Legal Beagles goes bust!

[Michelle]

You may recall how, 3 years ago, the Beagles attempted to monetise their forum by launching a legal services comparison site called "LB Compare", later rebranded as "Just Beagle". Looks like this was a monumental failure and they are now running out of funds, if the letter below is anything to go by:

[Michelle]

This other letter confirms that not only have they not got money to pay salaries, their shares are not worth the paper they are written on.

[Michelle]

The latest accounts submitted to Companies House show a loss of over £640,000. HOW THE HECK DID THEY GO THROUGH THAT KIND OF MONEY?

[Syd Snitkin]

The Las Vegas trips don't come cheap.

[zeke]

I didn't think Legal Beagles could go bust. Who would invest in a forum-based website? Marc Gander and the CAG forum has been waiting 10 years for a golden paycheque to land on his doormat in St Crispins Close. Google Adwords is pin money.

The idea of a comparison site for lawyers was a non-starter after the LSC stamped out Lawbid having lawyers compete for work on price. The LASPO presents a challenge if LB wanted to earn a fee for finding work for solicitors, there is a workaround, but think LB wasn't able to monetise it.

LSC's motive is anti-competitive since almost every other industry from insurance to airlines compete on price.

Las Vegas a cheeky holiday and they happenstance the convention centre. The US is not their market.

The outward presentation of a dog forum sends wrong signals to potential law firms. I could never market Lawsuite to solicitors and IFA's in this way.

[Bill-K]

Hi guys - just swinging by.

I guess those naughty jesters in Legal Allsorts will be partying again - LOL !

As far as I understand it, LB changed the name of their commercial compare site from 'LBCompare' to 'Beagle It!' - and their business name from 'Celame' to 'Legal Beagles.' So at that point, their business name became the same as the 'Legal Beagles' forum. Confused ? I still am !

So it appears that the 'Beagle It!' compare site is going out of business because the 'parent company' now known as 'Legal Beagles' is insolvent and will be wound up or squished one way or another. However, it looks like they might try and keep the original Legal Beagles (LB) forum going - although there seems to be good evidence that the LB forum is also owned and run by the 'Legal Beagles' business - so I can't see how the LB forum can keep going unless it is sold off to some poor sucker who thinks it is worth a light after the complete beagle's dinner they have made of it.

But that's just my take on it so far - and I'm only a thick gorilla after all !

Carry on, chaps...

[Michelle]

It can get a bit tricky having a legal services comparison site attached to a free forum whose name suggests, it provides legal help. Punters join forums expecting free help, although there are times where proper legal advice and representation is required, which is obviously where they were trying to go with this little venture. Trouble is, with the forum attached, how could firms ever be sure to get equal opportunities so to speak, when punters could just be referred to a specific firm behind the scenes, and no-one would be any the wiser. PMs are often sent to people recommending a firm's services, and I know this for a fact, since I sent a few of them myself, I did it for years, and this worked well while I was directing punters to use the services of one of the LB's site team members.

Then, a new kid on the legal block made an appearance, a solicitor with many years' experience set up their own firm. A sole practitioner has much more freedom to take cases than a fee earner employed by a firm, so I sent a few PMs recommending this new firm that I knew through personal contacts, and they were not entirely unknown to the Beagles either. It was over one of those PMs that I got banned from Legal Beagles, very likely because their other firm also had an interest in this particular case, although the thread had been running for several days and the other firm's rep had failed to made an appearance. This all happened in the run up to the launch of their new LB Compare site, which I was totally unaware of at the time.

As I was never given a warning, nor an explanation as to why, after years of contributing to LB and over 10,000 posts, I was suddenly banned, I sent an email to admin. Shazza replied saying it was for recommending said firm, I then provided my reasons for doing so, she wanted to know more and asked me about the solicitor in question, I provided a full CV. I was never unbanned, despite providing solid grounds for my decision, then, next thing you know, after I gave Shazza the tip, they approached the solicitor in question, begging them to get on board! The solicitor and a paralegal working for the firm became "authorised representatives" on Legal Beagles, alongside a number of people employed by the other firm they had been associated with since 2013, when Kate got a job with them. I can't see how this situation could be perceived as fair by any firm interested in being featured on their comparison site, and if you are paying to be featured, you wouldn't expect to have to spare some of your staff to spend part of their billing hours, giving free advice on a forum, in the hope of getting some business.

Obviously, I haven't got a full understanding of their business model, since I got banned before the launch of LB Compare, and they never discussed it with me, even when I was still on board. And how does being banned for recommending a firm square up with them approaching the firm after I recommended the firm in question to Shazza, and asking the firm to become "authorised reps"?

As it turns out, two years later, all these "authorised reps" have vanished in the haze. You have to wonder what the heck has been going on there. It does sound like a Beagle's Dinner!

[zeke]

I can't see how the LB forum can keep going unless it is sold off to some poor sucker who thinks it is worth a light after the complete beagle's dinner they have made of it.

You cannot run a forum for commercial profit. Its free advice, nothing more.

