Legaltech startup conference: Difference between revisions

Here is an interesting list for the [[neural network]] to parse: here are the two hundred and seventy-seven (277) [[Vendor|Vendors]] listed in the Legal Geek “Startup Map”<ref>I am not making this up: https://www.legalgeek.co/startup-map/. There could be more: the bamboozling way it is set out made it hard to be sure I had go them all.</ref> Now I confess, not all of these are necessarily for profit businesses (by which I mean ''intending'' to make a profit; a large portion of them, however well disposed to the ''idea'' of making a profit, won’t ''actually'' make one) — there are some, even at a quick scan, that don’t even try. And some are unique and different. But they are the great minority. Most fall into the [[legaltech landscape]] as mapped out by {{author|Alex Hamilton}}.

Now a tiny fraction of an enormous number is still, for a couple of guys in a WeWork office in Shoreditch with laptop, a SquareSpace account and a Bulgarian coder they found on UpWork, a bloody big number. That is the [[legaltech]] promise.

Consider the humble word processor. There are ''billions'' of users of word processing software. There are, to all intents, two viable word-processing applications in the world, and one of them is free.  If word perfect can't make a fist of it, how is [[Lexrifyly]]?

It strikes us there are two explanations for this bafflingly rich microcosm; neither of them predict a stable equilibrium for the foreseeable, let alone into the hereafter.  

One is that the sector is simply overdue for the consolidation that will push it into the mainstream. These are all good little ideas but, un-knitted, they are too tepid to get anywhere. Once the power of affiliation dawns on them — the founders of 15 basically interchangeable [[contract automation]] tools were to swallow their pride and amalgamate, pooling resources, expertise and clients, then an apex predator might emerge to thin out the gene pool. One or two vendors are starting to do this  

This, we think, is the optimistic view: all this excitement; all these inflated expectations will eventually settle down and a stable, smart set of tools will emerge.

The other view is pessimistic: there is a reason for for the the variety. As we have posted elsewhere [[tedium is particular, not generic]].  And, also, consider two very well-funded, sophisticated market participants who are ''perfectly positioned'' clean up in this sector, but who, despite twenty years of opportunity, haven’t: Microsoft and Google. You have to wonder whether they know something these three hundred legaltech gurus don’t.<ref></ref> Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Either there is a winner, and it will be an order of magnitude better than the rest, or this is a busted flush, only sustained by the wilful suspension of disbelief that accompanies dying days of a bubble.

Either way, most participants, expect an ice age. Winter is coming.

*Ageras <br>

*AgileCase <br>

*Claim It <br>

*Clara <br>

*eXperYenz <br>

*Farewill <br>

*Indemniza.Me <br>

*Intelllex <br>

*LegaleXe <br>

*Legly <br>

*Logical Construct <br>

*Monax <br>

*MyDocSafe <br>

*PythAgoria <br>

*Reclamador <br>

*Seers Group <br>

*Sibyl <br>

*Sket.io <br>

*StructureFlow <br>

*synergist.io <br>

*TripleCheck <br>

*Waymark Tech <br>

*WillSuite <br>

*Winu <br>