Episode 61 of the Legal Tech StartUp Focus Podcast -- An Interview with Michael Stych, Co-Founder and CEO of Contend
36:59 Share

Hello, and welcome to the Legal Tech Startup Focus podcast. I'm your podcast host, Charlie Uniman. On this podcast, I'll be interviewing the people who build, invest in, comment on, and use the apps made by legal tech startups.

My guests and I will be discussing many different startup-related topics, covering, among other things, startup management and startup life, startup investing, pricing and revenue models, and the factors that affect how users decide to purchase LegalTech. We're not going to focus on LegalTech per se. Instead, we'll be focusing on the startups that develop, market, and sell that tech. So whether you're a startup founder or investor,

a lawyer or other legal professional, or a law professor, law student, or commentator who thinks about LegalTech startups, sit back, listen, and learn from my guests about just what it takes for LegalTech startups to succeed. And if you're interested in LegalTech startups and enjoyed this podcast, please become a member of the free LegalTech Startup Focus community by signing up at www.legaltechstartupfocus.com.

Welcome, listeners, to the LegalTech Startup Focus podcast. This is your podcast host, Charlie Uniman, once again. Pleased to be here with you and also very pleased to be here with Mike Stitch, who is one of the co-founders of an application website called Contend in the access to justice space, in the retail law space, as some people put it.

And in the everyday people side of things, I like that phrase, everyday people. I'll come back to it. But let me introduce and welcome Mike. Thanks for joining me. Hey there, Charlie. Thank you so much for having me. Wonderful to have you. I said I would come back to everyday people. And for those who are as old as I, they remember that Sly and the Family Stone had a hit recording in 1968 called Everyday People.

I like the phrase. I'll tell you where it came from in a moment. And I reminisced about 1960s rock and roll.

But where that came from was a wonderful article that I'll try to remember to link in the show notes to this episode about Contend and Mike in the august times of London. So congratulations on that, Mike. It must have been a great thrill to have had such an institution, media institution, talk about Contend and you. Definitely. It's exciting to hear that there are

teams like the teams at the times that are interested in covering this type of story. Because I think, like I mentioned in the article, I think there's a massive opportunity to do a lot of social good. And it's heartening to know that there are people that are interested in sharing that story too.

Yes, indeed. A to J and Justice Tech is very important. We're going to get into some of that as we talk about contend. But having just said talk about contend, let me shut up and let me ask Mike to describe what contend is, how it does what it does. We'll talk about where it does it primarily and what its secret sauce is. So, Mike, tell us about contend.

Yeah, thanks Charlie. I'd be happy to. So at a high level, Contend is an artificial intelligence-based chatbot that helps everyday people or ordinary people, however you want to characterize it, get safe, affordable, and accessible information when they're at the start of a legal issue. So typically when people are using Contend, they'll get some preliminary legal guidance. They'll maybe get help with taking a few of the first steps when they're just learning about their issue.

And contend is also really useful at signposting specific resources or connecting people to particular professionals who can help them with their issue. So to give you a very concrete example of what this looks like in practice. So for reference, my parents are political refugees from Czechoslovakia, not just the Czech Republic. But the story I'm about to share with you is an early contend user who, like my parents, is from...

She's from Slovakia, the other half of the country. And she now lives in London. And she's a single mom who is not working at the moment because she's quite physically unwell. And she used contend when she was facing an eviction. And we walked her through the steps of what you should check to make sure the eviction notice is valid. And it turned out that she was not given enough notice. So we walked her through the steps of what you should do to get additional notice.

And then furthermore, we helped her understand who she should reach out to at the housing council to find a new home. And we helped her with drafting the messages in order to do that. So despite English not being this woman's native language, she was able to use contend. She was able to message it in Slovak. We gave her messages that she could send in English that were professional sounding and effective. And she used those to reach out to the housing council and then successfully find a new home. And many of our users also

will use content to help find either a solicitor that they can work with to take further steps in the problem. Or the United Kingdom also has a robust network of nonprofits that help people who are in legal need. So organizations like Citizens Advice or law centers that content can also point to that will get people off on the right foot where we see ourselves helping, at least in our current form at the beginning of the process.