LB could keep its board going provided it cuts costs, VBulletin and it's hosting company. For the tech-savvy, a forum costs almost nothing to run even if its database is tens of gigabytes. VB is for non-tech savvy which makes it very expensive, and its current owner needs to recoup its investment. The host is expensive, but high service levels make it popular with businesses with deep pockets.

The fixation with the word "beagle" might work in a forum environment, not in a commercial setting. It leaves one of its members with a Linux box to take over the forum.

[Michelle]

You cannot run a forum for commercial profit. Its free advice, nothing more.

Unless you sell it for £35m.

LB could keep its board going provided it cuts costs, VBulletin and it's hosting company. For the tech-savvy, a forum costs almost nothing to run even if its database is tens of gigabytes. VB is for non-tech savvy which makes it very expensive, and its current owner needs to recoup its investment. The host is expensive, but high service levels make it popular with businesses with deep pockets.

The board was never going to make a profit by itself, even if you sell ads, that would be just to cover the costs above, as we know from other fora. The assumption would have been that the user base would be potential clients for the firms who advertised. But even if they were, there was a missing link here, if a client "beagled it" and approached a firm, there would be no profit for the Beagles in this, so where was the potential to make money?

The idea of running online services directories is older than the hills, dating back to the .con age, when signed up to several ones in order to offer web design services. This resulted in lots of spam and not a single client, my first paying client was through someone who, literally, turned up on my doorstep begging me to do a website. Word of mouth is also how the legal profession get clients, and, as above, I suspect there was a lot of that going on informally in the background, it's how it works.

The fixation with the word "beagle" might work in a forum environment, not in a commercial setting. It leaves one of its members with a Linux box to take over the forum.

LB Compare was probably a better name, it took the dog out of the equation by abbreviating it and introduced the keyword "compare". But in the end the devil is in the amount of cash you can afford to splash on advertising, the meerkats have been a great success, but you need very deep pockets to advertise on TV!

[Michelle]

They had a stand at the Legalex show in ExCel last year, I wonder how much they blew on that one. The show is a trade show for those who offer services to the legal profession, not sure what exactly they were offering there but this was the stand:

[zeke]

The banners don’t have a sales message and the dog and paws imagery is suited for exhibiting at Crufts. At exhibitions, your material must capture and inspire people to stop and ask before moving to the next 300+ stands.

The trouble with the meerkats you need continuous TV advertising, and viewers complained about Go-Compare repeating its operatic ads ad-nauseum. Once the TV ads stop, someone else steps in as Direct Line learned in the late '90s. The comparison industry hasn’t found the holy grail of market retention.

A forum is about giving free advice. This board and LB started because of CAG censorship and overzealous moderators, but I can’t explain why Sheila needed to approach the OR about it. She concerns herself with other people's financial affairs (searching judgments and demanding to see N245’s etc) her motive in this board could not have been financial.

If LB were to regroup, then a way forward is to offer solicitors new clients bundled with paralegal services. They charge for the paralegal services getting round the LASPO prohibited fee rule.

Anyone can design websites, Lawsuite’s website is a mess. A client is about to re-design it for free in exchange for free work. A cash-free arrangement. I’m sure Sharon can muster a favour and have someone convert and re-host their forum. Ditch any ideas of turning it into a cash cow.

[Syd Snitkin]

If they were showing a £640,000 loss, what on earth did they do with the other £970,000 they raised beforehand? It's a lot of dough to get through - unless they gambled on red and it came up black.

[zeke]

It's pie in the sky. They probably approached a venture capitalist who put grand ideas into their heads. Look at Reclaim the Right Ltd abridged accounts (balance sheet total exemption).

[Andy]

They have 17,516 shares issued. These are the shareholders.

[Andy]

It also suggests in other documents that the value of each share from last year went from 175.16 down to 0.01. Those shares are now utterly worthless it seems.

[zeke]

There was talk of a multi-million payoff for LB at the time Martin Lewis pocketed £19 from Money Supermarket. It must have been wishful thinking.

Money Supermarket created Resolver, which takes bailiff complaints on webforms and emails it straight to the bailiff company.

[Amy]

What goes around, comes around.

[Michelle]

This app is probably where they flushed part of that money down the drains, apps can be quite expensive to get developed: https://justbeagle.com/app

[Michelle]

The trouble with the meerkats you need continuous TV advertising, and viewers complained about Go-Compare repeating its operatic ads ad-nauseum. Once the TV ads stop, someone else steps in as Direct Line learned in the late '90s. The comparison industry hasn’t found the holy grail of market retention.

I found those GoCompare adverts most irritating.

A forum is about giving free advice. This board and LB started because of CAG censorship and overzealous moderators

In the early days they boasted about their "zero tolerance" policy. But CAG moderation was also very inconsistent, depending on which direction the wind was blowing from. And having the likes of DX as a moderator when he can't even type a full sentence is ridiculous!

If LB were to regroup, then a way forward is to offer solicitors new clients bundled with paralegal services. They charge for the paralegal services getting round the LASPO prohibited fee rule.

Paralegal services? Who would provide those, when they can't run a bath between them?

