Jeff Hughes graduated from Loyola Law School – Los Angeles in 1992. Then, like now, law jobs were hard to come by. Hughes didn’t need an LLM in entrepreneurship to come up with an interesting business idea though. He and his paralegal wife decided to start a “coffee & counsel shop” aimed at middle class customers in need of legal services. It sounds like Starbucks, except you can get a skim latte with a shot of probate law.
Improbably, this California business succeeded. Fourteen years later, the baristas are still serving up espresso and express legal services.
Perhaps frightened by the competition, Jeff and Anne Hughes decided to go on the Shark Tank to get help franchising their business of serving up cheap legal services in a coffeehouse setting.
For the uninitiated, the Shark Tank is an ABC reality show, in which entrepreneurs present ideas to a panel of venture capitalists in hopes of getting funding. As you might expect based on the name, the VCs are not cute and cuddly.
When the Hughes made their pitch for $200,000 this week, the VCs smelled blood in the water. The gruesome footage, after the jump.
Jeff Hughes admits that he’s spent more time in coffeehouses than courthouses over the last two decades. Perhaps that’s why he was so bad at presenting his argument:
Why coffee? Why not just a legal services shop? “Nobody would come in because they don’t trust lawyers,” said Jeff Hughes, who explained that a la(w)tee helps people feel comfortable. The reviews of Legal Grind’s two location on Yelp, however, are mixed.
The Sharks also questioned the scalability of the Legal Grind business plan and what they would do with the $200,000 if they did get it. “We’d hire legal consultants” was not the answer the Sharks wanted to hear.
The Sharks gave them the same treatment Biglaw gives many Loyola Law School grads. No offers of money for the Hugheses.
“I’m afraid of getting into business with a bunch of lawyers,” said one Shark.
The Sharks also questioned the legality of waitresses giving out legal advice. Hughes was named a Legal Rebel by the ABA Journal last year. Judging from this video included with the article on Hughes and Legal Grind, it looks like confidentiality is hard to serve in a coffeehouse:
Legal Grind’s website
Shark Tank — Episode 14, Season 1 [Hulu]
Jeffrey Hughes: The Legal Grinder [ABA Journal]
Firsty, so very, very Firsty!!!
Third
I’m # 1, Loyola is # 99!
First! For the First Time EvER!
3/4 you guys got pwned. 2, it’s time to thinking more highly of yourself. :)
-1
ouch: guy = feckless, girl = desperate
is this what loyola produces?? 50k together per year? that’s effectively 25k, might as well work at mcdonalds
I saw this on The Shark Tank. Their presentation of what their company did and what they wanted from the investors was horrible.
The wife/paralegal kept saying it didn’t take attorneys to prepare legal documents. These legally sanctioned Legal Document Preparers is a uniquely Californian thing. This idea may not be allowable in other states.
The also mentioned they didn’t make very much money with this business. But, really, they came across as bumbling idiots in The Shark Tank. The video above was better.
He graduated in 1992; why does where he went to law school matter at all anymore, except to feed the ATL Ivy snob machine?
This reminds me of South Park’s Underpants Gnomes’ business plan:
Phase 1: Collect Underpants.
Phase 2:
Phase 3: Profit.
Another Loyola grad working in a coffee shop. Why is this news?
10 FTW!
What is a “legally sanctioned Legal Document Preparer[]“?
What is a “legally sanctioned Legal Document Preparer[]“?
10 FTW!
First to say that I hope their coffee shop is covered by some substantial malpractice insurance.
That was painful to watch.
Loyola? Loyola grads are barely qualified to wipe my ass.
Locke Lord Houston SMU secure
6 – verbs overrated.
“Where’s the dignity in pizza and lawyers?”
The wife is insufferable.
Sheeeet. Those VCs spent all their damn money on my ladies before they even woke up that morning–they got none to give this square.
Fool needs to reconsider the latte stuff. My product sells itself. And conversation? I got ladies serving it up right and giving whatever conversation the customers want–baby talk, momma talk, legal talk. It’s all money for me, whatever the freaks want.
I got no work for him. But her? I got WORK for her. Call me baby, no smelling like coffee working for me, baby.
The poor wife is doing her best. She should have made the pitch solo.
First!
I’m with the dude on the show, if you can’t think to bring me some free coffee during your coffee shop/bargain basement law firm pitch, and you show the level of dysfunction and disorganization those two showed…not gonna happen.
Thank you for posting this story. It’s an interesting concept. But the lawyer and his wife did a terrible job in their presentation. They didn’t explain the overall idea fully – they didn’t explain the financial side of it until pressed by the VC’s. They were both were standoffish and argumentative, instead of helping facilitate the discussion with the the VC’s. They don;t realize the way to convince somebody is not to disagree and argue with them, but rather to show how their concerns can be solved.
