Stories from the people reshaping legal <br/><br/><a href="https://www.agents.law?utm_medium=podcast">www.agents.law</a>
Without Limitation
Claim This Podcastby Matt Pollins
5.0(1 reviews)
15 episodes
Updated Daily
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇬🇧
Podcast Overview
Stories from the people reshaping legal <br/><br/><a href="https://www.agents.law?utm_medium=podcast">www.agents.law</a>
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
1/18/2026
1 verified contact email on file for Without Limitation
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
June 4, 2026
TED and the Future of the Lawyer
<p>I meet Nishat Ruiter, GC at TED, the world's most influential ideas platform, and learn how TED Law is asking us to question what it means to be a lawyer.</p><p>What we cover</p><p>* How TED grew from a conference to become the world’s #1 ideas platform.</p><p>* Nishat’s unconventional path, via the Netherlands, the Brooklyn family court, and the self-taught IP licensing work that helped launch her GC career.</p><p>* How organising a local TEDx event gave Nishat a deep understanding of TED’s mission before she ever joined the organisation.</p><p>* What TED looks like behind the scenes, from the main conference to TEDx, TED-Ed, podcasts, partnerships, licensing, translation and global community-building.</p><p>* Why Nishat launched TED Law, and what she thinks legal education misses around judgment, professional identity, cultural competence, collaboration and moral courage.</p><p>* How you can get involved in TED Law (that includes law firms, in-house teams and tech companies).</p><p>Meet Nishat</p><p>When I catch up with Nishat Ruiter, it has only been a few weeks since the latest TED conference in Vancouver.</p><p>The conference itself is over, which sounds like a natural moment to come up for air, but TED is really a year-round organisation of talks, TEDx communities, podcasts, partnerships, education programmes, licences, brand questions, rights questions, publication decisions and all the legal work that has to happen to make sure ideas can safely reach the world and have the maximum impact.</p><p>Nishat sees that world from an unusual seat. She gets the force of the talks, the audience energy, the spectacle and the sense of possibility, while also leading the back-office legal review that makes the public version possible. A TED Talk may look effortless by the time it reaches the stage or the internet, but behind it sit questions about rights, privacy, defamation, intellectual property, accuracy, context and reputation. That is part of what makes her role so interesting: she is protecting ideas without wanting to smother them.</p><p>The bigger question in our conversation is what happens when you apply TED’s vision of “Ideas change everything” to the world of law. TED is built around curiosity, clarity, public communication and the belief that a well-framed idea can move people. Law, at its best, is built around judgment, service, justice and the structures that allow human beings to cooperate. Yet the profession has often taught lawyers the rules far more deliberately than it has taught them how to carry those rules into leadership, crisis, culture, technology and moral choice.</p><p>TED Law is Nishat’s attempt to address that gap.</p><p><strong>From Dracula to Brooklyn family court</strong></p><p>Nishat did not grow up with a plan to become a lawyer. Her first love was theatre. In high school, she acted seriously enough to play the lead in Dracula, which I point out should definitely be on her LinkedIn profile. She was drawn to the empathy of acting: understanding a character, getting under the surface, working out why someone acts as they do.</p><p>A high school director then gave her a blunt assessment of the acting world. If she wanted to pursue it, she should understand the reality of the industry: she was not white, she was not blonde, and she would not fit easily into the box. It was a hard thing to hear, and it became one of the early experiences behind a theme that runs through her career: finding herself outside the expected shape and then building from there.</p><p>Law arrived almost sideways. In college, she took a course on the legal and social environment of business. The professor posed a simple hypothetical: a student slips on a banana peel at a university. Who is responsible? Everyone wanted to defend the student. Nishat raised her hand to defend the university, less because she had some sophisticated view of liability and more because she was excited by the less obvious side of the argument. She liked the reasoning, the exploration, the challenge of working out the answer.</p><p>That instinct took her to law school, where she initially imagined a career in international human rights and justice. After graduating, she spent time in the Netherlands, where her husband is from, and explored international work. But law school loans and practical realities eventually pulled her back to the United States. When she returned, she did what many young lawyers do: she applied for what was open.</p><p>One of those openings was in family law. She worked for a sole practitioner in Brooklyn for two and a half years and saw, up close, the human pressure of matrimonial litigation. Custody. Support. Divorce. Lives being rearranged in courtrooms that had far too many cases and far too little time. At one point, she says, a judge might have 120 cases on the docket and two minutes to hear yours. The work mattered enormously, but the system around it could feel too arbitrary for questions that were so consequential.