Anyone can design websites,

That wasn't the case in '99 which is the time I was referring to, the .con days.

A cash-free arrangement. I’m sure Sharon can muster a favour and have someone convert and re-host their forum. Ditch any ideas of turning it into a cash cow.

They have always had the cash cow idea...

[Michelle]

They have 17,516 shares issued. These are the shareholders.

GOOD LORD! So many! Where did they find all those punters willing to invest in such a worthless business model?

It also suggests in other documents that the value of each share from last year went from 175.16 down to 0.01. Those shares are now utterly worthless it seems.

I wonder what all of the above investors are thinking now.

[zeke]

This app is probably where they flushed part of that money down the drains, apps can be quite expensive to get developed: https://justbeagle.com/app

An app is very cheap and easy to make. Download a kit.

Any app that replicates a website is pointless.

[Michelle]

Not only are the Beagles going bust, so is Howlett Clarke, the firm they were associated with all these years, leaving them without anyone to refer to: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-conte ... iquidation

Brighton’s oldest law firm, Quality Solicitors Howlett Clarke, has gone into liquidation.

The firm was a grandee of the south coast legal market. Jackie Gillespie, its Managing Partner, was recently appointed President of the Sussex Law Society. Its website – still extant at the time of writing this – proudly boasts of it being ranked as a Leading Firm 2017 in Legal 500 and of its 240 year history. Which ended earlier this week.

Email enquiries went unanswered and no one was picking up the phone. But a spokeswoman for the wider Quality Solicitors group confirmed that Howlett Clarke was in liquidation and clients were being contacted. She had no further information, and the SRA, as usual, said that it was unable to confirm the firm’s status or discuss the matter. But RollOnFriday has been told that the firm recently lost a large number of staff, which can’t have helped the situation.

[Amy]

Their sadim touch is going from strength to strength.

[Michelle]

Their sadim touch is going from strength to strength.

Instead of the Midas Touch, they have the Shitus Touch!

[Amy]

Yep, quite literally the opposite of the Midas touch.

[zeke]

Too much coincidence, LB now Howlett Clarke going to the wall.

I expect this was LB’s first foray into venture capital money. It went to their heads and spunked it on a daft business model and punting tables at the MGM Grand. Fund managers will be okay because investments go down and up. The investors lose.

The solicitors at Howlett will go to another firm, the admin staff will find it much harder. Clients paying retainers lose their money but trust and client money is safe because regulations require it held in a trust account, it cannot be converted to benefit the firm or anyone other than the client or trust beneficiaries. The SRA will transfer that to other fee-earning trustees, but if they hike fees, the beneficiaries can petition the new trustee to stand down.

Where does LB go from here? It has a forum with an expensive host and VBulletin, none of which makes money. The CAG board has pay-per-click Google ads, but that only made them £800 last year.

[Michelle]

Where does LB go from here? It has a forum with an expensive host and VBulletin, none of which makes money. The CAG board has pay-per-click Google ads, but that only made them £800 last year.

They go here: https://fundraisingstories.simplecast.fm/kate-briscoe

The woman has no shame!
http://www.enterthearena.co.uk/Fundrais ... te-Briscoe

[Bill-K]

Blimey - just 'flitted' through the online interview (Kate should have used a better microphone at her end, I reckon). But if I've got it right, then:
1. she managed to secure £3.5m 'angel' investments in 2017-2018 ?
2. she managed to lose it all by 2019 with nothing to show for it, other than an app ?
3. this app is designed to 'harvest' all of the LB forum's data - given freely by jerks like us ?
4. she is now hoping to raise "4 to 6 times" the original £3.5m in 2019 to fund the "AI project" which is essentially selling all the LB data along with the AI app?
5. that comes to £14m - £21m !!!

When was this interview recorded - anyone know ? Presumably before they told Kati they were broke ? If not - then Kate B's published intentions must surely now be criminally fraudulent ?

[zeke]

I am blown away with the recklessness in how they squandered £1m setting up a forum. This board, DWB and NBA combined cost less than £200 in material cost.

An app costs less than £150 to make. Anyone with an SDK can do it. Where did the remaining £999.650 go?

I confess, their LBcompare website is very well made, but its business plan is flawed. That indicates money was thrown at a web designer with little thought into the business plan.

The forum content by itself has no monetary value. Their bailiff advice is wrong or misleading therefore cannot be sold to anyone.

I'm not sure what this "AI project" is about, but spending £3m on an app which nobody knows about, nor a desire to download, is by itself a flawed business plan.

They should focus on creating a business plan that works and makes money, then seek investment to upscale it.

[Michelle]

When was this interview recorded - anyone know ? Presumably before they told Kati they were broke ?

There is a Feb 1st date here: https://fundraisingstories.simplecast.fm/kate-briscoe

Feb1st.png

So, long after the letters above were written.

[zeke]

The introduction to the video is rather salesy.

[zeke]

According to this. legal beagles are still trading: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/comp ... ng-history

At £175 total value, it wont cover a one-way ticket to Las Vegas, let alone a one-night stay at the MGM Grand.