Self-Described Quora for Legal Launches
TechCrunch reports that LawPivot - which describes itself as a Quora for legal - recently launched. The "founders/execs are all attorneys with tech experience." (TechCrunch: "LawPivot Closes Angel Round For Quora-Like Startup Legal Advice.") [Note: the link to LawPivot wasn't working when I posted this. Maybe they weren't ready for all the traffic that a TechCrunch link brings?]
Are they harbingers of the long-awaited Susskindian revolution? As described by TechCrunch, the site will allow "companies to confidentially ask legal questions to expert attorneys." Will companies flock to the site in droves, abandoning traditional channels of finding their lawyers? Will lawyers now freely offer advice and compete for business in a forum where clients can more effectively evaluate their expertise and pricing? The core service offered by LawPivot sounds similar to one that an existing site already offers: Avvo's Answers. One point of differentiation between the two is that LawPivot seems to be aimed at technology companies in particular. Will young tech. companies abandon their habit of working with law firms recommended by their investors and venture capitalists?
I have no idea, but it's interesting to see how what I'm sure will not be the sole entrant into the space does. I'm not very familiar with it, but LegalRiver sounds somewhat similar as well. On a vaguely related note, I signed up for Quora but I haven't tried it. (By the time I get around to trying it, it will probably over-run with marketers and advertisers, but that's neither here nor there.) Also, any time I hear a service described as an [existing online service] for a [specific demographic], the bubble alarms start to go off in my head. I'm sure some of these companies will thrive and survive, but when you hear about things like a foursquare for beer lovers and one for food lovers, you start to wonder if companies are putting too much energy into building a service geared towards a particular demographic, when the service as a whole hasn't been proven to be viable from a business standpoint in the first place. Who knows, maybe this space is different, or maybe I'm wrong on all counts. There's certainly plenty of room for technology to allow consumers to be [further] empowered vis a vis the legal profession.
One point about LawPivot that I thought was interesting was that the advice offered through the site will not be publicly visible. I don't remember where I read this but someone argued that one of the problems of crowd-sourcing is being influenced by the answers of others, and making the crowd's answers not visible is one way to address one of the problems of crowd-sourcing. Also, as TechCrunch mentions, since the discussion is not made public, there is little or no opportunity for the SEO play. TechCrunch views this as a downside, but I think this may be a good thing in the long run.
Added: comments from Jay Parkhill:
Are they harbingers of the long-awaited Susskindian revolution? As described by TechCrunch, the site will allow "companies to confidentially ask legal questions to expert attorneys." Will companies flock to the site in droves, abandoning traditional channels of finding their lawyers? Will lawyers now freely offer advice and compete for business in a forum where clients can more effectively evaluate their expertise and pricing? The core service offered by LawPivot sounds similar to one that an existing site already offers: Avvo's Answers. One point of differentiation between the two is that LawPivot seems to be aimed at technology companies in particular. Will young tech. companies abandon their habit of working with law firms recommended by their investors and venture capitalists?
I have no idea, but it's interesting to see how what I'm sure will not be the sole entrant into the space does. I'm not very familiar with it, but LegalRiver sounds somewhat similar as well. On a vaguely related note, I signed up for Quora but I haven't tried it. (By the time I get around to trying it, it will probably over-run with marketers and advertisers, but that's neither here nor there.) Also, any time I hear a service described as an [existing online service] for a [specific demographic], the bubble alarms start to go off in my head. I'm sure some of these companies will thrive and survive, but when you hear about things like a foursquare for beer lovers and one for food lovers, you start to wonder if companies are putting too much energy into building a service geared towards a particular demographic, when the service as a whole hasn't been proven to be viable from a business standpoint in the first place. Who knows, maybe this space is different, or maybe I'm wrong on all counts. There's certainly plenty of room for technology to allow consumers to be [further] empowered vis a vis the legal profession.
One point about LawPivot that I thought was interesting was that the advice offered through the site will not be publicly visible. I don't remember where I read this but someone argued that one of the problems of crowd-sourcing is being influenced by the answers of others, and making the crowd's answers not visible is one way to address one of the problems of crowd-sourcing. Also, as TechCrunch mentions, since the discussion is not made public, there is little or no opportunity for the SEO play. TechCrunch views this as a downside, but I think this may be a good thing in the long run.
Added: comments from Jay Parkhill:
I am registered on Law Pivot though I have not gotten any questions yet. It is really a lead gen site for lawyers more than a quora/vark "find public answers" site. Potential clients can ask questions, the site finds what it thinks are appropriate lawyers to respond, and then the client can choose among several possible lawyers to do the work based on their responses.Also, looks like Justia Legal Answers just launched.
I am registered on Law Pivot though I have not gotten any questions yet. It is really a lead gen site for lawyers more than a quora/vark "find public answers" site. Potential clients can ask questions, the site finds what it thinks are appropriate lawyers to respond, and then the client can choose among several possible lawyers to do the work based on their responses.
I will be interested to see what comes out of it.
Reply to this