</p><p>So she moved back toward intellectual property and technology. This was the dot-com era, before anyone could ask ChatGPT how to become a software contracts lawyer. Nishat went to Barnes & Noble, read everything she could find, and built herself a three-ring binder full of software licensing contracts. When she interviewed for a contracts manager role and they said they were looking for someone with templates, she had them. Then she made the obvious legal career move: if she was going to be the only legal person, perhaps she should be general counsel.</p><p>That is a very Nishat story. She sees the gap, does the work, builds the thing and then makes it happen.</p><p></p><p>Thanks for reading Agents.law! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.</p><p></p><p><strong>Finding TED before TED found her</strong></p><p>Before TED, Nishat built a career across IP, fintech, software, legal tech and a decade as associate general counsel at CA Technologies. The bridge into TED, though, began in Hillsborough, New Jersey, where she and her husband had chosen to live for practical reasons: schools, work, family life. They also cared deeply about community. Her husband is Dutch. Nishat is Pakistani. Between Dutch bluntness and Pakistani directness, she says, there was no shortage of intense discussion at home, but there was also a shared global outlook and an interest in ideas that could bring people together.</p><p>Nishat was serving on the township library board and felt that the community could do more to surface meaningful ideas. TED had already been part of their family life. Her husband was an early fan, and they would introduce high school students to TED Talks. So they organised a TEDx event through the library.</p><p>That meant finding speakers, shaping talks, dealing with the intellectual property, building the event and learning what TED actually requires of a local community. It took six months. She did it without any thought that she would one day work for TED, but it gave her a lived understanding of the brand, the mission and what happens when TED’s global idea is translated into a local setting.</p><p>Then, during a career shift, the pieces came together. Nishat had just accepted a new role in New Jersey. Her children were in high school. She was tired of commuting into New York and wanted to be more present at home. Around the same time, a friend who had recently joined TED in video and TED Talks asked about her work.</p><p>At the time, TED had no in-house lawyer. Outside firms helped with some matters, but the publication of talks raised exactly the kinds of questions Nishat understood: IP licensing, defamation, privacy, rights, risk and the judgment needed to review content without flattening the idea behind it. She had already accepted another job, so when she sent over her resume she added the caveats: she had family constraints, she did not want a five-day-a-week New York commute, and the timing would be difficult.</p><p>Chris Anderson wrote back the next day. Within a week, she had met with TED’s leadership and had an offer. It sounds almost too neat, but the fit makes sense. TED needed a lawyer who understood intellectual property and also understood why the ideas mattered.</p><p><strong>The platform behind the talks</strong></p><p>Most people know TED through the talks. For many of us, TED is still associated with the canonical talks that seemed to break through the early internet: Sir Ken Robinson on education and creativity, Hans Rosling on population and data, and countless others that made complicated ideas feel alive.</p><p>But TED is much broader than the stage. It began in 1984 as a conference around technology, entertainment and design. Chris Anderson later helped turn it into a nonprofit and, in 2006, TED began putting talks online. The expectation was modest. Perhaps the talks would reach 100,000 views. They reached around a million in the first month, and TED became a way of bringing ideas to people wherever they were. That required production, publishing, translation, distribution, licensing, brand stewardship and, eventually, an enormous global community.</p><p>TEDx was another leap. What began as a risky experiment in giving communities a free licence to convene around ideas has become something like 4,000 to 4,500 events around the world. Then there is TED-Ed, with its animated lessons created with teachers and artists. There are podcasts, partnerships, education programmes, the Audacious Project and the many other ways TED tries to make ideas travel.</p><p>A small legal team supports all of that. Their job is to help TED stay true to itself while operating globally, across formats, partners, communities, rights systems and cultural contexts. It is harder than it looks, and it gives Nishat a useful vantage point on the difference between protecting an institution and preserving the spirit that made the institution worth protecting in the first place.</p><p><strong>AI and the purpose question</strong></p><p>We spoke, inevitably, about AI. TED has always been close to the frontier of technology; many of the people shaping what comes next have appeared on the TED stage early, sometimes before their ideas became mainstream.</p><p>The most compelling use of AI, in her view, is the one that serves humanity: improving education, science, health, access and the ability of human beings to do more meaningful work. She points to global discussions about AI for humanity as the kind of framing that deserves more attention.</p><p>That becomes the bridge to TED Law, because lawyers are facing the same problem in their own field. A technology that can change the mechanics of work forces a deeper question about the purpose of the work. If AI can draft, summarise, search, structure and increasingly act, the lawyer’s value has to move beyond information retrieval and formal rule application into judgment, courage, context, communication and the ability to make sense of human stakes.