Category: News Feeds

Ever
since

Startup
Alley
first
launched in
2017,
the
pitch
competition
has
helped
catapult
the
success
of
a
long
list
of
legal
technology
startups
and
become
a
seminal
event
of
the
American
Bar
Association’s
annual TECHSHOW.

I
am
thrilled
to
say
that
the
competition
is
returning
for
its
ninth
year,
and
applications
officially
open
today
for
legal
tech
startups
to
enter
to
compete
for
a
spot
at TECHSHOW
2025,
which
takes
place
in
Chicago,
April
2-5,
2025.

Out
of
all
the
entries
received,
15
startups
will
be
selected
to
participate
in
a
live
pitch
competition
that
will
be
the
opening
event
of
this
year’s
TECHSHOW
on
the
evening
of
April
2,
2025.
In
addition
to
the
pitch
competition,
the
15
finalists
will
be
highlighted
as
exhibitors
in
a
special
Startup
Alley
section
of
the
conference
exhibit
hall.

---

Application
form
for
2025
ABA
TECHSHOW
Startup
Alley.

---

Again
this
year,
I
will
be
coordinating
the
competition,
in
collaboration
with
the
TECHSHOW
planning
board.
Read
on
for
full
details.

How
Will
the
Startups
Be
Selected? 

The
application
period
for
the
competition
starts
today.
Startups
interested
in
participating
must


complete
this
application
form. Applications
must
be
received
by
11:59
p.m.
Pacific
Time
on
Friday,
Dec.
13,
2024.

From
all
applications
received,
a
panel
of
five
judges
will
select
25
finalists.

On
Jan.
6,
2025,
descriptions
of
each
of
the
25
finalists
will
be
posted
on
the
ABA
TECHSHOW
blog,
on
this
blog,
and
on
Above
the
Law,
and
readers
will
be
invited
to
vote
for
their
favorites.
The
15
startups
that
receive
the
most
votes
will
be
selected
for
Startup
Alley.
Winners
will
be
announced
on
Feb.
11,
2025.

What
Are
the
Criteria
for
Applying?

The
competition
is
limited
to
startups
that
meet
the
following
criteria:

• Your
  company
  has
  been
  in
  business
  fewer
  than
  five
  years.
• Your
  product
  or
  service
  is
  targeted
  to
  lawyers
  or
  legal
  professionals,
  not
  to
  consumers.
• Your
  company
  has
  achieved
  some
  demonstrable
  traction,
  either
  in
  users,
  revenue
  or
  financing.
• You
  were
  not
  one
  of
  the
  Startup
  Alley
  finalists
  selected
  to
  present
  at
  Startup
  Alley
  in
  2017-2024.
  (Semifinalists
  who
  were
  not
  among
  the
  final
  15
  remain
  eligible
  to
  reapply.)

Most
importantly,
your
company
should
be
innovative,
meaning
that
it
addresses
a
need
not
met
by
other
products
or
services
currently
on
the
market
or
that
it
does
so
in
a
way
not
currently
done
by
others.

What
Happens
If
My
Company
Is
Selected?

The
15
winning
finalists
will
face
off
in
a
LIVE
pitch
competition
that
is
TECHSHOW’s
signature
opening
night
event.
Each
startup
will
have
2.5
minutes
to
present
its
pitch
in
front
of
an
audience
of
TECHSHOW
attendees.
At
the
conclusion
of
the
pitches,
attendees
will
vote
to
select
the
most
innovative
company
as
the
winner.

In
addition,
all
15
startups
will
be
provided
space
at
a
discounted
cost
to
exhibit
their
product
or
service
in
a
special
Startup
Alley
located
within
TECHSHOW’s
exhibit
hall.

• Each
  startup
  will
  be
  provided
  space
  in
  a
  uniform,
  pre-installed
  booth.
  You
  will
  not
  need
  (or
  be
  allowed)
  to
  bring
  a
  booth
  of
  your
  own.
• Each
  startup
  will
  be
  responsible
  for
  the
  booth
  fee
  of
  $1,500.
  This
  is
  a
  significant
  reduction
  off
  the
  standard
  booth
  cost.
  You
  are
  welcome
  to
  seek
  sponsors
  to
  underwrite
  all
  or
  part
  of
  this
  cost.
• Each
  startup
  is
  responsible
  for
  its
  own
  travel
  and
  hotel
  expenses
  to
  Chicago.

