Spain holiday villas | Ibiza apartments | Apartments in Costa Del Sol

Standardization of common tools (FirstDoc's bread and butter, it seems) is a good first start. Don't Repeat Yourself is a well adhered to cow-path because it works. However, when your business model is based on time instead of output, you likely have disincentives to strip time out of your business process.

Standardization of common services (and pricing associated therewith) is another–this is where I've seen companies like LegalZoom who offer rack-rate pricing for standard things like LLCs, incorporation, wills, and so forth.

To be fair, there are times (not infrequently in business), where there needs to be customization…but I often see customization and perseveration on certain points that clearly could do without. But when you're running the meter, why say "We've gone past the point of diminishing returns"? On the VMware Fusion team, we have a saying: Shipping *is* a feature. So yes, even though yet another rev of a workflow or UI element *could* be nice, is it blocking getting things out the door? What *other* feature could that engineer / lawyer be working on?

And this brings me to my next point. The mindset that I've come to see dominate tech legal practice (primarily at VMware, where my experience has been the deepest), and this is something that FirstDoc probably can't help us with, is one of extreme risk aversion. I get that this is somewhat ingrained in legal DNA. And yes, it's one thing to keep the business from walking into a buzz saw. I understand that. However, it's another thing to "default to no" without taking into consideration the opportunity cost associated with those decisions.

If someone can build me a tool that can size and prove out opportunity cost from extreme legal hesitance, and then, say, let me bill it to my legal org….well, I'd be the first customer…

Standardization of common tools (FirstDoc's bread and butter, it seems) is a good first start. Don't Repeat Yourself is a well adhered to cow-path because it works. However, when your business model is based on time instead of output, you likely have disincentives to strip time out of your business process.

Standardization of common services (and pricing associated therewith) is another–this is where I've seen companies like LegalZoom who offer rack-rate pricing for standard things like LLCs, incorporation, wills, and so forth.

To be fair, there are times (not infrequently in business), where there needs to be customization…but I often see customization and perseveration on certain points that clearly could do without. But when you're running the meter, why say "We've gone past the point of diminishing returns"? On the VMware Fusion team, we have a saying: Shipping *is* a feature. So yes, even though yet another rev of a workflow or UI element *could* be nice, is it blocking getting things out the door? What *other* feature could that engineer / lawyer be working on?

And this brings me to my next point. The mindset that I've come to see dominate tech legal practice (primarily at VMware, where my experience has been the deepest), and this is something that FirstDoc probably can't help us with, is one of extreme risk aversion. I get that this is somewhat ingrained in legal DNA. And yes, it's one thing to keep the business from walking into a buzz saw. I understand that. However, it's another thing to "default to no" without taking into consideration the opportunity cost associated with those decisions.

If someone can build me a tool that can size and prove out opportunity cost from extreme legal hesitance, and then, say, let me bill it to their org….well, I'd be the first customer…

Jim

PS: Mark and Jason please forgive me.