</p><p><strong>Why TED Law exists</strong></p><p>TED Law grew out of several pressures arriving at once. Some were legal and political. Nishat points to the overturning of major precedent in the United States, including Roe v. Wade, and the broader conversations that followed about rule of law, institutions and what lawyers are meant to do when foundational assumptions are tested. Some were professional. In conversations with general counsel, partners and legal leaders, she kept hearing the same unease: the skills lawyers were using in leadership were often different from the skills they had been taught in law school.</p><p>Some of it was personal. Nishat remembers staying after class in law school because she wanted to ask why. She wanted to understand why a judge had decided a case in a particular way, what was happening in the community, what the broader context was, and what was going on in the world around the decision. Another strong student once stayed behind too, then asked the professor whether any of that context would be tested. The answer was no. It was just context. The student left.</p><p>For Nishat, that moment captured something important about legal education. The profession teaches lawyers to read, extract, repeat and advocate. It is less consistent in teaching them to connect law to values, identity, culture, judgment, leadership and courage. That may be manageable in parts of legal practice, but it becomes a serious gap once lawyers move into leadership roles and face moral questions, crisis decisions, compliance failures, rule-breaking, political pressure and business demands. At that point, lawyers sometimes have to push back on the very people they advise. They have to represent an organisation while retaining their own professional judgment.</p><p>Substantive law still matters, obviously. But Nishat’s point is that it no longer carries the whole burden. TED Law is built around capabilities the profession needs to teach more deliberately: professional identity, critical thinking, cultural competence, intuitive collaboration and the ability to work effectively with AI. The result is a curriculum of roughly 15 to 18 hours, built to pair TED’s ability to open up a subject with the legal rigour needed to examine it properly.</p><p>The work has been tested against the profession rather than designed from a private theory of what lawyers need. TED Law surveyed law schools, general counsel, managing partners, law students and lawyers across countries. It set up advisory councils. It looked at regulatory changes, including ABA developments around professional identity, client interaction and cultural competence. The gaps Nishat had identified were already showing up in the profession’s own requirements.</p><p><strong>Teaching lawyers without another terrible slide deck</strong></p><p>Anyone who has sat through enough legal training will understand part of the problem. Lawyers are cynical and sceptical audiences, and many CLE-style sessions invite exactly that response: dense slides, tiny font, rules read from the screen, and a few seconds at the end for questions so the box can be ticked. You leave with the materials and the credit, but rarely with a changed view of the work.</p><p>TED’s method gives Nishat a different tool. A talk can change the room. It can lower the guard, create emotional entry and move lawyers from defensiveness into curiosity. From there, you can have a serious legal discussion: a case study, a conversation about ethics, AI, culture, judgment, practice readiness or professional identity. The inspiration is not the whole lesson; it is the opening that lets the lesson breathe.</p><p>That may sound soft to some lawyers, but the wellbeing data tells a harder story. Nishat is direct about the fact that lawyers experience suicide ideation at around four times the rate of other professions, alongside higher levels of alcohol abuse and drug abuse. Research also suggests that the things that make lawyers feel fulfilled are autonomy, relationships and meaning rather than prestige, rank or power.</p><p>The legal profession has spent a long time optimising for markers that do not necessarily make lawyers better, healthier or more useful. TED Law asks a different set of questions: why did you come to law in the first place? What did you write in your law school application essay? Was it really about money, status and golden handcuffs, or was there once an idea about justice, service, purpose and doing something useful with a powerful set of skills?</p><p><strong>The AI-age lawyer</strong></p><p>All of this has become more urgent because of AI. ChatGPT became publicly available in late 2022, and in the short period since then the legal industry has moved from basic experimentation to agentic AI, automation, workflow redesign and increasingly serious questions about what legal jobs will look like.</p><p>None of us knows exactly what the profession will look like in two or three years. That uncertainty changes the education question. If the rules, tools and job categories of the near future are still forming, the foundations have to carry more weight: critical thinking, collaboration, creativity, cultural competence, multidisciplinary judgment, moral imagination and the ability to use AI without surrendering human responsibility to it.</p><p>Nishat is interested in something deeper than skills training. She wants lawyers to examine their role in society and reach for a better version of the profession’s potential. If lawyers do not understand human beings, she asks, how are they supposed to help build the structures that protect them?