If thats' so easy, why don't you copy a start-up from US and start here. Please don't demean anyone, unnecessarily. Most of the laptop warriors don't have the guts to leave their job and are busy passing verdict on the start-up founders who LEAD their company. FYI - Judges are not sitting there to provide guidance.
Infact most of us have not sold a single product in our lives and here we are judging Ashneer, Aman, Anupam, Namita etc! If they have arrogance, they have earned that. I have seen Associates, SA's and Partners with more arrogance than all the judges combined.
Reason - They earn between 1-10 lacs a month. Now, imagine what these judges have achieved over and above the monthly pay.
This show sucks bigtime. The judges do not have anything useful to say. Also the startups of the judges are just copies of US startups, so who are they to give gyan?
Blood, sweat, tears, vacation, boyfriend, husband, wife, girlfriend, health, parents, eyebags, dark circles, mental sanity, new found love for avacado.
You bring up an interesting point. However, you may be surprised to know that most organizations that do outsourced grunt work happen to be very well capitalized businesses, which do attract investor attention.
DeFi and Web3 are sexy terms to throw around in a public forum and sound the death knell of entire industries but I'd also consider two things:
1. Most industries that are affected by developments in technology don't die - they evolve. The people who refuse to evolve with them? They become irrelevant. It's what's happened with IB and in a limited sense with legal as well. It's what will happen in the future.
2. Just because certain technology developments are disruptive, does not mean they can actually end up creating a disruption. Tech tends to ignore a lot of socio-cultural-political factors that actually need to be overcome to actually allow the said tech to reach a critical mass and thereby result in mass adoption. There's a reason why BigTech is constantly tussling with regulators across the globe - and an informed analysis into some of the core reasons behind such regulatory actions can throw some light on some of these S-C-P factors.
Happy to be corrected or have a broader discussion on this thread.
The structure of a C-Corp is replicated in the "Private Limited Company" entity while "S-Corp" is replicated in the "Limited Liability Partnership" entity in India. The proposed model is about S corp entities while the argument is that it could be based on private limited company structure.
I think OP means law-related startup companies, not boutique law practices. For instance, Leegality (founded by Law School folx) has already received seed and Series A funding (I think). I don't see why a documentation automation type startup can't get funded. In US a lot of tax filing firms are funded.
The Shark Tank judges are pretty useless. A bunch of tech bros and nepo girl Thapar. It is better to approach experienced people who have an appreciation of the importance of legal services.
legal start up, lol! and what would be the pitch? we will vet documents? lawyers aren't the main event, they are ancillary support providers. in my view with the mass adoption of decentralized finance over web 3 and smart contracts, the days of these intermediaries (banks, transnational lawyers) are numbered. they will go the telegram way very soon
@2.1 - the comment at 2 does not state that the rejection would be due to a partnership model. I think you misunderstood him/her. Kindly read again and if you don't see their point, ask politely and someone shall lay it out for you.
Why does it have to be based on a partnership model? it could be setup in a s corp or c corp model, I don't think it's that difficult pitch a legal service corporation if the idea is really revolutionary.
Infact most of us have not sold a single product in our lives and here we are judging Ashneer, Aman, Anupam, Namita etc! If they have arrogance, they have earned that. I have seen Associates, SA's and Partners with more arrogance than all the judges combined.
Reason - They earn between 1-10 lacs a month. Now, imagine what these judges have achieved over and above the monthly pay.
Blood, sweat, tears, vacation, boyfriend, husband, wife, girlfriend, health, parents, eyebags, dark circles, mental sanity, new found love for avacado.
DeFi and Web3 are sexy terms to throw around in a public forum and sound the death knell of entire industries but I'd also consider two things:
1. Most industries that are affected by developments in technology don't die - they evolve. The people who refuse to evolve with them? They become irrelevant. It's what's happened with IB and in a limited sense with legal as well. It's what will happen in the future.
2. Just because certain technology developments are disruptive, does not mean they can actually end up creating a disruption. Tech tends to ignore a lot of socio-cultural-political factors that actually need to be overcome to actually allow the said tech to reach a critical mass and thereby result in mass adoption. There's a reason why BigTech is constantly tussling with regulators across the globe - and an informed analysis into some of the core reasons behind such regulatory actions can throw some light on some of these S-C-P factors.
Happy to be corrected or have a broader discussion on this thread.
Cheers.
Leave alone the common sense issue of thinking about illegality around non lawyers holding equity in a law firm LLP (Partner).