What
Do
Startups
Get
Out
of
This? 

ABA
TECHSHOW
is
one
of
the
world’s
pre-eminent
legal
technology
conferences.
All
of
the
participants
gain
exposure
to
a
large
and
diverse
audience
of
legal
professionals,
including
practitioners,
academics,
consultants
and
others.
In
addition,
TECHSHOW’s
audience
includes
legal
journalists,
bloggers,
industry
analysts
and
investors.

The
winner
of
the
opening
night
pitch
competition
will
receive:

• Free
  10×10
  booth
  space
  at
  the
  2026
  TECHSHOW.
• Free
  12-month
  listing
  on
  the
  ABA
  Legal
  Technology
  Resource
  Center’s
  Buyer’s
  Guide.
• $5,000
  credit
  to
  use
  towards
  advertising
  in
  ABA
  Law
  Practice
  Division
  media.
• A
  profile
  of
  the
  company
  on
  my
  LawSites
  blog.

Additionally,
each
of
the
15
finalists
will
receive
a
free
one-year
premium
listing
in
the LawNext
Legal
Technology
Directory.

Who
Are
the
Judges?

The
judges
this
year
who
will
select
the
final
25
contestants
are:

• Julie
  Bays,
  TECHSHOW
  2025
  co-chair.
• Steve
  Embry,
  TECHSHOW
  2025
  co-chair.
• Heidi
  Barcus,
  TECHSHOW
  2025
  co-vice-chair.
• Patrick
  Wright,
  TECHSHOW
  2025
  co-vice-chair.
• Bob
  Ambrogi,
  Startup
  Alley
  organizer.

Apply
Now!

There
is
no
cost
to
apply
and
the
application
form
is
relatively
painless
to
complete.
We
look
forward
to
reading
your
submissions.

Questions?
Send
them
my
way:
ambrogi-at-gmail.com.

Ed.
note:
Welcome
to
our
daily
feature,

Quote
of
the
Day.

Since
Ed
has
to
deal
with
more
than
40
judges,
he
knows
what
monsters
are
really
like.

—
Judge

Jed
Rakoff
of
the
Southern
District
of
New
York,
in
comments
given
to
the

Wall
Street
Journal,
concerning
the
“haunted”
office
of
District
Executive
Ed
Friedland,
which
is
now
showcasing
employee-made
exhibits
featuring
characters
from
scary
movies,
including
Frankenstein;
Ghostface
from
“Scream”;
Chucky
from
“Child’s
Play”;
Beetlejuice;
and
Art
the
Clown
from
“Terrifier.”
Rakoff,
who
turned
the
handle
on
a
gumball
machine
in
the
“Scream”
display,
received
a
spooky
prize:
a
sticker
of
himself
being
unmasked
as
Ghostface.
“I
don’t
know
if
I’ll
ever
be
as
traumatized
as
I
was
then,”
he
said.
A
panel
of
SDNY
judges
and
Second
Circuit
appellate
judges
will
choose
a
winning
exhibit
after
Halloween
is
over.
Click

here
to
see
some
of
the
incredibly
spooky
displays,
courtesy
of
the
New
York
Law
Journal.

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on

X/Twitter
and

Threads
or
connect
with
her
on

LinkedIn.

If
you
live
in
the
Empire
State,
you’ve
likely
seen
some
electioneering
materials
about
Prop
1.
…And
the
related
misinformation
about
it.
Prop
1
is
a
proposed
amendment
to
section
11
of
article
1
of
the
state
constitution,
to
provide
equal
rights
—
basically
a
New
York

ERA.
And
as
much
as
you
might
hope
that
something
as
basic
as
equal
rights
would
be
uncontroversial,
particularly
in
a
reliably
blue
state
like
NY,
of
course,
you’d
be
wrong.