</p><p><strong>An incubator with serious ambition</strong></p><p>TED Law is still in incubator stage, which is an important distinction. The work is being built, tested, refined and rolled out carefully. People can sign up for updates through TED’s legal newsletter at ted.com/law, and Nishat is actively inviting input through surveys and community conversations.</p><p>There are already concrete paths in motion. TED Law is working with the ACC Foundation, the nonprofit arm of the Association of Corporate Counsel, to bring training to in-house lawyers. It is also working with the American Bar Association, including an in-person training in Chicago in July.</p><p>Nishat wants lawyers everywhere to understand their professional values and identity, think critically, collaborate intuitively, operate across cultures and use AI effectively. Whether TED Law becomes the vehicle for all of that is secondary to the impact she wants to see. She also wants to change the way society sees lawyers. The old Shakespeare line about killing all the lawyers is usually treated as a joke at the profession’s expense. Nishat points out it actually had a different meaning: remove lawyers and you remove a mechanism for addressing injustice. That is the role she wants lawyers to recover.</p><p><strong>Final note</strong></p><p>What struck me most about Nishat is that TED Law feels like the convergence of the whole story. The theatre student who learned to inhabit a character; the young woman told she did not fit the box; the law student who wanted to know why; the Brooklyn family lawyer who saw the human cost of an overstretched system; the IP lawyer who built herself a binder because nobody was going to hand her the answer; the community organiser who brought TEDx to her town; the general counsel who understands that ideas need support.</p><p>The project is still young, and Nishat would be the first to say it is being built with others: four advisory councils, law schools, GCs, law firms, students, professional bodies and lawyers who know something is missing even if they have not always had the language for it.</p><p>But the central idea is already clear. The future of law will require lawyers who know what they stand for, understand the people they serve and can build with technology without forgetting why the work matters.</p><p>That is a big idea, and TED is a fitting home for it.</p><p><strong>Resources</strong></p><p>* Sign up for the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ted.com/law">TED Law newsletter</a></p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity?hsa_acc=7777130675&hsa_cam=218945593&hsa_grp=17379703273&hsa_ad=295607643496&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-16365900407&hsa_kw=best+ted+talks&hsa_mt=b&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=218945593">Sir Ken Robinson and the best TED Talk ever (in my opinion!)</a></p><p>* Follow <a target="_blank" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/nishat-ruiter-1a21362">Nishat on LinkedIn</a></p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.agents.law?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1">www.agents.law</a>
May 26, 2026
The World’s Best Vibecoder is a Lawyer
<p>In the latest episode of Without Limitation, I meet Michael T. Brown.</p><p>When I sit down with Mike, it has been around three months since he won the Anthropic global hackathon, beating 13,000 applicants, most of them career engineers, with a project built in six days from his home in Orange County.</p><p>We’re also chatting on the day before he takes the main stage at Code with Claude in San Francisco, one of the biggest software events in the world this year, where he will be delivering a thirty-minute keynote.</p><p>Listen to the full episode on your favourite platform, or keep reading for my take on the conversation.</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/without-limitation/id1870080229">Apple Podcasts</a></p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://open.spotify.com/show/3JP46jTirPmEan6TfuVW7k">Spotify</a></p><p>Not a software engineer</p><p>Mike is, by his own admission, not a software engineer. He has never written a line of code in anger. He is a personal injury attorney by background, with a previous career in Hollywood. Of the top 5 finalists that Anthropic announced, only one was a full-time software engineer. The others included a cardiologist, an electronic musician, an infrastructure worker from Uganda, and Mike, who took the overall crown.</p><p>So how did a lawyer win the Super Bowl of hackathons? And what does his story tell the rest of us about what is possible with these tools right now?</p><p><p><strong>Join me on 17-18 June: We are running what promises to be the biggest vibecode hackathon in law, at LegalTechTalk in London. This is a unique event, in partnership with HSF Kramer and Replit. You’ll get free Replit Pro credits just for participating, and there are some great prizes on offer. But to be involved, </strong><a target="_blank" href="https://www.legaltech-talk.com/experience/legaltechtalk-vibeathon/"><strong>you must register</strong></a><strong>.</strong></p></p><p>Hollywood to law school to a maxed-out credit card</p><p>Mike didn’t set out to be a coder, or a lawyer for that matter. He spent his twenties in Hollywood doing visual effects work. He did what he describes, with a smile, as the rational response to any burnout: he went to law school.</p><p>He fell into personal injury practice and genuinely liked it. He spent a few years at California PI firms before hitting the decision point most PI lawyers eventually hit, which is making the decision to go out on his own.