So helping everyday people, ordinary people along the lines that you just described is a very good thing. Of course, I think most of our listeners will agree with that. But I noticed one thing. Well, actually, I'm going to come back to this in a minute. One thing that struck me in the Times article

was a piece where I think it was the author of the article who said that, and probably taking a cue from you, that it's not just throwing case law or legislation language from cases or statutes at the user. And remember, these are users who are not lawyers. They're not necessarily criminal defendants who are indigent. These are people who

perhaps could pay for a lawyer if lawyers were priced more cheaply, but can't, or may be confused by the system and want to have recourse. But the article said that you actually help to interpret some of the documents with public materials that sort of provide such interpretation. And you will also hedge where you have to, to alert the user to

aspects of the advice that may be read that might be somewhat less than straightforward or ambiguous or more risky. Is that right?

It is. So I think there are two components to what you're talking about there. One is, what underlying data are we using in order to make contend do what it does? And then the second question is, how do we think about accuracy? And I'll actually start with the second one first, because when it comes to the people that are using the software, this is quite different from a lot of other areas of legal tech, because for a lot of...

business to business or B2B use cases, the end user is legally sophisticated. It's a lawyer, it's a professional who maybe a paralegal has been working with the law for a large part of their life, and they're better able to discern if there is an issue or difficulty with the response. But there's an additional burden of accuracy that you need to meet if you're going to be putting this in the hands of people that have not encountered these issues before. And

In most of the cases with people we're helping, they're facing this eviction for the first time. They're facing this unfair dismissal for the first time. They're going through a divorce for the first time, and they don't have that familiarity. So there's an even higher accuracy threshold. And there's also this practicality component to it too, and that feeds into the data that we use. So in many cases, a good starting point is, okay, what determines

the outcomes that these people would need to reach or what determines what they should be looking at. And maybe a starting point would be legislation, maybe case law. But if you're thinking in terms of practicality, it's more useful to look at, or we found it more useful to look at secondary source material. So there are a lot of nonprofits that put together guidance documents or essentially guides on how to navigate particular areas. And a lot of that is out there and it's usable. And I think

It's in many cases also written in a way that is accessible and parsable for a regular audience, not one that needs to know the legalese or be intimately familiar with how to process a pretty thick and complicated set of either your case law precedent or other documents. So using that made a lot more sense from our perspective as a starting point, and it's been quite effective too.

And I get it because a lot of the large majority, I would surmise, of the people who are going to be looking to contend wouldn't know how to get access to these secondary sources

just by merely Googling them or getting lucky. So, you know, it makes sense what you just said. You're providing the user with not some judge's high-flown language or the confusing, even for lawyers many times, statutory language, but with language written by people who their intended audience is

people of the sort that would go to contend. And if I recall looking, reading the article from the Times, and I think too, when we spoke once before,

This is something that can be used not only by ordinary, everyday people who are looking for help with a legal problem, but also by not-for-profits, especially, who are hard-pressed to find the right stuff and get their hands on the right materials, such as legal aid organizations. Is that another target for Contends Use?

Definitely. And I have a few points to say on this actually. So wholeheartedly, yes, because it would be naive of any new company in this space to think that there are not already a lot of excellent people already working on solutions in the space. And like I said earlier, the UK in particular has a really rich network of nonprofits that are doing excellent work and are filled with excellent people. And I think the solution in this space when it comes to who's going to

crack this access to justice problem, it's going to be a collection of groups and it's going to be, I think technology is going to be involved. I think a lot of the non-profits that are already out there are going to be involved as well. And there's definitely an option for content to act as almost a triage, sort of near the top of the user's experience, help provide some preliminary information and get them to the right next step. Because I think to your earlier point about people not looking for legalese, they're looking for practicality and they're looking for concrete next steps.

In reality, I don't think that you need a system that is able to divine new information and put that in front of users, because in many cases, it's not an issue with figuring out the information. It's just pointing users to the right information. So if you have enough of that information and you have a system that can accurately and effectively, and that's important, accurately point them to the right info or at least give them a very good starting point.

I think that's extremely powerful and can definitely exist in tandem with a lot of systems that are already there, but maybe you're strained because of a lack of bandwidth or a lack of existing resources. The UK is a good example of this because Legal Aid has been slashed in recent years. These are organizations that are doing incredible work but do not have the luxury of the type of funding that you see in the for-profit sector. They're helping the most vulnerable and desperate people that need help. To me, it's one of the great tragedies of the legal technology sector that

So much money is poured into the tech providers that serve as big law firms, that serve as big in-house legal teams. And of course, it makes sense from an economics point of view, but I think there's an enormous opportunity to build technology that helps everyday people as well. Can't agree more. Let's go back to a point that I started with and then tabled for a sec. You're in, if I recall correctly, you're in Toronto based there?

