In many ways I find this article both interesting and scary.
The author suggests that Quinn Emmanuel are shaking up the legal practice, but their method seems like a corporate version of the ambulance chasers methodology.
A no win, no fee approach seems to make law both more accessible and less accessible at the same time. The problem is it moves the availability of lawyers from something based on need and cost, to something based on chances of winning. Winning a case doesn't necessarily imply the moral imperative.
That said since they are doing solely corporate law this is less of an issue with me, and I'm very happy to see someone disrupting the legal profession.
Like YC's free legal documents for A-funding this kind of thing is probably a step in the right direction to make the law more accessible to smaller companies.
The author suggests that Quinn Emmanuel are shaking up the legal practice, but their method seems like a corporate version of the ambulance chasers methodology.
A no win, no fee approach seems to make law both more accessible and less accessible at the same time. The problem is it moves the availability of lawyers from something based on need and cost, to something based on chances of winning. Winning a case doesn't necessarily imply the moral imperative.
That said since they are doing solely corporate law this is less of an issue with me, and I'm very happy to see someone disrupting the legal profession.
Like YC's free legal documents for A-funding this kind of thing is probably a step in the right direction to make the law more accessible to smaller companies.