Ep. 3 - VCs & The Death of the Billable Hour

In this episode, Aurelia and Chris talk about venture capital firms' growing interest in AI-native legal services, whether it's well founded and whether AI-native legal services really will be the end of traditional law firms.

Their conversation predominantly hangs off "Death of the Billable Hour: Legal's $900B AI repricing" article by Ethan Batraski (General Partner at Venrock) which recently created a bit of a stir amongst lawyers.

• (00:00) - Introduction & TL;DR
• (01:08) - VCs' growing interest in AI native legal services
• (03:35) - "The Death of the Billable Hour"
• (06:23) - Can law firms do fixed fees?
• (08:11) - Regulation & law firm ownership in the US v UK
• (09:54) - law firm barriers to adopting AI
• (14:48) - The economics of AI-native law firms
• (18:25) - Does AI-native enable SaaS-level margins and scale?
• (23:24) - consumer legal services
• (28:08) - Why does "The Death of the Billable Hour" article still resonate?
• (31:05) - Wrap up

Links:
- Y Combinator - Request for Startups (Summer 2025)
- Death of the Billable Hour by Ethan Batraski
- Watch on YouTube

Creators and Guests

Host

Aurelia Butler-Ball

Co-founder @ Tacit Legal

Host

Chris Bridges

Co-founder @ Tacit Legal

What is Too Legal; Didn't Read?

In this podcast, we talk about what is hot and what is not in legal tech, and our journey building one of the first AI-native legal services in the UK. Hosted by Tacit Legal co-founders, Aurelia Butler-Ball and Chris Bridges.

Aurelia: 00:00

Hello. Welcome to episode three of two legal didn't read the podcast from me, Aurelia and Chris from tacit legal. In this podcast, we help you navigate all the hot issues in legal and legal tech from our perspective as cofounders of an AI native law firm, as lawyers, and as product developers in true t r TLDR style. We've recorded this intro at the end of our pod so we can give you the hot takes. Chris, what was our episode all about today?

Chris: 00:34

So I think we were talking about VC suddenly being interested in AI native legal services and that being a nice indicator that we're on the right track. Not sure it's the right funding model for legal services, but minds may be changed. But I think we don't think AI native legal services necessarily have to be the death of the traditional firm. And then we don't think there will be. It will be.

Chris: 01:01

There's definitely room for both in the industry.

Aurelia: 01:04

Fantastic. Let's start the episode. So it's August, a time when we should all be relaxing on a beach, but the pace of things have been unrelenting. And a month usually bit quieter for our traditional side of the business, but it's been manic. And aside from GPT five, which nobody needs to hear more about, we have actually seen a lot of venture capital interest in AI first legal services.

Aurelia: 01:39

And is picking up quicker and quicker. And the rationale for this interest from VC firms in AI native law firms has sparked a lot of conversations for us in and around the office and whether that interest is well founded. Chris, do you want to give us some context around where this interest is coming from and why you think it matters?

Chris: 02:06

Yeah. Yeah. Sure. So I think it's worth saying right at the top, we're not experts at all in the VC world. Like we never thought we'd be in an area, you know, as a professional service that VC would be interested in.

Chris: 02:21

So honestly, it's all taken us a bit by surprise. Well, we're not experts. But yeah, because if you know, historically VCs have been really only interested in the tech side of things, you know, the scalable bit, the thing that you can scale. One thing I do know about VC is traditionally they've discounted professional services revenue pretty much to zero in kind of traditional SaaS models. It is kind of wild that they are now interested in AI first professional services.

Chris: 02:51

It is not just legal either. I think it all kind of started from, there was a Y Combinator, one of the kind of biggest incubators in Silicon Valley, or if not the biggest, kind of put out this quarterly, I think, request for startups where they say, right, for our summer cohort, whatever, these are the types of startups we wanna see. And they put out this call for full stack AI companies, they called it. And they used law firms as an example. Basically, the premise being like, everyone is trying to sell to professional services firms.

Chris: 03:32

But, you know, they are not that receptive to it. So if you cannot sell to them, why do you just make them extinct? And I think they literally used the line, instead of selling to dinosaurs, you could just make them extinct. And I think that's kind of what sparked it all. I'm sure there was a lot of murmurs in the background before that, but that's publicly that seems to be the first thing.

