Despite the stench of rotting corpses of the “greatest thing ever” start-ups permeating the internet, another new one is soon to hit the skids with claims of providing what every desperate lawyer wants: leads. Called myRight, once again a couple of law students think they’ve come up with a way to parlay the tried and failed lawyer Q & A concept into a money maker.
Most legal problems are fairly common, so you shouldn’t have to fork over thousands of dollars in legal fees.
[A] Los Angeles-based startup wants to give you a free, online pre-consultation about your legal issues before you ever call a lawyer or go to a lawyer’s office. MyRight is a graduate of Los Angeles incubator, StartEngine and is the brainchild of law students, Michael Niu and Nikhil Jhunjhnuwala.
The site does what it says on the tin — it provides non-lawyers with the tools to solve their own legal problems.”We both found that lawyers spent a huge amount of their time answering and asking the same questions when new clients came into their offices,” said Niu. “We thought there must be a better way to automate this process.”
It’s amazing how law students know all there is about the practice of law, considering the din about how law students learn nothing about the practice of law. Apparently, the whine stops when the marketing begins.
Despite the typical silly claims, most notably that myRight is set to compete with Avvo Answers, its hook bends a different way.
Got a legal issue? The site will lead you through a series of simple questions that get to the heart of the complaint. For instance, if it’s a housing query about a security deposit, it might ask you simple questions like, “Have you asked your landlord for a refund?” Throughout the process, you’ll be provided with relevant and simple information.
The image it raises reminds me of Windows’ troubleshooter screens, asking basic and annoying questions (“Is your computer plugged in?”) for those who can’t figure out how to solve a problem without the most simplistic help.
But if the information is reasonably accurate, this may work. There are a great many people who haven’t got a clue whether they have a legal matter to pursue, and operate either out of ignorance, based on myths or what the lady on the corner told them. An enormous amount of unproductive legal time could be avoided, saving both potential clients and lawyers time and expense, by weeding out those people either need legal help or don’t before they meet with a lawyer.
Based on the questions on Avvo Answers and the dreaded emails from “potential clients” seeking free advice, there is a huge gap in the many people’s understanding of the law that is in desperate need of filling. For those who give free consultations, hour upon hour is lost to meeting destined to go nowhere, with angry people who demand that lawyers fix whatever perceived problems exist despite their being in the wrong or having no basis for suit. The idea of educating people before they call, saving them the angst and the lawyer the time, has some merit.
The initial catch is that the concept is only as good as the quality and clarity of the weeding process.
“People think the law is complicated, but most people would be able to make much better decisions if they simply knew the basics and whether talking to a lawyer is a good decision,” Niu said. In future, he told me, lawyers will use the site’s proprietary CMS to build their own helpful step-by-step guides on a variety of legal topics.
Well, the law is complicated, which is why they build law schools and courtrooms. On the other hand, there are basic limitations that, if carefully conceived, can serve to illuminate the process for clients and help them to realize what they should, or should not, do. The problem is that myRight expects lawyers to to “build their own helpful step-by-step guides.”
The mantra in Field of Dreams was “if you build it, they will come.” Niu wants someone else to build it, and that opens the door to a bunch of problems. First, what if they don’t? Second, what if they do, but do it wrong? It’s not like two law students would have a clue whether some lawyer’s guide is accurate. Third, given that the motivation of lawyers who become embroiled in these scheme is to get clients to pay them money, is it reasonable to expect guides to be geared toward enlightening people or toward convincing them to retain the lawyer who crafted the guide? What is missing is any means of assuring the efficacy of the process, which is a huge problem.
And even if the guides work, where does it go from there? While the guide concept could prove useful, the business model places myRight in the middle of the same, old, useless lead-generation scheme, a niche filled with dozens of marketers who try to skim a bit off the top at the expense of desperate and foolish lawyers.
The company plans to make money by asking lawyers to pre-pay for leads. If a legal complaint is too complicated, you may need to seek additional, expert guidance. The idea is that lawyers will be able to connect with these users through the site.
Because there aren’t enough cold-calls to law offices promising wealth and success if only they pre-pay for leads. You know, the scam caller who asks if you can handle more DUI cases because they have clients desperately seeking lawyers? Do we really need another person to hang up on?
And for the potential client who thinks only about a way to find cheap lawyer, the hidden risks remain.
To the extent myRight could serve both lawyer and client with its troubleshooter concept, I’m all for it. But I have some trouble believing they can pull it off given their expectation that lawyers are going rush to build their business for them by doing the legwork needed, and doing it sufficiently well not to be dangerous or scummy.
