with its nearly 1,800 stores and 340,000 employees, think like a startup.”

The article touches on numerous aspects of our class discussion: disruptive innovation, design thinking, benefits of entrepreneurship, differences between managing a larger company vs. managing a start-up company, and “corporate roadblocks” often involving the law.

The article states: “On paper, innovating a traditional company from the inside out seems like a solid idea. In reality, it remains to be seen whether Target can incorporate new, untested practices into its long-term strategy.”

A strong article that offers an inside look at Target’s business strategizing — and at how entrepreneurs are adapting to working at a Fortune 500 company. Indeed, as one EIR leader states: “There are inherent cultural tensions that stem from operating a startup within a Fortune 500 company.”

This article describes how designers are restructuring a Cook County courtroom to make it more “humanizing.”

In addition to the parties of a particular case, up to 9 different agencies interact in the Cook County courtroom within the span of 37 seconds.

The article describes the problems with the current courtroom design: “The courtroom was originally designed for regular trials, not bond hearings. A giant jury box takes up much of the space, even though there isn’t a jury. The placement of the judge’s bench, at an awkward angle in the corner, makes it hard for family members in the audience to hear what’s happening. A constant stream of people walk through the courtroom, disrupting proceedings.”

Then, the article discusses the benefits of the new design: “The new design improves acoustics, gives everyone a clear place to sit–with the defendant lined up directly in front of the judge–provides a place for detainees to compose themselves before they step in front of the room, and minimizes movement as the judge talks to each party and deliberates.”

Like Tom Kelley stated: “Inspiration often comes from being close to the action.” (Kelley 31).

Here, the designers appear to have done their homework and have the “observation-fueled insight” for which Kelley advocates. (Kelley 26). The article states: “After the designers watched an attorney bring up information for the wrong client, they also created a new organization system for files. The design also adds infographics in the hallway outside explaining the process.”

Worth the read!!