That's correct. Both my co-founder and I are based in Toronto. We work out of a space called the Legal Innovation Zone, which I think is the world's first pure play legal technology incubator. It's run by this really great guy named Chris Bentley. He used to be the Attorney General of Ontario. Really excellent space. Indeed. And yet, you had mentioned the UK a few times. Now, I'm not going to...

try to bury the lead here. It came up when you and I talked before the podcast before today, but why the UK and does it, I ask a loaded question, have anything to do with, I say the UK and not the US or Canada, particularly the US, anything to do with the bogeyman of unauthorized practice of law, rules and regulations, particularly in the US?

Yeah, so we both know the answer to that question is yes. And there are a few other components to the UK decision as well, because I and this comes up pretty often because I am I sound North American. This is a North American accent, no doubt about it. And we chose the UK and more specifically England and Wales for three reasons. The first one is the regulatory reason around unauthorized practice of law. But let me come back to that one because I think the other two are happening as well.

The second reason is around the number of people that we could potentially reach. So if you look at England and Wales, together they have a population of approximately 60 million people, and it's effectively the same legal system. So it's a fun fact, but in the Western world, that's actually the largest population of English-speaking people under effectively a single legal system. It's larger than the population of Canada, and it's larger than any individual state in the US. And a lot of the legal areas that we would be touching are

different state by state. So that's the second reason. It's a massive potential for impact if we get the product right. And then the third reason is actually around the innovation posture of the UK. The UK is really, from a legal innovation point of view, really forward-thinking. My background prior to Contend was on the B2B side of legal technology, most heavily in business development. So I spent a lot of time speaking with lawyers and innovation and knowledge management teams at these law firms. And

The UK is consistently ahead of the pack in terms of how they think about this, both from a regulatory point of view, from a government point of view, and also from an actual private actor point of view if you look at the firms and other organizations in the space. So it's a good place to be working on software because it's an open-minded country. But to come back to the first point around regulation, the UK handles providing legal advice in a fundamentally different way than

North America does, or at least Canada and most of the US. There are a couple notable exceptions in the US. But

Legal advice is not regulated the same way. The UK has a list of reserved legal activities that you cannot participate in unless you're a solicitor or barrister, I think, in some cases. But notably, providing legal advice is not one of those reserved legal activities. Now, there are some areas we should stay away from, at least for now, where things like immigration or certain questions connected to the Financial Conduct Authority are regulated differently in the UK. But providing legal advice is not...

is not a strong deterrent in the same way that it is in the US. And to go back to your sly and the family stone comment, that's a California-based ban. And I think California has some of the most hostile UPL regulation or unauthorized practice of law regulation that there is because you have organizations like LegalZoom that were doing something revolutionary when they launched and received a lot of regulatory scrutiny, which I think is

I understand why it's happening, but I think it's a shame because I think technology can really help people. And it's difficult to see organizations that are doing good work getting unfair pressure, protectionist pressure. Yeah, I can't use the phrase that I've used before in talking to you. I can't agree more.

If there are any regulators listening, take note. The UK system with a well-defined but not exclusive to everything else, or I should say universal set of reserved areas that have to be carried out or dealt with by regulators.

lawyers, solicitors, and to some extent, barristers. You know, UK hasn't fallen apart. They're not chock-a-block with, you know, a distressed everyday people sector using other avenues for legal advice and being defrauded or treated badly and given poor advice. So regulators,

Here in the U.S., to whom I'm speaking most directly, get with the program. Yes, there are reasons to regulate what lawyers do and allied professionals do, but not in the broad and over-sweeping way. Enough of my hobby horse here, but I think you described it very well in the U.K., and I think the listeners can understand why you started there. I take it that contend hasn't

given up hope in the US and forever forsworn doing what it's doing in the US. It's just going to take some regulatory reform. Is that right, Mike? Yeah, Charlie, I have near limitless ambition for the potential of this technology, whether it's Contend or whether it's another company. Hopefully it's us. But I think I'm excited about whoever is going to try and take this to the markets that need the help, because this is an issue. And we're talking about the UK, the US, Canada. These are

very prosperous countries that are still having these problems. I'm not just excited about bringing technology to these countries. I'm excited about potentially bringing it to even more

in need countries around the world. So my vision is if we can do this safely in the UK, build something that is valuable, that's reliable and accurate and defensible, and the UK market says, yes, this is excellent and good. And I think we're well on our way to doing that. I would love to transpose that to as many geographies as are willing to take us because I think there is a huge potential to reach millions of people and meaningfully help.

