The presentation on solar today got me thinking about the idea of helping convicted felons find jobs.  Looking more into this concept in general, I found this article about possible advantages of hiring ex-convicts for a startup team. If you’re dealing with someone that doesn’t have serious mental health problems or violent tendencies, they could actually be a better team member than someone who has several other opportunities that they could leave for instead.

The presentation today (4/10/2018) regarding solar panels and renewable energy got me thinking about some of the other ways that the legal profession may be able to contribute to renewable energy solutions around the globe. As a result, I came across this article, which provides a discussion on off-the-grid solutions in Africa and how they contribute to development in African countries. The article also includes a discussion on how large law firms like DLA Piper are involved in these efforts.

Here is an interesting catch-all article relevant to our course as a whole. The article touches on tech, law, and startups and the similarities in business failures between startups and small law practices. I think a lot of course discussion has been focused on how startups might be putting lawyers out of business, so it’s interesting to see that small firms and startups share a lot of the same challenges.

*Ahem* not posting this as a Lexis rep, but thought this article was super interesting. Lexis has been getting more into the predictive analytics space lately (they bought Ravel for example, and are dipping into analyzing possible settlements) and I thought this new Attract for Motor concept was cool.

This is basically a new (proprietary) way for insurance agencies to understand client risk. The Director of Product Management at Lexis says this is good for the client and insurance agency, as it allows the client to get a quote tailored to their needs and represents less uncertainty on the part of the insurer.

This feature will allow insurance agencies to deliver precision based quotes in less than a second directly to the consumer (streamlining the consumer’s purchasing process). I think this is interesting, especially given that we’ve been talking a little bit about self-driving cars and liability risks there.

 

Can too much in venture capital funds alter the image of a brand and its customers–to their detriment?

This article talks about the Glossier image of being a start up has drastically changed to a well funded leader in the beauty industry, and could impact how it’s current fanbase reaction to its brand.

“Glossier first began as a product-based spinoff of beauty site Into the Gloss with an initial investment of $2 million in venture capital funding, led by Forerunner and Lerer Ventures, in Sep. 2013. Then it raised $8.4 million in additional VC financing from investors just a month after its launch in Nov. 2014; raised $24 million in a Series B round of fundraising in Nov. 2016; and also received a nice boost thanks to $3 million in tax credits from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. That’s quite the trajectory for a three-year-old business”

If you haven’t heard of “Ban the Box,” it’s basically where companies forgo the section on employment applications asking possible employees to self-identify as having a criminal background. Proponents argue that this is helpful as it allows individuals who don’t run the risk of reoffending to get and maintain employment, reinforcing the very concept that they will be even less likely to reoffend given their employment status.

Anyway, all this aside, even though Target has been one of the biggest and most popular proponents of “Ban the Box,” it has recently come about that Target has been using other means to characterize possible employees prior to hiring them. The complaint alleges in this case states that after Target issued something called a “conditional offer of employment,” they would run a background check on applicants looking at their criminal record.

This seems to run counterintuitive to Targets “Ban the Box” policies, although Target is alleging that it is following best business practices by putting out the conditional job offer before running such checks. Parties harmed by this state that this is unfair of Target because the jobs they are seeking, typically entry level jobs such as food service workers, shelf stockers and cart attendants are unlikely to need a clean record. Thoughts?

 

This article talks about Kowtow’s business model. The founder, Gosia Piatek, had an aspiration to use entirely Fair Trade-certified and organic cotton. And she’s become extremely successful. She went from 2 to 26 employees in the last couple of years. And even though the creative direction has changed, her motto of ethical sourcing, manufacturing, and production has stayed the same!

The article also highlights the setbacks she’s experienced as a result of trying to do good and help the farmers on the low end of the production cycle. She’s had to drive up her prices and postpone collections, because of her reliance on farmers.

Piatek’s setbacks made me realize why companies like Forever21 and Walmart adopt the practices they do. It’s a way to cut costs and make predictability a constant. Doesn’t make it right, but it shows the efficiently of their business models.

Possibly unrelated to class, but Backpage.com was just taken down as a large scale effort primarily by the Department of Justice. Backpage.com is similar to Craigslist, except with one main difference, it has a section for escorts and performers. I think it’s difficult consolidating law and tech here, because sites like this can be created in a day and spread amongst an entire population – but they take forever to take down.

I think this relates to the idea that attorneys (and judges) need to be more tech savvy in order to understand and prosecute these cases.

According to the article, “A Justice Department official said the case against Backpage does not rely on sex trafficking charges, but rather on charges connected to prostitution, which are easier to prosecute.”

This article reminded me of the class several weeks ago where we discussed discovering and testing your assumptions. This could be an interesting and slightly different angle for uncovering your hidden assumptions.

I know y’all are tired of my retail/fashion posts, but…..

Apparently, Millennials are putting their money where their mouth is. Studies show that shoppers are shifting from fast fashion stores like Zara and Forever21 to online consignment shops. The article calls the online thrift stores “resale disruptors“. Thredup, The RealReal and Poshmark, the three leading resale disruptors, are said to have raised $130 million, $173 million and $153 million in funding to date.

This new practice to buy clothes that are already part of the fashion cycle confirms the objective of sustainability. For the past 5 years, this generation has become accustomed to only wearing articles of clothing for 1-5 wears. This fueled stores like H&M and Forever21 to mass produce clothing. However, if these online thrift stores continue to attract the attention of millennials, they could put a stop to the overproduction of clothes by fast fashion giants–a sustainable alternative to a wasteful practice.

Online thrifting is just one of many disruptive innovations that are fueled by public opinions.

“A way to satisfy a social media-driven constant desire for newness without contributing to the negative environmental impact of buying disposable fashion from companies like Zara, H&M and Forever 21.”

Side note: Who else shops at thrift stores for fun and not for sustainability?