Yet, the concept will be captive to the same old lead-generation scheme that is already being used in a scientific experiment to empirically determine how many lawyers are clueless. Adding another to the mix will neither improve the scheme nor expand the pool, as even lawyers eventually realize that they are not related to a Nigerian prince and internet generated “leads” are worthless.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I wanted to respond to your post by providing my thoughts on what seem to be your two biggest concerns. First, you express doubt based upon the fact that the founders are law students and not lawyers. The truth is, even a seasoned lawyer knows practically nothing about a practice area or jurisdiction they do not have experience with. Law school education is not very valuable because it does not offer practical experience, but having a JD stamped next to one’s name only makes a person more credible in regards to public perception, not in reality. Even a firm the size of DLA Piper is not going to be able to address every particularity of every jurisdiction with 100% accuracy based on experience. The only way to ensure accuracy is to build a proper, open community around the law with the “right values” being promoted from the top. There are countless examples of this working on the internet already. Even more importantly, most users do not want to be their own lawyer. A website like WebMD does not teach you how to perform surgery on yourself or guarantee that it is not misdiagnosing cancer. It is just a web resource to educate people and bring them from complete ignorance to a basic understanding.
Your second concern seems to be that lawyers will not come at all or will not produce high quality content. If the model is successful, I personally have no doubt that lawyers will come. I do agree that lawyers have a habit of building low quality material for consumer use, but again, the only way to improve on that formula is to build an infrastructure which promotes high quality content. Fortunately for consumers, that infrastructure is slowly but steadily being promoted by tech hegemons like Google and will also be a key foundation of our system. Lawyers who are more business-savvy in the internet economy will be the big winners soon, and those who cannot compete will be left behind.
Until your comment, I was unaware that you were a Slackoisie. Now that it’s in writing, there will be no denying it. As for the rest of your comment, it’s the sort of nonsensical drivel one would expect from a law student. Sad.
If someone is foolish enough to give you $500k angel funding, pocket the money and run. No reason to go hungry just because you came up with a flawed business concept.
Michael:
I have a question for you. What do you believe it is that lawyers actually do?
Why go down this road at all? What difference does it make what Michael believes, as he has no foundation for any belief. Only the slacksoisie believe they’re entitled to an opinion despite their lack of foundation, which is why Michael offers his “personal” view. That’s fine, but irrelevant to anyone or anything else.
Who cares what a kid who knows nothing believes? The only thing Michael has conclusively shown is the self-importance of his own clueless beliefs.
I believe lawyers provide a valuable service, finding, acquiring, counseling, representing, and advocating for clients. I also believe that most of what they do could never be learned in a law textbook, and that the profession requires unique skills and experience. Like the article says, the primary focus on our company is to save consumers and lawyers time by qualifying leads and educating the public.
You do understand that there are about a zillion other people trying to convince lawyers that we all need to be more tech-savvy, right?
What you’re failing to understand is that new technologies are not making old tried-and-true practice models obsolete, nor will they. People don’t look for a lawyer in the same way they shop for a new TV. Unless I’m really misreading things and half of all people choose a lawyer based solely on whose name pops up first on a Google result.
Look, I will be nice for a second… because I’m sorry I asked the question, and I’m even sorrier that you answered it.
When I was in law school, I had no idea what it meant to “represent, counsel, and advocate” for clients. Sure, they used those words a lot in ethics class, and I know their textbook meaning, but it’s taken about 5 years in the trenches to begin to grasp those words. And every day those words take on a new, broader meaning.
There are many days when I say “What if it were me I was representing? Would I be in good hands? Am I doing the right things?” It’s almost an overwhelming responsibility to comprehend that someone’s business, freedom, or family are in your care, and they are relying on you for a result.
I don’t think those words started to resonate with me until about three or four years into practice, honestly. I sure as hell did not grasp what those words meant as a law student. I am still learning them every single day, actually.
So while I hate to echo Scott, right now you don’t have any foundation for your opinion. It’s not an insult, you just don’t.
Perhaps one day you will have a foundation for your opinion, but that will come with experience. If you try and approach the law like you know everything, you have my assurance you will be a failure. And if you don’t know anything, the worst thing you can do is open your mouth to try and pretend you do. In law we call those values “prudence” and “discretion”, and they also come with experience. Experienced lawyers can tell when you’re talking about a topic you don’t know anything, and it usually leads to a painful groan.
Consider that a little friendly advice from someone who has made the same mistake, and rightfully been slammed by guys like Greenfield for it…
Hate is a very strong word. You could do worse.
Superstar,
Please publish a list of any participating lawyers.
You will be providing a valuable service by helping lawyers identify and avoid those who—like you—think of clients as “consumers” and potential clients as “leads.”
Only by culling the most venal can we save the profession from the marketing toilet.
Thank you,
MB
I have spent a considerable amount of time and effort constructing my client guides. These guides are regularly adjusted to reflect not only changes in the law but also my evolving understanding of my clients’ needs. Why then would I provide this information free of a charge to a third party and then pay them to refer a client who may or may not have the resources to retain me? I am all for innovations in the way we deliver legal services to our clients, but at the end of the day we must be competent and capable attorneys providing accurate and informed advice and generating high quality legal work. This is an attorney’s one and only product and it is something that no web site or [insert name of latest fad here] can replicate let alone replace.
Seriously? You mean you aren’t thrilled at the idea of giving your work product over to Michael so he can use it to get “leads” and then charge you for them? Well, that’s going to put a damper on his business model.