Women in LegalTech: From Idea to Impact — A Conversation with Namita Shah

Admin ILTN
12 hours ago
4 min read

We conducted a focused session under the Women in LegalTech vertical of the Indian LegalTech Network (ILTN), titled “From Idea to Impact: A Founder’s Journey in LegalTech.” The conversation featured Namita Shah, co-founder of Presolv360, and brought together a room of women exploring, building, and questioning the future of LegalTech in India.

The discussion quickly moved beyond founder journeys and surface-level narratives. It became an honest reflection on what it actually takes to build in LegalTech — not just in theory, but in a system that is slow to change, difficult to navigate, and often resistant to innovation.

Here are the most important insights from that session, reframed for anyone building or exploring LegalTech in India.

1. LegalTech in India Is a Structural Problem, Not Just a Tech Opportunity

One of the most important shifts in the conversation was reframing LegalTech as more than just “technology for law.”

The problem is deeper. Disputes in India are not just delayed — they often become intergenerational. What appears as inefficiency is, in reality, a structural gap in how dispute resolution is accessed and delivered.

LegalTech, especially ODR, is not simply about digitizing processes. It is about building the missing infrastructure between conflict and courts.

Think of LegalTech not as an upgrade, but as a necessary layer in the justice system.

2. The Real Problem Isn’t the Judiciary — It’s the Absence of Alternatives

A common assumption is that the burden lies entirely on courts. The discussion challenged this.

India is highly litigious, but more importantly, there is no accessible, affordable “first layer” of dispute resolution. When no alternatives exist, litigation becomes the default.

This shifts responsibility from institutions alone to the ecosystem as a whole — including citizens, lawyers, and service providers.

If there is nowhere else to go, the system will always remain overburdened.

3. Building the Product Is Easier Than Building Trust

A recurring theme was that technology was never the hardest part.

What proved significantly harder was trust, adoption, and behavioral change. Unlike product development, these are not controllable variables. They require time, persistence, and repeated validation.

In the early days, the challenge was not scaling — it was convincing people that online dispute resolution was even possible.

You can build a solution. You cannot force people to believe in it.

4. LegalTech Requires Ground-Level Engagement, Not Just Ideas

Instead of waiting for users, the founders went to where disputes already existed — courtrooms.

They spoke directly to disputing parties, attempted mediation, and tested whether alternative approaches could work in real scenarios. This hands-on approach shaped both the product and the problem understanding.

This is a critical lesson: LegalTech cannot be built in isolation.

If you’re not engaging with real users, you’re building assumptions — not solutions.

5. User-Centricity Is Harder in Practice Than in Theory

One of the most candid insights was around early product mistakes.

The initial platform was built based on what the founders thought users needed. Over time, it became clear that many of these assumptions were incorrect. Features that seemed essential were rarely used, while overlooked aspects became critical.

The shift toward iterative, user-driven building — closer to a Lean Startup approach — became a turning point.

Don’t build for the user. Build with the user.

6. LegalTech Is as Much About Mindset as It Is About Technology

A deeper theme across the conversation was the idea of a “builder mindset.”

Traditional legal education trains for analysis, argument, and interpretation — but not for creation. LegalTech requires a different approach: experimentation, iteration, and systems thinking.

This applies whether you’re a founder, a lawyer, or part of an innovation team.

You don’t need to start a company — but you do need to think like someone who builds.

7. Entry Into LegalTech Is Not Structured — You Have to Create It

For students and early professionals, the pathway into LegalTech is often unclear.

The advice was direct: don’t wait for formal entry points. Explore products, follow companies, experiment with tools, and engage with people in the space. Much of the learning happens outside classrooms.

Even something as simple as reaching out to people can open unexpected doors.

Opportunities in LegalTech are rarely given — they are created.

8. Gender Bias Exists — But So Does Agency

The conversation did not avoid the question of gender.

Yes, bias exists — sometimes subtle, sometimes explicit, and not always from expected sources. But the response to it was pragmatic rather than idealistic.

Instead of framing gender only as a limitation, the approach was to acknowledge the reality, navigate it strategically, and not let it define capability or ambition.

The more important shift is internal: seeing yourself first as a builder, not just a “woman in the room.”

9. Timing Matters — But Readiness Matters More

COVID accelerated the adoption of ODR, but the conversation made an important distinction: it did not create the need.

The shift toward online, accessible systems was inevitable. External events may accelerate adoption, but they do not define long-term value.

The real advantage lies in being ready when the ecosystem catches up.

Final Thoughts

LegalTech in India is often discussed in terms of tools, platforms, and innovation. But this conversation made something clear: the real challenge is not building technology — it is reshaping behavior, systems, and trust.

For those entering this space, the takeaway is not to wait for clarity or structure. Start small, engage deeply, and build with intention.

Because in LegalTech, progress does not come from ideas alone — it comes from those willing to work through resistance and build anyway.