First,
the
text
of
the
proposal:

Section
1.
Resolved
(if
the
Assembly
concur),
That
section
11
of
article
1
of
the
constitution
be
amended
to
read
as
follows:

§
11. a. No
person
shall
be
denied
the
equal
protection
of
the
laws
of
this
state
or
any
subdivision
thereof.
No
person
shall,
because
of
race,
color, ethnicity,
national
origin,
age,
disability, creed
[or], religion, or
sex,
including
sexual orientation,
gender
identity,
gender expression, pregnancy,
pregnancy
outcomes,
and
reproductive
healthcare and
autonomy, be
subjected
to
any
discrimination
in
[his
or her] their civil rights
by
any
other
person
or
by
any
firm,
corporation,
or
institution,
or
by
the
state
or
any
agency or
subdivision
of
the
state,
pursuant
to
law.

b.
Nothing
in
this
section
shall
invalidate
or
prevent
the
adoption
of
any
law,
regulation,
program,
or
practice
that
is
designed
to
prevent
or
dismantle
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
a
characteristic
listed
in
this
section,
nor
shall
any
characteristic
listed
in
this
section
be
interpreted
to
interfere
with,
limit,
or
deny
the
civil
rights
of
any
person
based
upon
any
other
characteristic
identified
in
this
section.

§ 
2. Resolved
(if
the
Assembly
concur),
That
the
foregoing
amendment
be
submitted
to
the
people
for
approval
at
the
general
election
to
be
held
in
the
year
2024
in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
the
election
law.

Explanation
–
Matter
in
underscored
is
new;
matter
in
brackets
[
]
is
old
law
to
be
omitted.

So,
what’s
the
complaint
with
that?
Well,
Dems
in
the
state
are
promoting
the
measure
as
protecting
abortion
rights.
And
one
of
the
most

common
refrains
from

conservatives
is
“it
DoEsN’T
EvEn
MeNtIoN
aB0RtIoN.”
Kudos
for

staying
on
messaging,
but
you
have
a
synonym
problem.
As
you
can
read
above,
the
prop
protects
reproductive
healthcare.
Which,
admittedly,
is
more
expansive
than
just
abortion
care.
But
with
the
GOP
coming
for

IVF
and

contraception,
that
just
seems
like
good
planning.

Another
claim
seen
on
lawn
signs
around
the
state,
“Protect
Parental
Rights,
Vote
No
Prop
1,”
is
that
parental
rights
will
be
impacted
by
the
ERA.
Initially
that
confused
me,
because
why
would
you
think
that
based
on
an
equal
rights
amendment?
But
what’s
behind
it
is
a
bunch
of
trans
fear-mongering
that
children
might
be
able
to
seek
gender
affirming
care
without
parental
consent.
Which
is
all
bullshit.
The
NYC
Bar
makes
it
clear
that
the
proposal
“does
not
address parental
rights,
which
are
governed
by
other
developed
areas
of
State
and
federal
law.
Prop
1 does
not
change
existing
law
with
respect
to
parental
consent.”
(There’s
other
trans-panic
baiting
in
opposition
to
the
prop,
none
of
which
hold
water
to
actual
interrogation.)

And
Columbia
Law
School’s

ERA
Project
goes
on
to
clarify:

The
New
York
ERA
will
not
change
the
existing
fundamental
rights
that
parents
have
to
make
decisions
about
the
care
and
upbringing
of
children.
Rather,
the
New
York
ERA
could
bolster
existing
parental
rights
by
prohibiting
discriminatory
interference
with
families
and
parental
decision-making.
The
potential
of
the
New
York
ERA
to
address
intersectional
forms
of
discrimination
is
particularly
significant
for
parents
whose
rights
are
threatened
on
the
basis
of
one
or
more
protected
characteristics,
including
race,
disability,
and
sex.
Finally,
the
New
York
ERA’s
comprehensive
protection
of
abortion
and
reproductive
rights
can
and
should
be
understood
to
include
the
rights
to
decide
if,
when,
and

how
to
parent.