</p><p>That decision happened to land in late 2023, just as ChatGPT was changing what was possible. Faced with the usual choice between hiring paralegals or burning through savings on back office support, Mike did something different. He started building prompt libraries before anyone was calling them prompt libraries, recording intake calls with client permission, transcribing them through Whisper, and feeding the transcripts into ChatGPT to produce his own version of an intake form.</p><p>The system worked well enough that his cousin, a serial entrepreneur, suggested they productise it. They built a company called Onbreeze, a note-taking phone line for lawyers, on the insight that injured clients don’t book a Zoom call with a lawyer - they call. </p><p>Vibecoding wasn’t mainstream at this point, and Mike outsourced the entire development process to an external development agency. The product launched in January 2025. Unfortunately for Mike, it crashed the moment a fourth caller hit the line.</p><p>When the offshore engineering team explained that fixing it would cost roughly the same as building it had, Mike was already maxed out on credit cards. He downloaded Cursor (an AI coding tool) instead. Ten minutes later, by talking to it about what he needed, he had a working solution. He still couldn’t read the code. But the thing worked.</p><p>That was his first prompt.</p><p>How Mike learned to build</p><p>Onbreeze didn’t take off the way Mike hoped. By May 2025 he was at a crossroads: go back to practising law full time, or lean into the strange new fluency he’d developed with vibecoding tools.</p><p>He chose the tools. But what’s interesting is how he chose them. He didn’t go and learn to code in the traditional sense. He took on a series of consulting projects for friends and family, each of which forced him to learn one new thing. A roll-up project for a private equity contact taught him how to handle data across complex databases. A pickup ordering system for his cousin’s butcher shop in Brooklyn taught him Stripe. Mako, a demand letter generator for personal injury lawyers, taught him how to deploy agents to the cloud using Anthropic’s SDK.</p><p>He describes it as accidentally building a curriculum. Each project was something he wanted to learn anyway. Each one came with a real user on the other side. And each one added to a stack of skills he could combine later.</p><p>By the time the Anthropic hackathon was announced in early 2026, Mike was already far more fluent with the technology than most.</p><p>Picking a problem nobody could solve</p><p>The hackathon accepted only 500 of the 13,000 applicants, and the brief was specific: they wanted problems that weren’t solvable with previous generation models.</p><p>The problem was California’s housing crisis, or more precisely, the permits bottleneck inside it. “Everyone thinks California has a housing crisis,” Mike puts it. “We don’t. We have a permit crisis.” His friend builds ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units), the small backyard cottages California has incentivised as a partial answer to its housing shortage. The laws are favourable, the demand is there, and yet permits routinely take six to nine months, with endless back and forth between builders and city plan reviewers.</p><p>Mike had a hunch AI could help. He asked Cameron to send him a set of blueprints. Claude couldn’t handle them. The pages were physically too big, the size of a table, and the dense annotations meant traditional OCR pulled the text away from the visual context that gave it meaning. A note about wall thickness only mattered if you knew which wall it referred to.</p><p>By this point, most people would probably move on, but Mike saw an opportunity. If the most advanced Anthropic model available at the time couldn’t handle this, then it was exactly the kind of problem the hackathon judges were looking for. He submitted, got accepted, and immediately had a small panic about whether he could actually solve it.</p><p>The lesson buried in this is that problems are way more important than solutions. Most vibecoders jump straight into building things. Mike spent his time finding a problem worth building for, one that mattered to a real user and that pushed the technology to its current limit.</p><p>Building it in six days</p><p>Mike decided to call the app <strong>CrossBeam</strong>. The hackathon ran for a week and by Wednesday night, two days in, Mike was in trouble. He had two disparate approaches, neither of them working, and the hour was getting late. He scrapped the elaborate combination of OCR plus image referencing he’d been wrestling with, and went back to first principles: here are the rules, here are the chunks of blueprint, figure out what’s wrong.</p><p>That first end-to-end run hit roughly 40% accuracy against the city’s correction letters. Crucially, it ran. Once a system runs end-to-end, even badly, you can benchmark it and improve it. By Thursday afternoon he was at 60 to 70%.</p><p>Two design choices were key here. The first was treating the model’s context window as a precious resource rather than a dumping ground. Mike used Skills, Anthropic’s open standard (think of them like those files that get uploaded to Neo’s brain in the Matrix so he suddenly knows Kung Fu), to keep his prompts lean. He used parallel sub-agents, each with a narrow job and a fresh context, rather than one bloated agent trying to do everything. He used what he calls adversarial prompting: have one agent plan, a second agent execute, and a third agent test, so that no single agent is grading its own homework. For this, he uses an analogy from legal practice: “When an associate brings you a memo, you don’t ask them if they double checked it. Of course they’re going to say yes. You give it to someone else to check.”