4 ms·

Well, considering that these day's your VC's law firm probably also represents South American drug dealers and Eastern European arms dealers, not to mention man

by NSX2 19y ago

Well, considering that these day's your VC's law firm probably also represents South American drug dealers and Eastern European arms dealers, not to mention many law firms are in a fit of M&A, so it doesn't really who you've been picking because they'll wind up integrated into some other firm, what is the point of judging somebody by their law firm?

timr 19y ago
I can respect the need to question an entrepreneur's judgment if they insist on retaining Uncle Bob for their legal counsel, despite the fact that Bob is a personal injury lawyer in Kansas City. That said, I don't understand why it's so darned important for a zygote entrepreneur to retain counsel at Perkins Coie or Davis Wright Tremaine, especially when most of the early-stage legal work is boilerplate, and thrift should be a top priority. Where I live, (Seattle) investors seem to place disproportionate emphasis on your ability to hire an expensive firm, and I was reading between the lines of the article a bit to assume that's what the author meant when she wrote about the value of your choice of attorney.
- rp 19y ago
  The probable answer is that there is an existing business/financial relationship between the VCs and the law firms. I bet if you examined the VC's past investments, you would see the paw marks of specific big Northwest "white shoe" law firms like Perkins Coie, DWT or Stoel Rives all over them.
  - NSX2 19y ago
    That just means that those firms are more loyal the the VC funds than to you because that's where they get most accounts from. If I was a VC I'd think any entrepreneur who thinks he has an advantage hiring a firm that I've kept on retainer for a decade is a complete moron. I recall a certain Silicon Valley law firm with the usual "beyond reproach" ... "our reputions are the foundation of our business" stuff ... which at the end of the dot-com boom got into tons of lawsuits when it was discovered that despite "client confidentiality" the partners would pass along information of new startup clients to VCs they knew that invested in competitors.

by NSX2 19y ago

timr 19y ago

I can respect the need to question an entrepreneur's judgment if they insist on retaining Uncle Bob for their legal counsel, despite the fact that Bob is a personal injury lawyer in Kansas City. That said, I don't understand why it's so darned important for a zygote entrepreneur to retain counsel at Perkins Coie or Davis Wright Tremaine, especially when most of the early-stage legal work is boilerplate, and thrift should be a top priority. Where I live, (Seattle) investors seem to place disproportionate emphasis on your ability to hire an expensive firm, and I was reading between the lines of the article a bit to assume that's what the author meant when she wrote about the value of your choice of attorney.

rp 19y ago
The probable answer is that there is an existing business/financial relationship between the VCs and the law firms. I bet if you examined the VC's past investments, you would see the paw marks of specific big Northwest "white shoe" law firms like Perkins Coie, DWT or Stoel Rives all over them.
- NSX2 19y ago
  That just means that those firms are more loyal the the VC funds than to you because that's where they get most accounts from. If I was a VC I'd think any entrepreneur who thinks he has an advantage hiring a firm that I've kept on retainer for a decade is a complete moron. I recall a certain Silicon Valley law firm with the usual "beyond reproach" ... "our reputions are the foundation of our business" stuff ... which at the end of the dot-com boom got into tons of lawsuits when it was discovered that despite "client confidentiality" the partners would pass along information of new startup clients to VCs they knew that invested in competitors.