Chris: 03:55

And then I think this month, I think it was last week, one of the partners of Venrock put out an article on Substack called Death of Billable Hour Legal's 900,000,000,000 AI repricing, which I am pretty sure everyone would have seen on LinkedIn because it kind of did the rounds. Yeah. So I just, I think there is all of these very public signals coming out. And yeah, I think it's interesting. And I think it's it's it's interesting not not because VC is interested, but what that says about the opportunity and what it says about where the industry is headed.

Aurelia: 04:36

And Fenrock, huge VC US firm then. Have they been in the the space, the AI space, legal services space before or or

Chris: 04:48

No. I I don't know I don't know an awful lot about them, to be honest. I think, obviously, are in the AI space. Everyone is in the AI space now. It is kind of the new SaaS.

Chris: 04:59

I do not I do think they are behind any of the big ones that you would have seen, like Crosby. Yeah. So I think I think they're very interested, it's probably still early days for them, I think.

Aurelia: 05:12

So that's really interesting then that all of a sudden, investors, VC firms are taking a real interest in professional services and legal in particular. So this article that one of the partners at Venrock put out, it basically the premise being that law firms are just completely tied to the billable hour. And AI kills the billable hour, therefore, traditional law firms are dead. Is that that was the premise. And, I mean, it's a big statement.

Aurelia: 05:51

It's how do you feel about that?

Chris: 05:52

Yeah. That's why I think you and Maeve basically had the joy of listening to my live reactions. I was reading it in the office. Yeah. I honestly, when I first started reading reading the article, was a bit like, oh, God, here we go.

Chris: 06:08

I'm not gonna enjoy this. This is Yeah. But, know, actually, I got to the end and the article was great. I don't agree with it all. And I expect we can but I do think we'd probably hang a lot of our conversation today on it because it covers a lot of ground.

Chris: 06:21

Some of it I agree with, some of it I do not. But yeah, I think, anecdotally, I think that introduction gets off to a really false assumption. It does not mean the conclusion is wrong, but I just think that assumption is quite wrong to begin with. So like, we have come from a background where we have seen fixed fees and alternative fee arrangements everywhere. They are not And I think a lot of the premise of the start of the article is that, you know, law firms can t do fixed fees and therefore they're dead.

Chris: 06:56

But I just, I don't think that's true. Think that's a barrier that's very overcomeable. Overcomeable? I'm not sure that's a word. But, you know, the areas most resistant to non time based pricing, like fixed fees, are the areas where things are the most unpredictable and often, but not always, it's pretty difficult to automate.

Chris: 07:16

Yeah. So I just think that's not a great start. But I think, I do think all that said, I think it's worth acknowledging cultural differences between The US and The UK. Because again, like anecdotally, I've heard that The US is much less fixed fee.

Aurelia: 07:34

Is that right? Yeah.

Chris: 07:35

Yeah, apparently there's, it's far less common there. But yeah, I mean you don't have to go very far in a UK law firm to find someone doing, you know, a conditional fee of grains, contingent fees, caps and collars, fixed fees, like are things that most people know about and are using where it is appropriate. Yeah, I think there are challenges to big law firms pivoting with AI, but I don't think fixed fees and the hourly rate alone are the thing that's gonna stop them pivoting.

Aurelia: 08:11

Quite interesting though, that cultural difference in the legal markets in The US and here, a bit of regulatory side of it as well that is it right? There's only a couple of states where you can have alternative legal service providers in in The US and yeah.

Chris: 08:30

Yeah. So I think it's mainly about ownership. So, know, in The UK, we've had ABSs, alternative business structures since I think 2011, maybe, which allows non lawyers to own law firms or have an ownership stake in law firms. Yeah, that is really uncommon in The US. Think that, yeah, like you said, think there is only a handful of states that actually allow that, which is obviously then a bit of a barrier to external investment.

Chris: 08:55

I mean, are ways around it. But it does yeah. It's kind of like a early early hurdle that that any investor in legal kind of has to cross in in The US.

Aurelia: 09:10

If these US VC firms are seeing The UK, maybe Australia as well, there's almost these kind of test beds for what's possible in legal services. That's it's quite an interesting space, isn't it?

Chris: 09:25

Yeah. And and you know what? It's it's quite rare for The UK or anywhere in Europe to look less regulated than The US. I think usually the narrative is in The US, they're like, god. They're so regulated in Europe.

Chris: 09:40

You know, we've got free market so much better. But yeah, weirdly, it's one area where The US is actually far more regulated than we are.