</p><p>The second design choice was testing. He set up command line interfaces on the backend so that one Claude instance could run a new ADU through the system every hour while he worked on something else, tracking accuracy gains in real time. By Friday his accuracy was high enough that he could spend the weekend on the user-facing piece, which itself ended up being shaped by two conversations.</p><p>The first was with Cameron, his friend, a builder. Mike sent him fresh outputs and Cameron immediately asked if he could run three more blueprints through. Real users behave like that when something works. The second was with his friend Connor Traut, the mayor of Buena Park. Until that conversation, Mike had only been thinking about the builder side. Connor flipped his perspective: cities also need help, on the review side, processing permits faster. So Mike rebuilt the product to serve both sides. Builders drag and drop blueprints and get back a precise action plan in twenty minutes. Cities batch process submissions and generate draft correction letters. Same product, two different audiences.</p><p>Why lawyers might be unusually good at this</p><p>Mike’s prompting structure is one most lawyers will recognise immediately. Issue, rule, analysis, conclusion. This is the framework you learn for the bar exam, repurposed as the framework for getting good output from a frontier model. </p><p>Mike starts with the issue at the top. Then, the relevant rules and constraints. Next, the analysis: why this matters, who it’s for, what good looks like. Conclusion at the end. </p><p>He often prompts by voice, often for five minutes at a stretch, because typing caps the average user at around 60 words a minute and speech runs closer to 180. (Ahem those of us who took a typing class in the 90s are closer to 120+ but the point stands!)</p><p>The skillset Mike describes is closer to drafting a memo than to writing code. Lawyers spend years learning to think clearly under pressure, to anticipate counterarguments, to specify exactly what they want and exactly what they don’t. Those skills, plus a working “b******t detector” and a willingness to experiment, are most of what it takes to build with these tools today.</p><p>The bit lawyers usually need to add is the last part - the curiosity and willingness to experiment. Some legal training does lean towards risk averseness in a way that doesn’t serve help with building new things. We may need to unlearn some things here.</p><p><p>Thanks for reading Agents.law! If you’re enjoying this piece, please share it with someone else who may find it useful.</p></p><p>On security</p><p>As we talk, Will Chen’s MikeOSS project has been making waves. It’s an open source version of Harvey/Legora. </p><p>Mike and I observe that the conversation on vibecoding has become a little polarised into those who seem to believe you no longer need to learn software engineering at all (on the one hand) and those who believe it is a waste of time (on the other).</p><p>Mike is realistic here, if a little more bullish than I am on AI’s ability to spot and resolve security and compliance issues in production software at the current time. He’s alive to the limitations of vibecoding and shares that he would be open to partnering with software engineers when the project demands it. </p><p>(Side note: my recommended framework for Responsible Vibecoding is at <a target="_blank" href="https://www.vibcode.law/learn">Vibecode.law/learn</a>).</p><p>His biggest frustration is people writing about the issues with open source software rather than submitting PRs to resolve the issues. This ties into something else I observe about Mike - his extreme bias towards action. He doesn’t have time for essays about software - he wants to build.</p><p>Key lessons for vibecoders</p><p>If we step back from the specifics of permits and ADUs, I think what you end up with is a template for building effectively with AI. </p><p><strong>Find a problem worth solving.</strong> Talk to the people who actually have it and spend as much time with them as you can. The closer you can get to the problem, the better the output. No problem, no solution, no value.</p><p><strong>Build in short cycles with rigorous testing.</strong> Testing is a critical part of software engineering but it’s something that most vibecoders forget. Software can be tested really effectively because it largely either works or it doesn’t. Don’t forget this part.</p><p><strong>Treat the context window like a budget. </strong>Mike learned through experimentation how performance drops off a cliff as you use up the agent’s context window. He manages this carefully with compaction, Skills and just starting new conversations. </p><p><strong>Prompting still matters. </strong>I occasionally read that the era of prompt engineering is coming to an and. I don’t agree on this. Sure, some of the old hacks like “You are a world expert in everything” aren’t very useful these days but Mike’s framework for prompting is effectively about giving the agent the exact context it needs. This leads to better outputs and CrossBeam is proof. </p><p><strong>Show your work to real users early and let their reactions reshape the product.</strong> Don’t be precious about your first design. Most vibecoders spend so long seeking perfection and not enough time getting it in the hands of real users. </p><p>Finally, <strong>be curious. </strong></p><p>This is the common theme across all episodes on the podcast. </p><p>People like Mike who are pushing the boundaries of what is possible do so because they are curious about the boundaries. </p><p>Most people thought the California permitting crisis couldn’t be solved with AI. Mike wondered what would happen if it could.</p><p>I for one can’t wait to see what Mike builds next.</p><p>Up next</p><p>In the next episode, I’ll be sitting down with the amazing Nishat Ruiter, General Counsel of TED and the founder of TEDLaw. </p><p>Resources & further reading</p><p><a target="_blank" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-t-brown-034aaa22/">Follow Mike on LinkedIn</a></p><p><a target="_blank" href="https://www.crossbeam-permits.com/">CrossBeam</a></p><p><p>Thanks for reading Agents.law! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.</p></p><p></p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.agents.law?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1">www.agents.law</a>