listen, this is not going to replace legal work. This is not going to replace lawyers on these issues, but it's going to help a lot in an area where people aren't getting the help right now. And primarily the goal is how can we get as many people help as possible? And something that really motivates me actually is one of the studies we looked at that looks at unmet legal need in the UK gives a stat that around 30 million people

I believe it's each year. I might be getting the time horizon wrong, in which case you'll have to adjust the math if I did. But I believe it's 10 or 30 million people each year have some sort of legal issue. And only a third of them, excuse me, a third of them fail to fully resolve their issues. That means a third of people have unmet legal need in some capacity. If you do the math on that, and you figure out how much that is per day, that's just over 27,000 people per day

that are not getting the help they need. And that's just a single country. And I think that's an absolute tragedy. And I think that is a tractable problem. We can deal with that. So that keeps me really motivated. Well, kudos to Contend, of course, and other companies in this space, and particularly to the regulatory regime in England and Wales, where you can serve as a laboratory. And if, as you put it so excellently, if it is successful,

in England and Wales, and people are not complaining, but in fact are patting contend on the back and others in the space. It ought to be a clarion call to the regulators here in the U.S., where I'm based, that this can be done. And if it's not done, one can only conclude, or at least the likelihood is that there are incentives at work other than just serving the needs of

of clients. But I think people can read between the lines when I say that. Can I add something? I will say that from a regulatory point of view, and I can speak a little less to the US here, but we've engaged with a few of the regulators in Canada as well as in the UK. I have been very pleasantly surprised by the appetite for this type of technology. Maybe this is just a localized experience to my own experience, but

There is sincere interest in applying this technology. There are concerns around the safety. There are concerns around privacy. And I think those are valid concerns. But I've actually been pleasantly surprised by early responses in Canada as well. So I don't want to necessarily lump Canada in with the broader negative sentiment about regulatory oversight. I think that Canada's forward thinking as well. But it's still the UK as a good starting point, because just from a pure rules and regulation point of view, it's the best there.

Yeah, I'm delighted. I'm happy too, pleased that you've had that response in Canada. And I hope we see a similar response from some regulators here in the U.S.

Your target audience, your target market is, as we've said several times, regular people, which means you can't dial them up from a Rolodex, metaphorically speaking, to market to them. It's an almost mass marketing challenge that you face. How do you get the word out to potential users about Contend?

I don't know what your marketing budget is, and yet I assume you do some kind of outreach. How are you doing that for a mass market audience and target such as yours?

Great question. Yeah. And my background was, I was someone who had the Rolodex before because my background was business development sales in the B2B context. So didn't literally have a physical Rolodex, but if you flashback maybe 50 years, I maybe would have had a physical Rolodex. But anyways, when it comes to bringing on people to contend, it's an interesting problem because I think a lot of B2C companies, and this is talked about a lot, but I think a lot of founders have that mindset of

If you build it, they will come. If you build something that's cool and useful, people will naturally just make a path to it, which is not the case. We didn't fall into that trap, but we had to battle through figuring out, okay, what is the channel that we want to use as a starting point? And in the early days of Content, so we launched the first version of the software that we were comfortable putting out into the wild earlier in 2024.

And at first, we just used paid Google Ads to drive traffic to the service because we just wanted to see, okay, people are likely Googling for legal help online. Because the current process for many people getting legal help is a travesty. They're just Googling for themselves. They're asking questions on Facebook, on Reddit. These are not safe forums to get legal advice or legal information. And so we had a theory that, okay, if we target some people on Google Ads, we can see how some early users engage their system. We can potentially get some time to speak to them and learn what they're looking for. But

That wasn't long-term sustainable because acquiring customers is cost intensive. And then if you're looking to build a business out of it, something that's from a unit economics point of view, sustainable.