Aurelia: 09:48

I think it's very cool. It's very cool. It feels like a great place to be in in The UK at the moment. So what barriers to law firms pivoting do you agree with then from that article?

Chris: 10:01

Honestly, most most of them to a degree. Like, I I don't think they're absolute barriers. I think that they're challenges. So I would just go through. I have got the article open here.

Chris: 10:12

I will just go through them. So he talks about revenue recognition shock, fixed price collapsing revenue per matter and less volume spikes. I just, I don't think fixed pricing does not mean less. Actually fixed pricing done well for the right reasons is often more, not less. So, and, you know, that kind of assumes that everything's going to happen tomorrow and it's just not.

Chris: 10:36

So like law firms have plenty of time to start moving to fixed fees. Those fixed fees do not have to be less initially and they probably can't be or shouldn't be less because most law firms are not seeing a direct like efficiency improvement yet.

Aurelia: 10:51

So a premium should be built in for certainty? Yeah. With fixed fee?

Chris: 10:56

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And we've historically done a thing, not on every matter, because we get clients preferences eventually, but we have always kind of done a thing where, you know, we will offer them a fixed fee or an hourly rate estimate and we will be very transparent in the fixed fee is more than the estimate, because we are taking on some risk. And nine times out of 10 clients will take it for the certainty. So yeah, I don't think fixed fees means cheap.

Chris: 11:23

So yeah, there is an on ramp where law firms can start using fixed fees more now, which doesn't necessarily mean referee recognition shock and they could kind of taper it down over time if they need to. Yeah. So then he goes into partner compensation politics. Completely agree that that is tricky. Again, switching to flat fees, of fixed fees does not necessarily mean less competition or less profit.

Chris: 11:51

So there time on that one. Utilization metrics become useless. Kill every KPI dashboard, comp plan review. That is kind of true. There is this culture of hours and whatnot.

Chris: 12:02

But again, fixed fee does not mean you do not record hours anymore. If people want to keep that, and I would say it is I do not agree with it. I think culturally the targets around ours is awful. But if people want to keep that, they can keep that and have fixed fees. Are just, you know, is two different things using hours as a commercial metric.

Chris: 12:24

Sorry, a pricing mechanism versus a compensation metric. Two very different things. So you can still do both. Efficiency gains flow to the client, not the firm. I do not think I agree with that one either, to be honest, actually.

Chris: 12:43

Because on fixed fees, actually, if assuming your fixed fee stays the same, you make an efficiency gain. You keep the margin. So I am not sure about that. Although, actually, You know what? He's probably talking about efficiency gains face to the client with the hourly rate.

Chris: 13:03

But, yeah. So I'm not sure about that one. I think that one's a bit ambiguous. Cultural resistance. Billable is part of the professional identity.

Chris: 13:08

Removing is like removing school board. Again, you don't actually need to remove the culture of ours to use fixed fees. So, again, I'm not I'm not sure about that. Partner partnership economics make long term bets impossible. I agree with that one.

Chris: 13:22

I squarely believe that one. And I even in a small firm, we feel that sometimes to a degree, you know, to a degree you do as a partner in a law firm, you see your drawings as a salary, not as a profit share. So, yes. No. I think I completely agree with that one.

Aurelia: 13:40

Yeah. And I think the partnership model where as we've experienced during our careers and a real desire to innovate and to kind of challenge what's out there in legal services and create new products, you have to have a partnership who are willing to invest in those in that in that development. But if they're towards the end of their career, you know, why should they be reducing their drawings in order to invest in something which they might not be around for? So that's often a struggle, isn't it, with the with the partnership model?

Chris: 14:19

Yeah. I mean, we talk about having equity in the partnership, but it's not equity in the, you know, shares sense, you know. It's not like having shares in the company. So when they leave, they hand back their equity. There's no yeah.

Chris: 14:34

There's absolutely no incentive for investing. Yeah. I mean, there are structures you can put in place to create that art like, kind of artificially, but most law firms well, virtually no law firms have that.

Aurelia: 14:48

So with these BC firms and they're looking at the huge big b legal services providers, you know, multi billion pound businesses and thinking, okay, so if we can take some humans who are really expensive out of this, and we'll be able to increase the margin of that revenue. But surely clients are going to be saying, well, if it's gonna be costing you less to provide these services, then surely a bit of a race to the bottom. I mean, how can you how can surely you've got to almost maintain the profit margin in the services that you're providing.