May 15, 2026
Why India is a Legal Tech Superpower
<p>Shreya Vajpei built the community for legal tech in India. Now she's connecting that community with the rest of the world.</p><p>India has more legal tech startups than almost anywhere on earth.</p><p>I did not know this until I sat down with Shreya Vajpei, but India has around a thousand legal tech startups, which Shreya tells me puts it second only to the US and ahead of every other market, including the UK.</p><p>That is a striking number for a country where foreign law firms still can’t really practise, where only advocates can own law firms, and where the entire legal services market is about a fifth the size of the UK’s.</p><p>If there’s one person who can help us make sense of this landscape, it’s Shreya Vajpei.</p><p>Listen to the full episode on your favourite platform, or keep reading for the full write-up.</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/without-limitation/id1870080229">Apple Podcasts</a></p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://open.spotify.com/show/3JP46jTirPmEan6TfuVW7k">Spotify</a></p><p>Introducing Shreya</p><p>Shreya trained at Khaitan & Co, one of India’s tier one firms and roughly the magic circle equivalent in the Indian market, with around 800 lawyers when she joined and closer to twice that today.</p><p>Like many guests on Without Limitation, her career has taken an unconventional path. She practised for a couple of years before moving into a practice development role. Then, COVID hit and the marketing budget disappeared overnight, which meant her team ended up absorbing everything else the managing partner needed help with.</p><p>That covered IT, HR and operations, but also pricing, strategy, new office openings, partner performance and strategic hiring. In her words, whatever landed at the managing partner’s table also landed at theirs, which gave her something most lawyers never really get, which is a top-down view of a law firm as a business rather than a bottom-up view of a practice.</p><p>From there she became one of the first hires into Khaitan’s innovation team, and her role kept evolving as AI did.</p><p>Last year she moved to the UK to join Stephenson Harwood, drawn by what she described as a more mature market for digital transformation, with longer-established innovation teams, more consistent IT budgets, and a decade or so head start on the journey.</p><p>A thousand startups</p><p>Shreya tells me that India’s legal services market is around $10 to $15 billion in total, roughly a fifth the size of the UK’s, and it is wildly unconsolidated compared to what most of us are used to. The top five firms are similar in size to each other, in the 1,500 to 2,000 lawyer range, and then there is a big gap before you reach the long tail of full-service firms operating somewhere between 50 and 200 lawyers, and then the boutiques and independent chambers, and then a hyperlocal market across the tier two and tier three cities that operates almost entirely separately and accounts for the vast majority of India by population if not by revenue. On top of that, foreign firms still can’t really practise there, a liberalisation bill has been pending for years with significant local opposition, and there is no ABS or non-lawyer ownership of any kind.</p><p>So the obvious question is why a market with all of those constraints has produced so many startups, and Shreya’s answer is partly cultural, partly economic, and partly a story about talent.</p><p>India, she tells me, is generally entrepreneurial and high risk-taking, which feeds directly into the volume of founders willing to have a go, and it has some of the best developers in the world at cost structures that make building viable in a way that is hard to replicate elsewhere. The economics also push founders outward almost from day one, because rupee revenues are small once converted, so the dominant playbook is to build in India and sell internationally, which is exactly what companies like SpotDraft (now established in the US and entering Europe) and Lucio (which recently opened a New York office) have done.</p><p>One category worth flagging, because it is more advanced in India than most other places, is online dispute resolution (ODR). SEBI, the securities regulator, now requires all investor disputes to go through an ODR platform, and there is open API infrastructure called the Pulse Protocol that allows any ODR provider to plug in, in much the same way that UPI revolutionised payments by giving every bank and every app a shared rail to build on. India tends to solve problems at the infrastructure layer when it solves them properly, and ODR is a good example of what that looks like in practice.</p><p>The bridge</p><p>What makes Shreya interesting beyond her own story is that she has lived on both sides of the bridge between the Indian and international legal tech ecosystems, and she has clear views on what each side keeps getting wrong about the other.