The husband wasn’t very articulate or quick on his feet. The wife was better at articulating but was more disagreeable. These people don’t seem like they would make very good lawyers or legal assistants. Do they argue with their clients? Do they argue with the judge? The best way to provide affordable legal services is to try to resolve disagreements with opposing parties without prolonged litigation and possibly without ever going to court. They don’t seem like they would be very good at that.
The concept of providing legal services in a coffee shop sounds like it works for them and their clients, but it doesn’t sound like there is much to franchise. The business is the people who run it,there is no great trademark or proprietary system to license. Someone else can open their own law and coffee shop without purchasing a franchise from these people.
Also, innovation and law don’t always mix well. Operations like this could have problems if non-lawyers have an equity stake in the business. You mentioned confidentiality problems as well. For some non-adversarial mundane legal matters, perhaps that is not that big of an issue. For small-money disputes it may be more helpful to get both sides on the same page to work things out, rather than trying to outmaneuver the opponent in litigation. But for other matters, I see your point that the open-air coffee shop setting would seem problematic.
Thank you for posting this story. It’s an interesting concept. But the lawyer and his wife did a terrible job in their presentation. They didn’t explain the overall idea fully – they didn’t explain the financial side of it until pressed by the VC’s. They were both were standoffish and argumentative, instead of helping facilitate the discussion with the the VC’s. They don;t realize the way to convince somebody is not to disagree and argue with them, but rather to show how their concerns can be solved.
The husband wasn’t very articulate or quick on his feet. The wife was better at articulating but was more disagreeable. These people don’t seem like they would make very good lawyers or legal assistants. Do they argue with their clients? Do they argue with the judge? The best way to provide affordable legal services is to try to resolve disagreements with opposing parties without prolonged litigation and possibly without ever going to court. They don’t seem like they would be very good at that.
The concept of providing legal services in a coffee shop sounds like it works for them and their clients, but it doesn’t sound like there is much to franchise. The business is the people who run it,there is no great trademark or proprietary system to license. Someone else can open their own law and coffee shop without purchasing a franchise from these people.
Also, innovation and law don’t always mix well. Operations like this could have problems if non-lawyers have an equity stake in the business. You mentioned confidentiality problems as well. For some non-adversarial mundane legal matters, perhaps that is not that big of an issue. For small-money disputes it may be more helpful to get both sides on the same page to work things out, rather than trying to outmaneuver the opponent in litigation. But for other matters, I see your point that the open-air coffee shop setting would seem problematic.
Thank you for posting this story. It’s an interesting concept. But the lawyer and his wife did a terrible job in their presentation. They didn’t explain the overall idea fully – they didn’t explain the financial side of it until pressed by the VC’s. They were both were standoffish and argumentative, instead of helping facilitate the discussion with the the VC’s. They don;t realize the way to convince somebody is not to disagree and argue with them, but rather to show how their concerns can be solved.
The husband wasn’t very articulate or quick on his feet. The wife was better at articulating but was more disagreeable. These people don’t seem like they would make very good lawyers or legal assistants. Do they argue with their clients? Do they argue with the judge? The best way to provide affordable legal services is to try to resolve disagreements with opposing parties without prolonged litigation and possibly without ever going to court. They don’t seem like they would be very good at that.
The concept of providing legal services in a coffee shop sounds like it works for them and their clients, but it doesn’t sound like there is much to franchise. The business is the people who run it,there is no great trademark or proprietary system to license. Someone else can open their own law and coffee shop without purchasing a franchise from these people.
Also, innovation and law don’t always mix well. Operations like this could have problems if non-lawyers have an equity stake in the business. You mentioned confidentiality problems as well. For some non-adversarial mundane legal matters, perhaps that is not that big of an issue. For small-money disputes it may be more helpful to get both sides on the same page to work things out, rather than trying to outmaneuver the opponent in litigation. But for other matters, I see your point that the open-air coffee shop setting would seem problematic.
Not an expert in legal ethics, but doesn’t giving 15% equity to the Sharks (all non-lawyers) raise some red flags?!
Rule 1-310
A member shall not form a partnership with a person who is not a lawyer if any of the activities of that partnership consist of the practice of law.
very good point 31.
i have to agree with 32 on this.
I agree with 33.
OMG 27, 28 and 29 NAILED it. Also, pay careful attention to 31, 32 and 33.
i could go either way on this one. on the one hand, the business requires long hours, is less profitable than a low-end Subway, and is probably illegal. on the other hand, she’s got a nice rack and is probably an animal in the sack. tough call.
tough call here. on the one hand, the business requires terrible hours, is less profitable than a low-end Subway, and is probably illegal in 49 states. on the other hand, she’s got a first-class rack and is probably an animal in the sack. I could go either way.
tough call here. on the one hand, the business requires terrible hours, is less profitable than a low-end Subway, and is probably illegal in 49 states. on the other hand, she’s got a first-class rack and is probably an animal in the sack. I could go either way.