Chris: 15:33

Yeah, absolutely. Like I don't think there is any world in which we are going to be implementing AI to make things quicker and keeping the margin. Are just not. No. So that does create revenue erosion, which can be fine.

Chris: 15:50

And this is one of the things that makes me slightly cautious about the size of the opportunity and why whether VCs are fully appreciating the market dynamics. Cause I think a lot of, you know, revenue going down per matter is fine. If you drive more matters as a result of And that's, that's like economic. I think we mentioned in the last part price elasticity. So the sensitivity of demand to price.

Chris: 16:22

But if you think about the types of matters which big law firms coming like the bread and butter. They're not that price elastic. Like, if you think like M and A, there's only so many deals that are done a year. The fact that your legal fees on those deals is not suddenly gonna make you do more deals. It might make you go, like, deeper on diligence or what have you, but it's not gonna make you do more deals.

Chris: 16:53

It's, like, that's not that price elastic. So, I mean, that's one of the things that kind of makes me nervous about whether whether they're fully appreciating or making the right assumptions about the market size.

Aurelia: 17:06

Do you think if litigate cost of litigation if they came down, do you think more people would litigate?

Chris: 17:16

I'm on the fence on that one. I mean, the grand scale of things that are price elastic and legal, I still think they're fairly fairly inelastic. Mhmm. Like, again, cultural differences. I know in The US, they're far more litigious, But at least in The UK, like people don't want to litigate.

Chris: 17:36

Like they're not like, oh, you know, the cost of the litigation is like one of the factors, but it's not the factor. It's mostly, I just don't want to get in a fight with someone. Don't want to spend like two years being dragged through the mud publicly and, you know, people just settle and that I don't think necessarily litigation being cheaper makes people make changes that dynamic.

Aurelia: 18:02

It's not gonna increase capacity in the courts, is it? No. I mean, that they're backed up. Yeah.

Chris: 18:06

Yeah. But that's like a fundamental problem. Yeah.

Aurelia: 18:13

So further feels about what we should be cautious about the opportunity for AI first law firms then. What what else?

Chris: 18:25

I so what have we talked about? We've talked about margin. Okay. Yeah. So assumptions SaaS margins, we've already kind of touched on.

Chris: 18:34

Yeah. But there is an assumption in our article that you're able to, like, have a, you know, sixty, seventy, 80% margin. Kind of more akin to the SaaS products they would have invested in traditionally. Again, I m not convinced. I think maybe long term that might be possible.

Chris: 18:54

But yeah, automation in legal is tricky. It's not straightforward. The models that we currently have are not good for legal subject matter. They're good at understanding language, but not necessarily like then translating that language into, you know, actions or conclusions or whatever, like a lawyer would. So I think for the short term, AI native legal services are still going to be quite human like.

Chris: 19:28

Yeah. Which means your margins are not going to be SaaS margins. And then I think complexity of automation more generally, like, I kind of feel like the VCs are seeing, like, the legal market as a whole and going, woah, but if you have an AI native law firm that can cover, like, full service law firm, then, yeah, that is, like, a huge thing. It is like, that is so much to automate. We have chosen a tiny, tiny use case in a tiny, tiny area of law.

Chris: 20:05

And, okay, we're bootstrapped, but, like, it's hard. Like, it's really hard. It's hard to build, and it's hard to sell.

Aurelia: 20:13

Well, it's hard to sell because it's those conversations where we know there is a problem, and we've got very willing, receptive, prospective clients who want a solution. But it's that gap still of even just getting them aligned with and making a real kind of small shift in mindset that we need to use Tilda is often quite a difficult process, isn't it?

Chris: 20:44

Yeah. And and I think I think there's like you can only, I think I saw a LinkedIn article about this today or yesterday. Like you can only move as fast as people are willing to move. And people assume it's private practice lawyers that are being slow. It's not.

Chris: 21:02

It's not just the private practice lawyers. Like clients don't want loads of change really quickly.

Aurelia: 21:08

And Yeah.

Chris: 21:08

Yeah. So I I mean, like the I think the thing that you're talking about there is what the selection of the issues you care about on our in our playbook. Right? Yeah.

Aurelia: 21:18

And Tilda Tilda works with in house legal teams who don't have often don't have a playbook. And so we're just saying, from our list of risks, tick the ones that you care about. That's really hard for them just to think, well, okay, we might just What

Chris: 21:36

about the risks that I don't tick? Exactly. Yeah. And that that's a that's a problem that's pervasive across any use of AI. Don LLMs at the moment don have that intrinsic legal knowledge.