</p><p>For Indian startups looking to scale into the UK and US, she offers a network and an instinct for what magic circle firms actually buy, which is not always what an Indian founder might assume from a distance. Last year she worked with the UK Department of Business and Trade to bring a contingent of Indian legal tech startups to the UK to meet magic circle firms, Scottish firms, and the Legal Tech Talk crowd, and that kind of bridging is something the industry could probably use more of.</p><p>For international players trying to enter India, she sees the same mistakes repeated. Pricing set for the US market with no real adjustment for local realities. Customer support sitting in time zones that do not overlap with the Indian working day. A lack of appreciation for the fact that the biggest Indian law firms still operate across multiple languages alongside English, and that most LLMs do not handle Indian languages or scripts particularly well, which means translation is a first-order use case rather than an afterthought. She makes the point that the legal AI players doing well in India have generally understood that the same product positioning does not travel intact, because the problem itself is not quite the same as it is in the US, and the reframing has to happen locally rather than being assumed away.</p><p>If you want to tap into this network, it is at <a target="_blank" href="http://indianlegaltech.net">indianlegaltech.net</a>.</p><p>On influential women in legal tech</p><p>Shreya recently won an ILTA Influential Women in Legal Tech award.</p><p>We discuss how her award sits against a backdrop that most people in the industry recognise but that not enough are actively doing something about, which is that around 3% of startup funding flows to female founders, and legal tech is no exception.</p><p>As Shreya puts it, some parts of the ecosystem have become a “boys’ club” where the funders and the people asking for funding are both part of the same cycle, and that cycle is genuinely hard to break from inside it.</p><p>Her recommendations are practical rather than abstract. She suggests that if your firm runs an incubation programme, ring-fence dedicated seats for female founders. If you sit on a legal tech fund, write a hypothesis that requires a female founder on every backed team. And if you are a woman who has made it into a decision-making role with some capital to deploy, invest in another female founder, because even one extra month of runway can sometimes be the difference between a company that survives and one that doesn’t.</p><p>She also made an observation that that a lot of the buyer-side decision makers in legal innovation, the heads of innovation and heads of knowledge across the larger firms, are women, and the supply side of the industry has not really caught up with that.</p><p>On the AI-native firm</p><p>We finished, as I tend to with these conversations, on whether law firms are actually changing or just dressing the old model up in new clothes.</p><p>Shreya uses the factory electrification analogy, which is my personal favourite as well. When factories first switched from steam to electric power, owners swapped the engines but kept the same layout, the same processes and the same workflows, which meant they got slightly faster operations but not much else. The real productivity gains came decades later, when factories were redesigned from the ground up around the new power source rather than just retrofitting it into the old design.</p><p>Most law firms are still firmly in the swap-the-engines phase, treating AI as a tool that makes existing tasks slightly more efficient rather than as a medium for rethinking what legal work is and where the value actually sits. Look at almost any legal tech company website and the framing is the same: draft 20% faster, research 30% faster, all of which assume the underlying tasks remain the tasks lawyers do. The harder question, which Shreya thinks almost no firm has properly sat down with, is where the value layer actually lives in a professional services business once AI is properly in the picture, and what you would build if you started from that question rather than from the current shape of the firm.</p><p>AI is now forcing the rethink that should arguably have happened years ago, and for those of us interested in true innovation in legal services, that is probably the most exciting part.</p><p>If you are building in legal tech and you have not yet thought seriously about India, or if you are in India and thinking about scaling out, Shreya is the person to know. I look forward to seeing what she builds next.</p><p>Links</p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="http://indianlegaltech.net">indianlegaltech.net</a></p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/shreyavajpei">Shreya on LinkedIn</a></p><p>* <a target="_blank" href="https://www.stephensonharwood.com/about/innovation/">Stephenson Harwood</a></p><p></p> <br/><br/>This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit <a href="https://www.agents.law?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1">www.agents.law</a>
15 total episodes available
Similar Podcasts
Discover related shows you might enjoy
Deep-dive analytics for Without Limitation
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is Without Limitation?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates daily.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 4 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Yes, this podcast regularly features guests.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.