Community Voices & Research
Practitioners' voices first. Vendor affiliates welcome — but labeled. Paid research opportunities for those who opt in.
The problem with every other legal tech directory: they're vendor-centric. They start with products. We start with you — who you are, what you do, what tools you actually use. That's what makes community-sourced insight more useful than any vendor comparison site.
How Identity Works
When you visit the wiki, you're asked: who are you? This isn't gate-keeping — it's the mechanism that makes everything else work.
Lawyers, legal ops, paralegals, court staff
- Tag tools you actually use
- Your endorsements are shown on vendor pages
- Your voice is prioritized in community data
- Opt into paid research opportunities
Practitioner endorsements are the primary signal. When 23 solo practitioners say they use Clio, that means something.
Employees, founders, advisors, investors
- Must declare affiliation (per Rule 4)
- Can submit verifiable product information
- All contributions are labeled
- Cannot endorse or review own product
Vendor information is useful — pricing, integrations, features. But it's always shown separately from practitioner voices.
What Practitioners See
When you identify as a practitioner, the wiki transforms to show you what practitioners in your role actually use:
Notice how practitioner data (endorsements, usage by role) is shown first and prominently, while vendor-submitted information is labeled and shown separately. Both are useful. Only one is trusted by default.
Paid Research
Practitioners who tag their tools and build a profile can opt into paid research:
- Build Your Profile — Role, practice area, firm size, tools you use. A verified persona that vendors can't fake.
- Get Paid — Vendors pay £100-150 per 45-minute interview. You choose which opportunities to accept.
- Share Insights — Anonymized findings shared with everyone. Community benefits from every interview.
Research economics: £100-150 per interview · 45 minutes · remote · you choose opportunities · findings shared publicly
How It Could Work
- Identify yourself on the wiki — practitioner, vendor affiliate, or academic
- Tag tools you use — build your profile and contribute to community knowledge
- Opt into research — get notified about paid opportunities matching your profile
- Interview happens — 45 minutes, remote, £100-150 compensation
- Findings published — anonymized insights shared with the entire community
The persona identification system is live on the homepage. Tell us who you are and start tagging tools.
We Want Your Input
This is being built in public. The identity system on the homepage is the first step. Before we enable paid research, we want to hear:
- Would you tag the tools you use on the wiki?
- Would you participate in paid user research?
- What safeguards matter to you?
- Should vendor-submitted info be shown at all, or only practitioner data?
Share your thoughts on r/legaltech or message u/alexdenne.