Chris: 21:47

So you have to give it to it. So there is, it s not like, it has to be a finite review by its nature. You've not got, like, the LLMs aren't good enough to do, like, a helicopter sit back and have I missed something review. Like, you have to tell them what you care about. Otherwise, it would be really inconsistent and not very helpful.

Chris: 22:10

Yeah. I mean, that is just, yeah. I mean, we see that. What you would say probably one in 10 people we show it to gets instantly is like, yeah, that is fine. I like that.

Chris: 22:21

Yeah. Nine out of 10, you kind of have to take them on a bit of a journey. They get there eventually. I think you can only move as quickly as clients want to move. Again, I think VCs possibly underestimating or overestimating even how quickly clients want to move.

Chris: 22:42

I think it's no coincidence like Crosby, who've had $5,600,000 investment similar space to us kind of commercial contracts in The US. They there's no coincidence they are focused on fast growth companies, don't think. Because, you know, fast growth companies, other fast growth companies in the Silicon Valley will move quickly because you're dealing with the founders and whatnot. Yeah. They will buy that tomorrow.

Chris: 23:07

But Yeah. You know, corporate council, in house council, they're they're more sophisticated buyers. They understand the drawbacks, and they're not gonna just flick a switch overnight and and get on board with it. Some will. Not all of them.

Aurelia: 23:24

Yeah. Legal services to consumers, do you think that might be a space though where there could be some some real opportunity?

Chris: 23:35

Yeah. Yes and no. It's during the session on the fence answer. But again, it comes back to price elasticity. So like, I just think it's me as an individual, like, I've got a fairly complicated life.

Chris: 23:48

I'm a partner in a law firm. Like, my finances aren't straightforward. I don't use a lawyer for anything. Right. Like, the only thing that I'll actually use lawyer for are things I have to use lawyer for, like a will.

Chris: 24:02

And and even that, you don't really have to use lawyer for. Yeah. And convincing.

Aurelia: 24:05

Convincing. Yeah. Yeah.

Chris: 24:09

So, again, like Okay. And if I got divorced, Ricky, we not getting divorced. My wife, Ricky, we not getting divorced. But, like, you're not going to suddenly get divorced more because it's cheaper to get divorced. Yeah.

Chris: 24:24

So those things are like You know, life events drive those things. Like, there's only so many life events that happen.

Aurelia: 24:34

And in conveyancing and wills and matrimonial to an extent, we've seen incredible process driven advancements in those areas already, haven't we? I mean, they're all streamlined fixed fees. Those services are out there. Interesting to see how

Chris: 24:52

Yeah, I'm using one right at the moment. So we are moving house at the moment. We are using something called Juno. And it's brilliant. It's productized.

Chris: 25:00

It's all online. Honestly, it's brilliant. It's the best conveyancing I have known. Yeah, I mean, that already exists. I guess, again, there is cultural differences.

Chris: 25:13

This could drive a lot of it, like The US is a lot more litigious. You go one mile down the highway in The US and you will see like 20 billboards for personal injury lawyers. Mean, personal injury is obviously a thing here, but it is just not, we do not have that same culture. So I guess that is one area where consumer stuff could be more realistic. Like, oh, well, I may as well have a go at suing someone.

Chris: 25:36

But again, I just, I'm not convinced, like, okay, maybe that's not, like, the risk of doing that in The UK now is pretty low. Again, we do not have hourly rates generally, but we are not paying hourly rates for personal injury cases. It is all on conditional fee arrangements. Again, if I trip over and genuinely have a claim, there is nothing stopping me doing it. I am not taking on any risk by doing it, or very little risk.

Chris: 26:01

So again, I am not convinced of the price elasticity there. Yeah, I think we have talked a lot about the downside of it. But, I mean, there is huge opportunity. I mean, are doing it. We are an AI But I just I think the thing is, like, I am worried that, you know, VCs are overestimating the market size.

Chris: 26:29

Yeah. Underestimating how much effort it is to build and sell. And you're just going to be writing massive checks that yeah, you can find it so hard to ever achieve the valuation that is needed to make that check worth it. But, I mean, all of that said, there is a huge opportunity for AI native law firms. I don't Again, I'm on the fence, but I don't think VC is the way to fund it at the moment.