Obviously, eventually the money that comes in needs to exceed the money that goes out. And Google ads, especially in the legal sector, are expensive. And retention for customers in the legal sector is also difficult because people aren't being necessarily fired or evicted, thankfully, on a recurring basis. So many cases you get them once and then you get them for the lifecycle of their issue or whatever part of it you cover, and then that's it. So I'm strongly the opinion that the backbone for acquisition, at least the one that's been successful for us, so it's digital marketing focused specifically around

content that is useful for the legal issues that people are solving in our area. So we have a bunch of essentially articles that people will find if they're looking for help with one of the major areas we cover. So maybe something around unfair dismissal or something around

navigating something difficult with child custody and they may find content in that process and it's not something we have to pay for. Google just ranks us because the content is useful. Organic, yep. Yep, exactly. Organic to use the correct marketing lingo and then they engage with the... they engage with content from there. So that's been very successful for us but going forwards

I think there's an opportunity to do in a way to use more marketing lingo, maybe a channel partnership of sorts or have a channel via some of these nonprofits that we can work with. Because again, they have effective outreach teams and they have credibility and trust that they've worked to build. So obviously we need to make sure we deliver on the credibility and trust that they've built if we're working with them. So we don't damage their reputation with something that isn't good. But there's an opportunity to work with those organizations too. But I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that there's

There's a chance for a brand that does it right. We want to be that brand. There's a chance for a brand to build a reputation of being a trusted, reliable, customer forward approach. And I think one thing that's been interesting about the space, and I won't name specific company names here, but I was really disappointed when I saw how many companies that purport to provide legal services for everyday people structure their pricing in a way that's pretty predatory. That is,

It revolves around subscription models. It revolves around slightly misleading terms and conditions where you pay a little bit of money up front, but then suddenly you're being charged more later. And the evidence doesn't support that people want that. So from our experience, we initially structured it as a subscription and we wanted to see, okay, well, people want recurring access to this. And the answer is overwhelmingly no. People want to solve their legal issue and they never want to think about it again because these are distressed purchases. People are not happy when they're dealing with these issues. No one wants to go through a divorce.

Maybe you want the outcome, but you don't want the process. No one wants to deal with being unfairly fired and eviction. These issues, they just suck. So anyways, I've gotten a bit off track there, but hopefully I answered your marketing question. No, I answered it very well.

Two sides of a coin here. One challenge and one things you're proud of. So you started, as you mentioned, in 2024. You're fairly early stage. And yet you've been through several challenges.

well, a good number of months now, marketing and operating contend. What has been a challenge that you can describe to our listeners, particularly, of course, those who themselves are legal tech startup founders and leaders that you've encountered and hopefully overcome or substantially overcome? And then we'll get to the happier part of it in the next question.

Yeah, so I'll start by clarifying. We were founded in 2023. We launched the product in early 2024. So we did have some time prior to launching the product where we were thinking about, okay, what do we actually want this software to do? What part of the process are we going after? But when it comes to the biggest problem that we encountered, I think we've already spent a good amount of time talking about it. Figuring out how to reliably and in a cost-effective way acquire customers is really difficult because one of the things I didn't mention is that

People are very, and for good reason, sensitive when it comes to processing legal resources. There's a common saying in the startup world to go where your customers are when you're looking to understand them and learn about their behaviors and just get in front of them. And so in the legal community that might be on specific subreddits like the legal advice subreddits. I spent a lot of time in Facebook communities where I was just messaging people and

just pointing them towards resources or maybe helping them like find the finest list of resources. I even spoke to people in other countries just to understand what they were doing to solve their problems. But people have their guards up because they know they're in unfamiliar water. They know they're dealing with an issue that they haven't encountered before. And I think getting trust and really getting in front of users and learning what they're looking for and winning people's trust, it's difficult. And I think we've done a really good job with it. This ties into the win as well, which I'll come back to a little bit later. But

Early days, it was a battle to try to find meaningful insights and people who

we can build relationships with. This is my first time talking about the thing I'm about to talk about publicly, but we have this doc that we call the Contend Club. It's a list of people who have spoken with me and speak with me on a regular basis about things we're considering, either new product features or UX, UI changes, just things we're looking to add to the software. Many of them are people who are existing customers. Some of them are people who I spoke with on

Facebook after tracking them down when they were asking for legal help and we kept in touch from there. But yeah, the biggest issue was finding a way to get people to trust you enough to give it a shot and say, okay, this is something that's worth trying. And in reality, the sad reality is that many people are so desperate to get this help because these are distressing situations that even all things considered, it might have still been easier than it should have been for us to build that trust.