The
NY
Libertarian
Party

fears
(yes,
the
Libertarian
Party
wants
fewer
protections
from
government
interference
in
fundamental
freedoms
because
we
are
truly
through
the
looking
glass)
that
the
amendment’s
inclusion
of
national
origin
opens
up
the
door
to
noncitizen
voting.
One
teeny,
tiny
problem
with
that
—
as
NYC
Bar
notes,
NY
wouldn’t
be
the
only
state
(and
the
federal
government
already
provides
that
protection)
that
protects
national
origin
(“Other
states
that
already
have
“national
origin”
in
the
equal
protection
clauses
of
their
respective
constitutions
include
Alaska,
California,
Connecticut,
Delaware,
Florida,
Massachusetts,
Nebraska,
Nevada,
New
Hampshire,
Texas
and
Virginia.”),
all
without
sparking
a
craze
of
a
noncitizen
voting.

There’s
a
bunch
more,
and
you
can
take
a
look
at
the
nonpartisan
fact
sheet
from
the
bar
association
for
yourself
below.

20221367-Prop1ERAEducationalDocument

---

Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of

The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email

her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter

@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon

@[email protected].

The
constitutional
right
to
a
fair
trial,
grounded
in
the
Sixth
Amendment,
is
the
cornerstone
of
our
justice
system.
It
guarantees
essential
protections
in
criminal
matters
that,
in
theory,
ensure
that
justice
is
ultimately
served.

By
extension,
the
belief
that
everyone
is
entitled
to
equal
access
to
justice
incorporates
the
idea
of
zealous,
fair,
and
skilled
legal
representation
in
both
criminal
and
civil
matters.
After
all,
justice
can’t
be
served
if
your
rights
aren’t
protected
by
someone
who
understands
the
machinations
of
the
court
system.

Unfortunately,
universal
access
to
justice
is
more
of
a
pipe
dream
than
a
reality.

Even
during
more
favorable
political
climates,
funding
for
legal
aid
—
such
as
through
the
Legal
Services
Corporation
—
was
insufficient
to
meet
demand.
That
gap
has
only
widened
over
the
past
decade,
forcing
public
interest
organizations
to
cut
services
and
staff
despite
rising
demand
for
legal
services
during
the
pandemic
and
in
the
challenging
economic
climate
that
has
followed.

Technology
has
long
been
promoted
as
the
key
to
closing
the
access-to-justice
gap.
However,
market
pressures
have
often
derailed
these
efforts,
as
companies
founded
with
idealistic
missions
often
succumb
to
the
relentless
pursuit
of
profit
and
growth.

Enter
generative
AI,
which
some
herald
as
the
solution
to
the
access
to
justice
problem.
I
wish
I
shared
their
optimism.
However,
given
the
current
state
of
affairs,
I
fully
expect
that
profit
will
reign
supreme.

OpenAI
exemplifies
this
trend.
It
began
as
a
nonprofit
committed
to
advancing
artificial
intelligence
for
the
benefit
of
all,
later
transitioning
into
a
for-profit
model
to
attract
investment
and
continue
to
scale.
This
shift
reflects
a
broader
trend
where
companies,
despite
noble
beginnings,
pivot
toward
profit-driven
strategies
to
sustain
growth
—
often
at
the
expense
of
their
original
mission.

The
cynic
in
me
believes
that
legal
technology
companies
are
no
different
and
will
follow
the
same
path.
Some
startup
founders
may
claim
that
a
primary
goal
of
their
new
generative
AI
tool
is
to
increase
access
to
justice
by
providing
consumers
with
the
information
and
tools
they
need
to
solve
a
legal
problem.
Ultimately,
however,
capitalistic
pressures
will
prevail,
as
they
always
do,
resulting
in
profit
as
the
primary
motivator
for
future-driven
growth.

Despite
my
pessimism,
perhaps
there’s
another
path
to
solving
the
access
to
justice
problem
with
generative
AI.
As
Jim
Calloway,
director
of
the
management
assistance
program
at
the
Oklahoma
Bar
Association,
recently
suggested
to
me,
there’s
another
perspective
to
consider.
Could
these
tools
be
used
to
significantly
streamline
public
interest
lawyers’
workloads,
allowing
them
to
represent
more
clients
more
effectively?
In
other
words,
even
if
AI
doesn’t
replace
the
role
of
lawyers
for
some
matters
by
providing
legal
information
directly
to
consumers,
it
could
very
well
allow
attorneys
in
the
trenches
to
expand
their
impact.

