True. I was curious and did look at their site and didn't see a Kevin in the attorney list. Not to say he isn't one, just he wasn't listed on the site. I would have ventured to bet he was a rogue IT employee, but with some of the responses to complaints on Facebook, it does somewhat appear that if you question them they get defensive and argumentative.
I run a site that helps ex-offenders find jobs, resources, etc.. and it is always frustrating to see companies that take advantage of a vulnerable group. Not to dismiss the OP and the evidence against them is pretty overwhelming, but there are always two-sides to every story. I have removed the link and references to them and their parent firm as a resource from our site. While we aren't a huge player in the industry, we are growing fast simply because we provide personal help if we can and try to treat everyone fair. I refuse to risk that reputation on a potential bad apple. It's easier just to remove them now, and if down the road this comes out as a simple misunderstanding or whatever, I am happy to add them back. But for now, to me at least, it is better to be safe than sorry and not risk my users paying some greedy company to be treated poorly.
We edited a small bit of identifying info out of this comment. Not that you meant any harm by including it, but we want to strike a balance that protects individuals from mass internet effects while also protecting substantive discussion.
I am a lawyer/coder and "legal tech" is the festering ghetto of my profession. The people who peddle technology solutions to lawyers (or worse, to clients) are usually one step below car salespeople. Try popping your head in to a legal tech conference sometime if you doubt me. It's almost all e-discovery shills talking shite about AI. There are a few exceptions, but not many.
Similar thoughts exactly. This company appears to be a subsidiary of a larger law firm which tells me it was created solely for the purpose of doing "production line" legal services. It is a sales/marketing tool for the one-off that comes along and requires additional legal services. Unfortunately for expungements/record sealing/pardon customers they are more often than not the ones that require personalized legal services. Every case and every state are different. How you plead your case today has a direct impact on what, if any, options are available to you down the road. In no way should these types of services be "production line" services in my opinion.
It's a truism in freelancing that lawyers are terrible clients in multiple ways, so it comes as no surprise that the tech industry devoted to their businesses is not filled with the best people and/or solutions for their needs.
So - I have to ask (as a Graduate AI student, but no specific familiarity with the e-discovery domain) why is this the reputation? Like the applications don't work well? The salesmen don't know what they are peddling? I guess basically - could you extrapolate a little more on this group?
Someone else said it: lawyers are the worst clients, especially law firms. Too many know-it-alls who think the world should bend to their will. When I left my big law firm, there was a partner down the hall who made his secretary print his emails every morning and dictated his responses to her. Try dragging him into the 21st century and you'll see what I mean.