I get it. And you had used the word brand earlier today, and I take it that what you're after through good hard work and success in resolving or helping people resolve their issues is to build that brand, a chief component of which is trust. And you want people to associate the word trust with the word content. So it's a challenge, I know, but from what I gather and from what I read in the

The Times of London piece here, you're getting there, which is a wonderful thing to hear for a startup. Now to the happier side of the coin, managing a startup. What's the win? What's the thing? What's the event that you're most proud of so far? I'm sure there will be many more, but what is it so far, Mike?

It's actually seeing the impact we can have on people. So I spoke about that Slovakian mom, the single mom earlier on this interview, and I've met her in person. I was in London a few weeks ago and we met in person. There's a picture of us together.

That just gives me infinite motivation. I'm a big music lover. I used to post... Notably, actually, I didn't mention that in the Times interview, which is a bit strange. I mentioned I like art and film, but music is also up there. And I used to post music on Reddit really often, which as a community, you post stuff, you can upvote stuff, you can downvote stuff. And I always felt if I got a single upvote on any of my posts, that was good enough for me. I made someone else happy. I put something out in the world that one person enjoyed. That's good for me. And

This woman alone is already enough motivation, but we've reached other people and helped them do things like knock thousands of pounds off of an unfair energy bill where they were charged for a home they no longer lived in. We helped them basically write a letter that took a thousand pounds off of that. We helped people get unfair traffic summons thrown out where they were called to court and they weren't the ones driving the cars. They had that thrown out as well. So

It's the impact and it's the real delivery of what this idea and what this dream is meant to be. And it's just not only really emotionally powerful, especially when it's something that's so empathetically resonant with me like that Slovakian mom. But it's just heartening to also see evidence that this thing can work. The world wants this thing and we're taking steps towards delivering it.

Amen. As I've said to a few of the startup leaders with whom I've spoken, and I mean it certainly in your case, you're doing the Lord's work. And I don't say that often. And I'm just delighted to hear that you're gaining traction and getting success. And to return to a point we talked about earlier, I'm also delighted that you in the UK, England, Wales, I should say, particularly,

you know, can be a lesson that other regulators can learn from. And I do hope that that happens. I guess it behooves me and I'm happy to do so. How do people, if we have listeners in England and Wales,

People anywhere in the world are interested in finding out what you're doing and keeping track. How do they reach you and Contend? Is it contend.com? AI? I've forgotten. I've been to the website, but I just don't recall. Yeah, so it's contend.legal is the website. So C-O-N-E-E-N-D.legal, L-E-G-A-L.

It's a very hip extension at the end there. But I also post about the journey really often. So it's very corporate of me, but I'm pretty active on LinkedIn. And I pretty strongly believe that building in public is essential here because to your point about hoping that the world takes notice,

I will do everything within my power to make this a success. But obviously, there's always a chance that any early stage venture is a failure. And I hope that in the hopefully unlikely situation that content doesn't work, there are learnings that either I can take to another venture or project or the world can watch and take. And again, in the same way that if we even have one positive impact on a person who's used content, if there's even one person, one lawyer,

one legal professional or one software engineer who's listening to this podcast and thinks, "Okay, I actually want to throw my hat in the ring on this issue too," then I view that as a win as well. Yeah, I would consider that a big win. And folks, if you're interested in what Mike's doing, visit the website. I hadn't remembered the URL, but it's worth a visit. As I've said,

To virtually all of the people with whom I've spoken on the podcast, let's get together when you're down my way in New York or I up in Toronto. We'll make a point, I hope, of getting together. And thank you so much for being such a wonderful guest and doing such great work. Good success to you, your co-founder, Contend, and look forward to hoisting a beer or having a cup of coffee face-to-face sometime.

Yeah, I would love to have you meet Will, my co-founder as well. He's really talented. We didn't spend that much time talking about him, but he's the brains behind this. And I actually regret not talking about him some more, but it would be a treat. I have a lot of people who want me in New York more. So London is calling me in a major way, but the next time I'm in New York, I would love to see you. You know, I'm a big fan of your work. Thank you very much. And thanks for being on the podcast. Of course. Thank you for listening to the LegalTech Startup Focus podcast. If you're interested in legal tech startups and enjoyed this podcast,

Please consider joining the free LegalTech Startup Focus community by going to www.legaltechstartupfocus.com and signing up. Again, thanks.