His
theory
reminded
me
of
an
email
I
received
in
response
to
an
article
I’d
written
about
the
potential
of
generative
AI.
The
sender
advised
me
that
he
only
handled
assigned
criminal
defense
matters
and
that
the
generative
AI
tools
he’d
recently
begun
to
use
in
his
practice
had
allowed
him
to
provide
better
representation
to
his
clients
and
had
“helped
his
solo
practice
immensely.”

While
this
pathway
seems
promising,
cost
remains
a
key
barrier
to
adopting
these
tools
in
public
interest
offices,
especially
legal-specific
solutions
designed
for
lawyers’
workflows
and
compliance
needs.
Many
of
these
solutions
rely
on
token-based
models,
where
complex
legal
tasks
consume
more
tokens
and
drive
up
expenses.
As
usage
grows,
so
do
costs,
making
it
difficult
for
underfunded
organizations
like
legal
aid
offices
to
access
the
very
tools
that
could
improve
efficiency
and
outcomes.

Initiatives
like
the
one
recently
announced
by
Thomson
Reuters
could
provide
a
solution
to
this
dilemma.
Last
week
it
launched
its
AI
for
Justice
Legal
Aid
program,
which
includes
its
Legal
Innovators
Incubator
in
addition
to
subsidized
pricing
for
legal
nonprofits.

The
inaugural
incubator
pilot,
supported
by
API
credits
donated
by
OpenAI,
features
organizations
such
as
The
Innocence
Center,
the
National
Center
for
Missing
&
Exploited
Children,
and
Lawyers
Alliance
for
New
York.

Participants
receive
free
access
for
one
year
to
Thomson
Reuters’
CoCounsel
generative
AI
legal
assistant.

This
program
could
make
all
the
difference
for
cash-strapped
legal
aid
offices.
According
to
Michael
Semanchik,
executive
director
of
The
Innocence
Center,
the
long-term
time-saving
potential
is
significant:
“It
completed
10
grant
applications
for
me
in
about
three
hours.
Normally,
I’d
spend
an
entire
day
on
just
one.”

While
these
early
results
are
promising,
only
time
will
tell
if
efforts
like
this
will
deliver
meaningful,
long-term
solutions.
Generative
AI
has
the
potential
to
transform
the
legal
landscape
—
not
by
replacing
lawyers
but
by
enabling
them
to
work
more
efficiently,
particularly
in
struggling
public
interest
settings.
However,
for
this
technology
to
fulfill
that
promise,
access
must
remain
affordable
and
aligned
with
the
mission
of
expanding
justice,
not
just
generating
revenue.

The
question
remains:
Will
efforts
like
Thomson
Reuters’
AI
for
Justice
program
help
close
the
access-to-justice
gap,
or
will
my
cynical
prediction
prevail?
Only
time
will
tell.
While
Generative
AI
holds
the
promise
of
easing
workloads
and
expanding
reach,
its
impact
on
access
to
justice
will
depend
on
careful
implementation
and
a
sustained
focus
on
ensuring
these
tools
are
available
to
those
who
need
them
most.

---

Nicole
Black


is
a
Rochester,
New
York
attorney
and
Director
of
Business
and
Community
Relations
at



MyCase,
web-based
law
practice
management
software.
She’s
been



blogging


since
2005,
has
written
a



weekly
column


for
the
Daily
Record
since
2007,
is
the
author
of



Cloud
Computing
for
Lawyers,
co-authors



Social
Media
for
Lawyers:
the
Next
Frontier,
and
co-authors



Criminal
Law
in
New
York.
She’s
easily
distracted
by
the
potential
of
bright
and
shiny
tech
gadgets,
along
with
good
food
and
wine.
You
can
follow
her
on
Twitter
at



@nikiblack


and
she
can
be
reached
at




[email protected].