While researching what the current trends are in the start-up industry, I found this article from the New York Times interesting. This article indicates that while Ries’ lean start-up mentality was once “all the rage in Silicon Valley,” now that Silicon Valley is “flush with cash,” entrepreneurs are pursuing ventures that require a lot more capital. The Times released another article on the same day that delved deeper into “The Rise of the Fat Start-Up.”

We have talked in class so far about how the law can help entrepreneurs and certainly how the law can hinder them. An interesting twist on that discussion is to think about how lawyers can become entrepreneurs, and how their particular skillset makes them strong candidates for doing so.

In this article, the author interviews three different lawyers who left their practice to start their own business. The author’s main inquiry was how those lawyers seemed to overcome the barriers and stigma that typically keep the two career paths separate.

Interviewing the founder of Tower Legal Solutions, the author quotes that “She explained that entrepreneurs must be willing to take risks that would make many lawyers uncomfortable. ‘Lawyers are tied to rules and deadlines, but as an entrepreneur, you never know what your day will look like’.”  This is an interesting observation because as the Top 10 Reasons Why Entrepreneurs Hate Lawyers highlights, lawyers tend to be very risk averse and almost create more problems than they do solutions. For Tower’s CEO, being a lawyer in her past gave her the insight on this issue and allowed her to mentally overcome that barrier as an entrepreneur.

Interviewing the founder of Rocket Lawyer, the author recounts the founder saying that the essential skill of being able to say “no” to a client’s idea is only beneficial when that lawyer also can come up with an alternative solution. This mirrors one of the frustrations of Top 10 Reasons Why Entrepreneurs Hate Lawyers, “Because they are deal killers”. Lawyers often get involved to help their clients avoid legal issues. But in practice, and especially when billing gets factored in, lawyers find themselves benefitting from finding a bunch of potential problems to confine their clients with. As both authors note, a good lawyer is one who can spot a problem. A great lawyer is one who can find a solution.

 

In these senses, understanding how lawyers think can provide a crucial edge against other, peer lawyers for a “wanna-be entrepreneur” lawyer. Finding the flaws of their profession and being able to offer a better service or internalizing those flaws and using it as a perspective to overcome those barriers is a way that lawyers can better serve their entrepreneur clients and even become successful entrepreneurs themselves.

 

Lawyers are often juxtaposed against entrepreneurs as being “risk-adverse,” instead of “risk-taking.” That might be true. But I could also see being risk-sensitive as an asset to help build a better business, whether that means being more keen to accurate market reception or seeing roadblocks that might create problems down the road. However, getting overwhelmed by possibilities could possibly serve as a hindrance. The article below is a tounge-and-cheek personal story of how a JD developed her own business. She describes how she needed to overcome many doubts she had in her mind. However, her ideas were validated by people she deemed as being more “business-savy.” A big point of her article (to me) is to not get too caught up in the “what-ifs,” if you think you might be being lead to start a business. She also highlights how resourceful and and messy the path to success can be as evidenced by her experience. She has a comical tone throughout the article. The combination of entrepreneurship attitude and legal analytics could produce a dynamite business-machine. But it still takes courage.

Article Link:

“How, and why, lawyers can become great entreprenuers,” Carlota Zimmerman, HuffingtonPost.com. <https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-and-why-lawyers-can-become-great-entrepreneurs_us_57e01405e4b04fa361d9a0cb>.

I decided to post this article because it relates to many of the articles that have been brought forth this week. In essence, it spotlights ten lawyers that turned into entrepreneurs while in their legal position. I particularly enjoyed the article because it strayed away from the misconception that not obtaining a higher education will make us better entrepreneurs. We are used to reading and learning about Jobs, Gates, and Zuckerburg, but sometimes it is imperative to supplement those examples. Furthermore, this article illustrates how an innovative idea can still be carried out in a busy work environment (like the legal profession). Lastly, in terms of the actual ideas, I think the Robot Lawyer, a legal intelligence support assistant, impacts us the most. While it is too soon to determine whether it will have a positive or negative impact, it seems like a matter of time before it becomes a permanent part of the legal world.

Disruptive Innovation in the Legal Industry

This article reminded me of our discussion of “creative destruction” last week. I think it is interesting to think about the legal industry falling victim to it (in a sense) with new innovations like Legal Zoom. Also, I think this article shows the importance of lawyers valuing innovation. There are probably not many industries out there that are insulated from this creative destruction idea. I do not think the legal industry is an example of one, either.  Lawyers should probably be more cognizant to both corner potential parts of the market themselves and stop others from eroding their business.