Chris: 26:57

I'm not My mind may be changed, but I don't see it. Like I just do think The article is great. Love it. The back end of the article, which we maybe spent the last few minutes talking about, is great. The front end of the article, I just do not necessarily agree that law firms can't change.

Chris: 27:20

I think they can. I think it's hard. But I think they can. And I also don't believe that it has to be AI native or traditional. Like, it can be both.

Chris: 27:29

Yeah. And I it can be both today and it can be both in ten years time. There's plenty of stuff where you still need both. So yeah, I just don't think it's a black and white yin yang thing.

Aurelia: 27:41

Yeah. I think that's it, isn't it? There is an incredible opportunity for AI first legal services, but it may not be a unicorn achieving those multiples in that time frame. And so may not be best placed with VC. But what's up?

Aurelia: 28:02

So give us some info about the end of the article then, which I think is

Chris: 28:08

kind Yeah. So I'm just reading through it now, reminding myself what I read. I was like, yes, I completely agree with this. Handle 10 times more matters per lawyer. Yes, we are doing that.

Chris: 28:19

Great. That is a good thing. Transparent pricing, real time updates, guaranteed outcomes. Yep. Good thing.

Chris: 28:29

The very last bit, I think, is the really interesting bit. And we are this to an extent where, so they talk about the AI things in the market at the moment being one, stuff that you're selling to a law firm. So like Harvey, Ligura, that kind of thing. Two, AI native law firms. Three, and again, I don't think I've seen anyone talk about this yet.

Chris: 28:55

And it really excited me because this basically describes partially what our model is. It's the hybrid service data platform brackets, the sleeper opportunity. And the idea of this is effectively exactly what, you know, where we see the opportunity and what we are doing. The data we generate on accuracy and whatnot, you know, as we are providing our service is a valuable thing in its own right. So like, so, compounding motes was the bit.

Chris: 29:29

This is the bit that I completely agreed with. So why this model is interesting. Compounding motes, more clients equals better data, because better service equals more clients. And that is just a continuously repeating thing. And I also, unless you are generating that data, we are never going to have a fully insured AI legal service, exclusively AI.

Chris: 29:52

So, this, the kind of groundwork that we are laying and that data moat we are creating is the thing that enables, yeah, I am not saying autonomous legal is anywhere close. But in five, ten years time, if we're going to have it and it's insured and regulated, you're gonna need that data. Yeah. So yeah, that bit of the article I was like, yeah, that's, describes us. That's cool.

Chris: 30:21

Yeah. He does talk a little bit about the secondary value of the dataset and, like, actually selling the insights from that data as a, you know, potentially your private revenue stream. I am not sure I agree with that. I think you get yourself into all sorts of sticky client confidentiality issues and whatnot. Yes, you can anonymize.

Chris: 30:40

But yeah, am not sure about that. We certainly will not be selling our data insights off the back of it anytime. Full stop, do not think. We will use it to make our service better. We will use it potentially to ensure AI native, a completely AI driven service potentially in the future.

Chris: 31:00

But we not going to be selling that data. That is for sure. Yeah. I think the back end of the article, the opportunity stuff, I think is real. I just don't think it's a black or white thing.

Chris: 31:14

I think, I think both can exist and both, both can be the right option in different fact patterns and what have you.

Aurelia: 31:24

Yeah. Well, I think the most exciting thing are happening, and we've been having we've been approached by a few VC firms. And I think just to kind of noodle these issues and talk through these opportunities and barriers with them and other people in the market has been an incredible experience.

Chris: 31:46

Yeah. It's just completely mind blowing as well. Like, if even if, you know, nine months ago, you had said you'd be approached by a v a professional services firm would be approached by a VC, like, that really wanted to write a check. You just never ever You would be like, yeah, LOL. It is bizarre.

Chris: 32:09

So, I mean, think it is positive. I think it is, like, a good sign of where the market is going. I just do not think it has to be black and white. And, yeah, it is just food for thought. There is definitely something in what we are doing.

Chris: 32:25

And I think that's the thing for me. It's like the validation that, you know, Silicon Valley is willing to start writing checks in this space. I think that's that's cool.

Aurelia: 32:36

What a perfect place to end on. Chris, thank you so much. This has been episode three of Too Legal Didn't Read. We'll see you again soon. Thanks for joining us.

Chris: 32:46

Cheers. Bye.