 

 

As I read Sarasvathy’s article I could not help to remember how groundbreaking Steve Jobs was with the launch of the personal computer, and, more recently, the iPad and the smartphone. He basically created products without knowing if there would be customers for them. Apple created a new demand, rather than just supplying products in a different way. Searching for this topic, I found this Forbes article that provides an overview of the book “Play Bigger” that seems to be a great complement to Sarasvathy’s point of view.

The Apple example leads me to the idea of how important legal advice is to innovative companies. Companies that seek the development of new products and new ways of doing things, will inevitably face the risk of infringe regulations in different matters. From environmental and labor protections to copyright provisions, a company needs also comply with the regulation in place or even use it to protect itself. Good legal support becomes a necessary part of achieving success. This article talks about the number of lawyers Apple has and how important its legal team has been to the corporation in a large number of different topics.

This article profiles three individuals who received their law degrees and then ended up creating their own companies.  One of the most interesting questions the writer asks each of the three individuals is how they feel lawyers and entrepreneurs are different.  What surprised me is that two of the three gave answers that categorized lawyerly thinking/attributes as antithetical to becoming a successful entrepreneur.  These responses included: “entrepreneurs must be willing to take risks that would make many lawyers uncomfortable,” and “lawyers can have trouble seeing that perfect is the enemy of good…[and this is a negative because] entrepreneurs must move quickly.”  In contrast, one of interviewees states that both fields require many of the same skills where the best lawyers and entrepreneurs are able to problem solve to achieve both their own and their clients’ objectives.  Which side do you fall on?  Are the two disciplines of law and entrepreneurship diametrically opposed, or do you feel there is more overlap between the two than is given credit for?

Scott Edward Walker points out in his article that the relationshipt between entrepreneurs and their lawyers might sometimes be complicated, and even goes that far to present 10 reasons why the former may start hating the latter. However, this article strongly encourages entrepreneurs to consult with a lawyer at an early stage, not only to avoid some serious legal issues (like a trademark or patent dispute) at all, but also to give their relationship––like in a marriage––time to develop.

The article further gives advice on specific key qualities an entrepreneur should look for when choosing a lawyer, which are: Experience, Understanding, Ability to communicate, and Availability.

In response to Scott Edward Walker’s article about the 10 reasons an entrepreneur might not be his or her lawyer’s greatest fan, I found an article that discusses why lawyers indeed can be great entrepreneurs and, hence, what others could learn from them. The article defines the following five major reasons why lawyers are (or should be) great entrepreneurs:

1. They are good in analytical and sequential thinking;
2. They have mastered (sooner or later) the art of negotiation;
3. They are effective communicators and can well articulate and present their arguments;
4. They are confident (while hopefully not arrogant);
5. They are used to work in teams.

I guess, both the entrepreneur himself and his or her lawyer have a different set of skills whose combination might be essential for a start-up’s success. Hence, both should probably focus more on learning from each other and on the mutual benefits of this relationship, which might, nevertheless, not always simple and without conflicts.

After discussing Poverty, Inc. in class, I found myself wondering what had happened in the aftermath of the release of the film. One of the examples that garnered a significant amount of criticism in the film was the shoe (and now other products, as well) company, Toms. The company takes pride in its “buy one give one” model, where every time one pair of shoes is purchased, one pair of shoes is donated. In fact, when you search “Toms Shoes” on Google, its tagline “The One for One Company” is the first item that you see.

Poverty, Inc. was concerned about the displacement that occurs from this model. What happens to the local cobbler when the Toms truck swoops in? What happens when the Toms truck does not show up at all?

After receiving such feedback, I was curious what CEO Blake Mycoskie had decided to do about it. According to this article, Mycoskie at first took his critics “personally, but then I realized they were right…using our model to create jobs is the next level.” Mycoskie then said that Toms plans to have 1/3 of all shoes produced in the countries to which the company donates by the end of 2015.

Given that it is now 2018, I turned to the Toms website to see if Mycoskie’s plans had come to fruition. The site now has an entire page dedicated to “Beyond One for One: We are committed to more than just Giving.” This seemed to be a direct answer to the comments from the film. According to the page, Toms has supported over 700 jobs and is now producing Toms shoes in four countries. Additionally, Toms has started an effort to provide startup funds to over 20 companies with a social mission.

While it is hard to determine exactly what impact Toms has had outside of giving shoes, it seems to me that Mycoskie took the lessons from Poverty, Inc. and has done his best to evolve as a result of them. Intriguingly, the movie was not enough of a catalyst to stop Mycoskie from continuing the one for one idea. It will be fascinating to track this company’s future strategies for combatting social issues.